Quantum surveillance and 'shared secrets'. A biometric step too far? CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe, July 2010

It is no longer sensible to regard biometrics as having neutral socio-economic, legal and political impacts. Newer generation biometrics are fluid and include behavioural and emotional data that can be combined with other data. Therefore, a range of issues needs to be reviewed in light of the increasing privatisation of ‘security’ that escapes effective, democratic parliamentary and regulatory control and oversight at national, international and EU levels, argues Juliet Lodge, Professor and co-Director of the Jean Monnet European Centre of Excellence at the University of Leeds, U

Aggregation and Representation in the European Parliament Party Groups

While members of the European Parliament are elected in national constituencies, their votes are determined by the aggregation of MEPs in multinational party groups. The uncoordinated aggregation of national party programmes in multinational EP party groups challenges theories of representation based on national parties and parliaments. This article provides a theoretical means of understanding representation by linking the aggregation of dozens of national party programmes in different EP party groups to the aggregation of groups to produce the parliamentary majority needed to enact policies. Drawing on an original data source of national party programmes, the EU Profiler, the article shows that the EP majorities created by aggregating MEP votes in party groups are best explained by cartel theories. These give priority to strengthening the EP’s collective capacity to enact policies rather than voting in accord with the programmes they were nationally elected to represent

The ESM and the Principle of Transparency

This note analyses a peculiar feature of the ESM, namely the lack of an acceptable set of standards for the fundamental democratic principle of transparency. Moving from the particular nature of this mechanism, we will highlight the most critical concerns connected to secrecy, confidentiality and inviolability of documents, looking not only at the ESM Treaty but also at relevant documents approved by its bodies (in particular the Code of Conduct and the By-Laws)

Communicating (in)Security: A Failure of Public Diplomacy. CEPS CHALLENGE Paper, No. 3, 9 November 2006

This paper attempts to unravel elements of the problem of communicating security to citizens in the EU and to show how it is tangled up in the misleading dichotomous rhetoric of security or liberty. The resulting failure of public diplomacy leads to sub-optimal policy outcomes and accountability deficits. The paper i) explores these effects in the context of problems of communication in spaces of disconnection arising between political agents of territorial power and the creation and maintenance of citizens' affective loyalties; ii) briefly examines issues arising from the introduction of biometric identifiers to show how liberty and security are portrayed as alternative rather than complementary options; and iii) relates this portrayal to aspects of managing communication. It concludes that imprecision among elites as to what they mean by 'security' and what they think they communicate aggravates accountability deficits, public trust and confidence in the EU

E-GOVERNMENT, SECURITY AND LIBERTY IN THE EU: A ROLE FOR NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS?

This paper shows how in the EU the institutionalisation of the norms, practices and procedures of accountability and transparency reflects politico-legal values and commitments to sustaining them, in ways that are visible, open, embedded, just, legitimate and not arbitrary. While administrative practices and cultures uphold them to a greater or lesser degree, practice erodes them and compromises both liberty and security. First, the paper outlines the norms; then it argues that institutions are not sufficient in themselves to sustain liberty and freedom because new communication technologies (ICTs) impact on e-government and e-justice in ways that are not simply procedural. They may expedite administration and result in ‘efficiency gains’, but they also impact on the practices of transparency and accountability, something underscored by their appropriation by the champions of ‘security’