Open Europe blog

Some light relief for Friday evening from Swedish blogger Johan Norberg:
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=11&year=2009#3391

See here for Open Europe's reaction to the outcome of yesterday's EU summit.

According to the Telegraph the UK's Cathy Ashton was told at 5pm yesterday that she had been put forward for the job. Two hours later she had bagged the job and was celebrating with the other EU leaders, with Jose Barroso handing a Rubiks cube to Sweden's Fredrik Reinfeldt to congratulate him for engineering the whole stitch-up.

Can anyone remember the Laeken Declaration, the original impetus behind the original EU Constitution, which later became the Lisbon Treaty? It talked about bringing the EU decision-making process closer to its citizens. What a terrible joke that has turned out to be.

Labels: catherine ashton, EU president, Von Rompuy

Rumours are swirling thick and fast from the EU summit in Brussels...

Labels: catherine ashton, EU president

Open Europe's man in Brussels, Pieter Cleppe, has stirred up quite a storm over in Belgium with his revelations about the frontrunner for the EU Presidency, Herman Van Rompuy.

Pieter, a Flemish-speaking Belgian lawyer (who also happens to be the nephew of former Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt) was behind information about Van Rompuy's EU federalist credentials uncovered by the Telegraph on Monday and pursued further by many other papers over the last couple of days.

As a result, Ter Zake, Belgium's most-watched Flemish news programme, last night featured a whole piece on Pieter and Open Europe.

You can catch the clips here:
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/mediatheek/programmas/terzake/2.7921/2.7922/1.636758

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/mediatheek/programmas/terzake/2.7921/2.7922/1.636759

And for those of you who can actually understand Dutch, Pieter also has an op-ed in Belgian daily De Morgan today.

Labels: Van Rompuy

The final countdown is on to the summit tomorrow that will decide who will be Europe's first permanent President and Foreign Minster, and the media is awash with speculation on the various candidates.

Looking at all the hoo-ha it is entirely possible that the decision making could drag on until Friday, or even the weekend if the Swedish EU Presidency fails to hammer out a consensus. The Times quotes Cecilia Malmström, Sweden's Europe Minister, saying, "I would not say it is a complete mess, but there is no agreement still."

Presumably the revelation that the front-runner for the job, Belgian PM Herman Van Rompuy, is a groaning EU federalist and champion of direct EU taxation might have gone some way to dampening his star - (although we won't hold our breath).

With so much secrecy surrounding the process (who's a candidate, who isn't?) and the inevitable horse-trading that goes with any move to hand out plum EU jobs like these, it's really difficult to predict what we're going to end up with. As Martin Winter from Sueddeutsche Zeitung said on the Today programme this morning: "It's the first time in ten years that I have no idea what's going to come out of this summit."

All this is an absurd illustration of how out of touch and anti-democratic the EU now is. The EU President will simply be wheeled out at some point over the weekend, with the 500 million citizens he or she is meant to represent expected just to hang on and wait for the outcome.

To fill the time (and get some sense of what the hell is going on) you could do worse than a trip to the bookies for a flutter. We reckon Latvia's Vaira Vike-Freiberga is worth a pop at 25/1...

Labels: Blair for EU president, Von Rompuy

There's some interesting background on the frontrunner for the Presidency of the European Union, Belgian PM Herman Van Rompuy.

Last week, he laid out his views on how the EU’s budget should be financed in the future at a dinner of the secretive Bilderberg group, pleading for direct EU taxes.

And as noted by the Telegraph yesterday, he was an architect of the Flemish Christian Democrats’ federalist manifesto, which calls for more EU symbols in town halls, schools and sporting events. The story is also picked up in Belgian daily De Standaard today.

The manifesto says: “Apart from the euro, also other national symbols need to be replaced by European symbols (licence plates, identity cards, presence of more EU flags, one time EU sports events”.

On the EU Constitution, under the headline "EU Constitution. The sooner, the better", the manifesto reads:

"Of course CD&V - Christian Democrat Party - would have wished for a bit more with regards to making decisionmaking procedures in the Council easier, in the field of social and fiscal policy and in the field of foreign policy. But because politics is the art of the possible, we think the text of the Convention is a great success."

It notes: “we plead for the preservation of EU structural funds”, (note that the EU Court of Auditors has now for the 15th time in a row refused to sign off the EU books, due in no small part to the mismanagement of these funds.)

Furthermore, Van Rompuy's manifesto pleaded for a social Europe - wanting Europe to "formulate social minimum norms”, and calling for the things that ended up in the Lisbon Treaty: the removal of veto powers for Justice and Home Affairs legislation, an EU Prosecutor, and a harmonised asylum policy.

On EU defence, the manifesto states that a “credible European defence policy requires the EU to receive the necessary competences, structures and means", including:

- easier decision making procedures in the Council
- a workable procedure for enhanced cooperation
- a credible input of means by the member states and a better coordination among national contributions
- a common defence structure
- EU representation in NATO

Last but not least the manifesto notes that "taking decisions by majority needs to become to rule, also in domains which are traditionally very closely connected with national sovereignty, such as justice, internal affairs, fiscal matters, social policy and foreign policy."

Van Rompuy himself was an avid supporter of the European Constitution, and is reported to have been very relieved that there was no referendum in Belgium. He reportedly hated the debates in France and the Netherlands, in which he discovered a sort of demagogy to which “even the calculating citizen lends a willing ear”.

Following the No votes to the European Constitution in 2005, Van Rompuy gave a speech to the Belgian Parliament, in which he said: “We go on with the ratification of the European Constitution in all our parliaments, but we need to admit that for the moment the project is over. However, this doesn’t mean that we cannot continue to work in a creative way in the direction which the Constitution points. I don’t mind if we break up the Constitution into smaller parts, as long as we continue to work in the same direction: in the direction of more Europe.” And so it was.

He has also blamed the financial crisis on the “Anglosaxon model”, saying: “The Anglosaxon model of full economic freedom was celebrated. But it was there that the crisis originated, not with us”. In one of his books, he added that: “The logic of the market is often stronger than any deontological code. There is barely a stronger force in the world than the force of money. Today it mops up societies all over the world. Only Islam is resisting, although it is doing so often because of complete intolerance." (Vernieuwing in hoofd in hart: een tegendraadse visie, 1998)

Van Rompuy is an avid supporter of an EU superstate. In 1998 he said: “European harmonisation, which is being imposed through a unified currency, is running smoothly. Only fiscal harmonisation will still demand a lot of effort” (De Morgen, 28 maart 1998).

And back in 1989, as President of the Flemish Christian Democrat Party, he was calling for monetary and political union in a new set of treaties. He said: “Once EMU has been realised, the realisation of political union will get an extra boost as a logical and indispensable complement of EMU”. He said: “Council, Parliament and Commission would have to speak out first in favour of the attempt to achieve a monetary and political union, if necessary in one Treaty or in two separate treaties”. (De Tijd, 5 December 1989)

As well as being a classic EU federalist, Von Rompuy's democratic credentials are also fit for the EU. On publication of the de Larosiere report, which called for greater financial regulation in Europe, he commented: “Let’s not discuss it too much, let’s implement it as soon as possible.”

(As Speaker of the Belgian Parliament, Van Rompuy once cancelled a session of the Belgian Parliament, on the instigation of the PM. It sparked much commotion, especially as the locks of the plenary session room had been replaced, leading furious opposition MPs unable to get in to claim this was a 'coup d’Etat' and “this is Belgicistan!"(De Morgen, 3 May 2008)).

Interestingly, he criticised former Belgian PM Jean-Luc Dehaene for wanting to leave Belgium in 1994 to become EU Commission President, saying: "I was furious at Dehaene when he wanted to go to the European Commission. I have sent him a letter twice, hopefully for him he has thrown it away. I did not want it and I found it a shame that he would leave us in the lurch." (De Morgen, 11 February 2006).

Is he about to leave Belgium in the lurch too, and fulfill a wish to become EU President?

Van Rompuy seems pretty good at doing the opposite of what he has pledged. In 2007 he warned: “I know that some are contemplating having a Belgian Federal government backed only by a minority of Flemish MPs in the Belgian Parliament. A government which only has a majority in Wallonia is playing with fire. I am now speaking in the interest of the country: this is dangerous for the sake of the State” (De Morgen, 27 januari 2007). One year later he was and still is the leader of such a government.

In fact, van Rompuy is an avid supporter of the credo: “Don’t remind politicians of earlier statements”. Last summer, he said:

“Everybody has a history, but nobody is as often reminded about it as us. (…) You said this, but you used to say that. That’s a vicious circle, very perverse. In order to be noticed, you have to be controversial, but if you’re being noticed enough and thus get elected, you have to make compromises. And then journalists start reminding about your controversial statements in the past: you’re suffering a loss of face and you get a credibility problem.” (Humo, 3 June 2009)

Yup.

Labels: EU president, Von Rompuy

On EUobserver today, Open Europe spells out in some more detail what we consider to be wrong with the EU's budget and how it should be reformed. The piece is a response to Commissioner Siim Kallas' article on the same site a few days ago. We argue,

The fundamental problem of waste and mismanagement involving EU money lies primarily with the budget itself...Mismanagement and waste in the EU budget are two sides of the same coin. They both stem from the size, complexity and irrational nature of the EU budget. Both receive their thrust from the blurred line between spending and accountability, owing to the set-up of the EU's budget programmes. And both can be radically reduced by simplifying the budget, cutting down on the spending and by repatriating a large chunk of regional spending and the CAP to member states.

As we argue in the piece, for a start, reform of the EU budget should involve:

fully repatriating regional policy to the member states except those with a GDP of less than 90% the EU average (which would target the funds on the poorer member states where the money actually can have a real impact); repatriating all parts of the rural development programme which are not related to promoting the environment (as the environment is inherently a cross-border issue); and establishing a better link between performance and receipt of subsidies.

We also pick up on Commissioner Kallas' insight that: "One cannot reasonably expect an EU official from an office in the Commission's headquarters in Brussels to know what best fits the needs of a small town in the West Midlands - this is for the local authorities to say."

We fully agree. So why then are regional spending and rural development a matter for Brussels in the first place?

Labels: EU budget, EU waste, regional funding, structural funds

Simon Jenkins' piece in today's Guardian gets a big thumbs up from us. The article suggests why Gordon Brown would make a good EU President arguing that "He [Brown] is clearly unhappy with the rough and tumble of democratic politics, with the daily grind of public appearances, glad-handing and schmoozing. But these are not required in Brussels, where nobody is elected to anything and such populism as smiling at cameras and holding referendums are anathema."

However, he makes a much more significant point about the nature of debate about the EU and, in particular, the defensiveness of those in favour of further EU integration. He writes,

"An inability to think laterally has long been the curse of the European movement. A sign of its intellectual insecurity is that it cannot handle scepticism, treating any but the most craven sycophant as an enemy...Brussels is like an office of the doctrine of the faith, tolerating no Francis of Assisi. Criticise it and you are damned as anti-European."

Jenkins also points out that the debate is so polarised that scepticism of the EU can easily be pigeonholed at the other extreme. "The noble word, sceptic, has become code for rejectionist," he says.

He concludes saying,

"The language of the Lisbon treaty is that of an elite of 40 years ago, a smokescreen for the accretion of establishment power. David Cameron is right to keep open a determination to change it, as is indeed allowed by the treaty. The only sensible response to Lisbon is not rejectionism but a ferocious scepticism, properly so called."

Right on the money.

Labels: democracy, Lisbon Treaty, Simon Jenkins

And so ex-UKIP MEP Tom Wise has been jailed for fraudulently claiming £39,000 in allowances from the European Parliament. He used his monthly staff allowance to pay for "fine wines" and other personal expenditure.

His researcher, Lindsay Jenkins, was cleared of all charges after Wise admitted that documents he had her sign were blank at the time.

Just a thought - but does anyone out there know if any movement has been made to reclaim the £538,290 in "unduly paid" expenses that Den Dover owed the European Parliament when he was awarded a medal from the very same institution for his "vital contribution" as his term came to an end in the summer?

(This is the kind of thing that caused Chris Davies MEP to go beserk at the Lib Dem conference - see here if you haven't already)

Labels: Fraud, MEPs expenses

The European Court of Auditors has, for the 15th year in a row, today refused to sign off the EU's accounts.

EU anti-fraud Commissioner Siim Kallas anticipated this predicatable development in a piece on EUobserver yesterday in which he attempted to pin the blame for the mismanagement of EU funds on national governments and regional authorities.

(In classic Commission style, he also tried to ward off all critcism and shut down debate by getting in there first with the trademark 'anti-EU' jibe: "some quarters will yet again use the report to promote their own anti-EU agendas, which have little or nothing to do with the report's findings.")

But, as we argue today in a new briefing, the problem is with the EU budget itself. It is dominated by two failing policies which even the current UK Government is essentially opposed to: the Common Agricultural Policy, and the so-called Structural Funds. The sheer size and complexity of these two top-down spending programmes means the EU's budget is wide open to waste and mismanagement, regardless of whether the blame lays with the Commission or the member states. The budget therefore represents extremely bad value for taxpayers' money.

Also, while mismanagement of the accounts continues to be problematic, arguably the most important issue is the fact that the EU budget is hugely wasteful and irrational in terms of what the money is actually spent on, and where the money is spent.

To illustrate this, we have today published a light-hearted list of 50 new examples of EU waste, which may make you smile and despair in equal measure.

Labels: EU budget

Over at Conservative Home today we lay out our response to David Cameron's announcement that he will bring control over social and employment policy back to the UK. This is the most welcome aspect of his new 'Europe policy', but on close inspection, his language suggests he is not contemplating going as far as he should in order to make this a success.

You can read the article here and post your comments:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/11/mats-persson-the-conservatives-are-right-to-focus-on-eu-social-policy-but-only-a-comprehensive-optou.html

Labels: Conservative Europe policy, EU employment rules

Ahead of David Cameron's announcement on Conservative policy on Europe, Open Europe has today published the first in a series of papers about what a future Conservative government should prioritise, now that the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified.

In about two hours time Cameron is expected to announce that he will seek to 'repatriate' social and employment legislation from the EU, and promise a referendum on any future transfers of power. Open Europe argues that, if the Conservatives are serious about repatriating powers to member states, then social and employment policy is exactly the right place to start.

However, in order to achieve a strong negotiating mandate and fully address the current problems with EU social policy, the Conservatives must announce a referendum on reform of the status quo. A referendum on future transfers of power will do nothing to address the substantial costs already arising from EU legislation, nor the lack of democratic accountability in this area.

EU social and employment laws have had a massive impact on the UK economy, accounting for 25 percent of the total cost of regulation in the UK over the past decade. Looking ahead, UK laws derived from EU social legislation will cost the British economy more than £71 billion between 2010 and 2020, even if no new laws are passed in that time.

In the briefing paper, Open Europe sets out how the Conservatives should go about achieving repatriation in practice. This includes seeking a strong mandate from voters to strengthen the UK's negotiation position in Brussels, through a referendum on reform.

The potential election of a new Conservative government will coincide with the opening of EU budget negotiations, where discussions will be held about how much each country should pay into the EU over the period 2014 to 2020.

The UK has a veto over these negotiations, and should be prepared to use it to fight for a package of reforms which must be fleshed out between now and the election. A major feature of such a package should be repatriation of social policy.

This package of reforms should be put to the British people in a referendum, with a question along the lines of: "Are you in favour or against withholding agreement to the EU budget until the European Reform Package has been adopted?"

Open Europe Research Director Mats Persson said:

"Given the substantial economic impact of these laws, the Conservatives are absolutely right to make EU social policy a priority. There is a strong practical, economic and democratic case for repatriating powers in this area."

"If the Conservatives succeed in bringing back powers over these policies, it doesn't mean scrapping every workplace right going - it means giving Westminster back the power to keep, scrap or amend these important laws to better suit the UK's individual economic circumstances. This would cut costs and bring these decisions much closer to the people - where they belong."

"Employment policy is best decided nationally, where it reflects different traditions and labour market models, which have evolved as a result of decades of democratic discourse in individual countries. The Conservatives would not be alone in Europe in arguing that centralised rules for such fundamentally different labour markets just don't make sense."

"That said, they will need a powerful mandate for negotiation in Brussels, and holding a referendum on a list of reforms, such as repatriation of social policy, is by far the best way to achieve it. UK voters must get a say on the future of the EU - a mere 'manifesto mandate' simply will not cut it."

Click here to read the briefing:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/eusocialpolicy.pdf

Labels: Conservative Europe policy

President Klaus has signed the Treaty and David Cameron is expected to make an announcement at 4pm tomorrow about what he will do next.

There's zero chance he will call a referendum on the now-ratified Lisbon Treaty (to come into force by 1 December), but he must still pledge to hold a referendum on reform of the EU. A referendum on future treaties simply will not cut it, since Lisbon allows for EU integration to take place without the need for further treaties, and a mere 'manifesto mandate' to EU reform is woefully inadequate - poll after poll shows the vast majority of voters from all parties want to be consulted.

Yes, it was Labour and the Lib Dems who got us into this mess by reneging on their promise of a referendum, but the Tories must now do the right thing and give the British people a say on what is feasible and realistic - a package of reforms which they could seek to lever in using upcoming negotiations on the EU budget.

If you haven't seen our press release today, here's our take in a nutshell:

Following President Klaus' signature of the Lisbon Treaty today, Open Europe calls on the British Conservative Party to now pledge to hold a referendum on reform of the European Union.

The potential election of a new Conservative government will coincide with the opening of EU budget negotiations, where discussions will be held about how much each country should pay into the EU over the period 2014 to 2020.

The UK has a veto over these negotiations, and should be prepared to use it to fight for a package of reforms which must be fleshed out between now and the election.

This Reform Package should be put to the British people in a referendum, with a question along the lines of: "Are you in favour or against withholding agreement to the EU budget until the European Reform Package has been adopted?"

Tomorrow, Open Europe will publish the first in a series of papers looking at which policy areas the Conservatives should propose to tackle, and how. The first paper will look at EU social and employment policy, which currently accounts for a staggering 25 percent of the total cost of regulation in the UK.

Open Europe Director Lorraine Mullally said:

"Now that Lisbon is a done deal, the Conservative Party must pledge to hold a referendum on EU reform. They must not follow Labour and the Lib Dems and go back on their promise to give people a say on the future of the EU."

"The public are crying out to be consulted. The Conservatives should now announce a referendum on a package of meaningful EU reforms which they should draw up carefully over the next weeks and months. Linking their ideas for reform to the EU budget, a Conservative government could be in a strong position to work with key allies in Europe for a better, more democratic and modern European Union."

"A simple 'manifesto mandate' for these things will not be enough - people want their long overdue say, and the Conservatives should give them it. A strong mandate from the people will strengthen the Conservatives' position in Europe when the time comes."

Labels: Conservative Europe policy, EU reform

The Prime Minister has delivered a statement to the House of Commons regarding last week's European Council meeting, with more than a few questions directed towards him regarding the hoo-ha surrounding Tony Blair's candidacy to be the EU's first permanent President.

A question from Labour MP Ian Davidson made reference to the news this morning that the Conservatives have indicated they are unlikely to 'un-pick' the Lisbon Treaty via a referendum if it has already been ratified. He suggested that those who "capitulate" on their pledges betray the promises made to the British people.

Quite extraordinarily, Gordon Brown seemed to agree with him, and said that David Cameron had made a "cast-iron guarantee" to hold a referendum, and that it was now up to the leader of the Opposition to make his position on the Lisbon Treaty known.

Perhaps someone should remind the Prime Minister of his own words:

12 May 2004: "If we secure a treaty that is acceptable for Britain, then i believe we can also put it successfully to the British people."

24 June 2007: "The manifesto is what we put to the public. We've got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate."

and those of the Labour Party manifesto in 2005:

"The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively...We will put it to the British people in a referendum."

This has a very strong and ugly odour of the pot calling the kettle black.

PS - With the debate about the Tories and their Europe policy really cranking up now, watch this space for Open Europe's upcoming take on what should be done...

Labels: Lisbon Treaty, referendum

We've written an article for the Guardian's Comment is Free looking at the themes in our latest report on the EU's surveillance state and the Government's complicit role in its rise.

Click the link below to have a read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/02/europe-surveillance-state

Labels: civil liberties, jha