Attention new European Commission! This is how to save £200bn, kick-start growth and re-connect the EU with voters

This morning, Open Europe published a 'mandate' for the new European Commission - in short a series of proposals setting out what the Commission should - and shouldn't - be doing over its five year term of office. Our mandate idea was inspired by the reformist Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, who last year proposed a 'European Governance Manifesto' in which national governments would identify a series of priorities for the Commission.

Our mandate, which we call on David Cameron and other EU leaders to adopt, contains a number of detailed proposals spanning a wide range of policy areas - from reforming the EU budget, increasing transparency and accountability to liberalising the single market in services - but its overarching theme is boosting the EU's capacity to create jobs and generate economic growth while ensuring the EU stays well clear of areas better handled nationally or locally. Our mandate would:

• Save European taxpayers £200bn (€252bn) over a seven-year EU budget period by re-targeting and slimming down flawed spending programmes,
• Cut the wages and perks of EU officials and scrap a number of EU quangos that add no value, saving taxpayers a total of £819m (€1bn) per year,
• Boost the EU economy by £236bn (€294bn) by making it easier to export services to other EU member states,
• Introduce a series of new checks on EU laws to ensure they boost jobs and growth whilst ending unnecessary EU meddling. 

With David Cameron's EU reform agenda often being accused of vagueness, having the Commission adopt such a mandate would be a big win. Of course this is not the limit of the reforms the UK ought to push for - our priorities relate to what falls within the Commission’s remit; many key issues will be debated between national governments with a limited role for the Commission. Although in the longer term we think EU Treaty change will be needed, all our proposals can be accommodated within the existing EU Treaties, so there is no excuse for foot-dragging.

We have commissioned George Roberts – an independent illustrator and animator – to draw a series of cartoons to accompany some of our key proposals. Over the next couple of days, we will be posting these cartoons on our blog along with a more detailed description of what the policy proposal entails and a discussion of why it is important.

In the meantime, you can read the press release here, the full mandate here and join the conversation on Twitter by using the hashtag #EUpriorities.

Balance of Competences round-up: Part II

Further to our previous post on the Government's Balance of Competences report on free movement, below we pick out some of the key points from the other reports published today:

The report on the services stated that:

“Incomplete and ineffective implementation of existing services legislation has hindered the development of the free movement of services, but full implementation of existing legislation within the current level of EU competence may have implications for Member States’ ability to make decisions in this area.”

The report also echoes Open Europe's recommendation that if further liberalisation cannot be achieved at the EU28 level, a group of like-minded member states should push ahead using the so-called 'enchanced co-operation' mechanism.

“There is scope to go further on services liberalisation, extending the application of the country of origin principle, either within specific sectors or across the piece, and either at EU-level or within a smaller group of Member States through enhanced co-operation. Further liberalisation could also be achieved through a sectoral approach, focusing firstly on those sectors of greatest economic importance.”

The report on financial services noted the risks to non-euro member states from deeper eurozone integration - something Open Europe warned about back in December 2011 in our Continental Shift report:

“There were significant concerns that the advent of the banking union could have an unfair or damaging effect on Member States outside the euro area [such as] EU-wide regulation that is appropriate for the euro area but is not suitable for all Member States; the practice of caucusing and the development of a common euro area position on financial services issues which are at odds with a single market that is open internationally, dynamic, innovative and globally competitive; the fragmentation of the Single Market with barriers erected between its euro area and non-euro area constituents; the undermining of economic benefits associated with liberalised capital markets; and the marginalisation of non-euro area interests.”

The report warned that:

“The risk of discrimination against non-euro area Member States has already crystallised with the ECB location policy that euro-denominated financial instruments should be cleared only by a clearing house physically located in a euro area Member State.”

And recommended that:

“The creation of the banking union underlines the fact that the EU has become so large and diverse that ‘variable geometry’ is necessary.”

The report on the EU budget noted that:

"The value of expenditure in the budget, where in particular... on research and innovation, was seen as a priority for a greater share of the budget, although views were also heard in support of structural and cohesion funds, particularly in poorer Member States. The value for money of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was questioned by a large proportion of respondents, with particular concerns about the value of Pillar One of the CAP."

The report on cohesion (regional) policy picked up on many of the points raised by Open Europe's seminal 'Off Target' report - which recommended limiting the structural funds to less developed member states - arguing that:

"support for the general principles of cohesion policy and the need to provide support particularly for poorer Member States, was shared by many respondents... The evidence as a whole is inconclusive but where significant positive impacts have been identified, they tend to have been in the poorer regions or Member States."

But adding that:

"A key question is whether structural funds should be used in richer regions of Member States, given the alternative sources of funding available, the more limited additionality and the goal of reducing disparities. This was sometimes expressed in terms of concerns about paying money into the EU only to get it back with conditions attached. Many respondents recognised that the UK might be better off financially if it did not contribute to cohesion policy in rich Member States or regions."

"Finally, it is important that funds available for cohesion policy are well managed. However, the complexity of rules and the perceived burdens of applying for, reporting on and auditing projects are potential barriers to the effectiveness of the structural and cohesion funds."

The report on agriculture also picked up on Open Europe's criticisms of the CAP, noting that:

“respondents put forward evidence that, notwithstanding the reforms, the CAP’s objectives remained unclear and that the criteria for allocation of funding were irrational and disconnected from what the policy should be aiming to achieve. The majority of respondents argued that the CAP remains misdirected, cumbersome, costly and bureaucratic.”

The report on fundamental rights noted that:

"There was mixed evidence on the case law of the ECJ; while some considered that the ECJ has simply upheld fundamental rights, others considered that some of its judgments have undermined national sovereignty and the EU’s legislative institutions... in comparison to other human rights protections in domestic law, fundamental rights can have a wider scope and can result in the disapplication of primary legislation. Therefore, with an increasing domestic awareness of EU fundamental rights, the evidence suggests that their impact will increase."

Compared to the first two stages of the BoC which were rather underwhelming, this third tranche of reports has at least been more explicit in identifying some of the most pressing challenges that need to be addressed while - for the most part - steering clear of setting out solutions.

Anglo-German partnership on EU reform could prove crucial at the negotiating table

Die Welt's Economic Editor Tobias Kaiser has an opinion piece in today's paper entitled entitled “Stay with us, Brits”, in which he argues that:

“Berlin needs London as a partner in the fight for fiscal reason [in the EU].” 

Kaiser highlights that:

“Berlin and London have to put their ideas of Europe against the French coined version of European etatism... The openness of the European economy has to be guaranteed and the protectionist regulations and national rules – which still prevent the development of a genuinely free exchange of goods, people, and ideas within Europe – have to be dismantled.”

This is an argument we have been making for a while. In 2012, following the election of Francois Hollande as French President, Open Europe Director Mats Persson argued that:

"Hollande simply rubs the Germans up the wrong way. His spending rhetoric is an outright challenge to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s vision of a euro firmly grounded in Prussian budget discipline."

"Therefore, though it won’t be easy, the scope for a new bargain between London and Berlin – based on Britain needing new terms of EU engagement if it is to remain inside, and Germany needing the UK’s quiet support for a more economically sustainable euro – is possibly greater than ever."

While Hollande's push against austerity has waned, the process of Anglo-German cooperation has gained pace - exemplified by the recent joint op-ed in the FT where George Osborne and Wolfgang Schäuble agreed on the need for safeguards for the single market in the face of tighter political and economic integration in the eurozone.

Kaiser's call for greater economic openness within the EU also echoes the argument in favour of greater services liberalisation by Die Zeit's London correspondent John F. Jungclausen, who cited Open Europe's report which found that removing barriers to cross-border services trade could alone produce a permanent increase to EU-wide GDP of up to 2.3% or €294bn.

It's good to see the process beginning to bear fruit and gain wider traction in the German media, particularly on the specific areas where reform is necessary. As we pointed out ahead of Chancellor Merkel's recent visit to the UK, there is scope for a wide ranging 'Anglo-German bargain' in areas such as EU migrants' access to benefits, greater powers for national parliaments, and the devolution of some EU back to the national or local level. According to a recent Open Europe/YouGov poll, an EU reform agenda built on these pillars would enjoy significant public support in both countries.

With all this in mind, now would seem the perfect time for the UK government to begin road-testing specific reforms in Germany and other countries. 

Gaining allies for #EUReform: Open Europe / Fresh Start Project's EU Reform Conference is drawing huge levels of interest

Advocates of 'Out' of the EU or the 'Status Quo', are fond of saying that EU reform is impossible - it suits their respective cases. They are wrong. Reform is possible, but will not happen on its own, reformers in the UK need to go out there and win allies and put forward solid thought-through proposals to make the EU more competitive and closer to voters.

This week Open Europe and the Fresh Start Project will attempt to do just that by hosting a ground-breaking conference for EU Reform in London.

It will be a landmark event - and the response to this conference has been absolutely amazing. A reminder to those who say there's "no appetite" for reform in Europe that they may be speaking too soon. There will be 300 delegates from over 30 countries debating a full spectrum of ideas on how to achieve major reform in Europe. Keynote speakers include eight ministers from across the continent, leading business people, MPs, MEPs, former heads of state and a European Commissioner.

Here are some highlights:

• A major contribution from a senior UK Minister.

• Agnieszka Pomaska, Chair of the EU Affairs Committee in the Polish Parliament, and Priti Patel MP debating EU free movement and rules on access to benefits.
• Rachida Dati MEP, Deputy President of the French UMP Party, asking if it’s time for a “realist revolution” in Europe.
• Leading German MP Klaus-Peter Willsch and former EU Commissioner and Dutch minister Frits Bolkestein discussing if, and how, powers can flow back from the EU to its member states.
• UK Europe Minister David Lidington and Irish Europe Minister Paschal Donohoe discussing the role of national parliaments with break-out sessions looking at whether national parliaments should be given veto rights over EU law.
• Maria Damanaki, European Commissioner for Fisheries, explaining why EU reform is possible using the case of the EU’s fisheries policy.
• Bruno Maçães, Portuguese Secretary of State for European Affairs, discussing how services liberalisation can be achieved in Europe.
• Serial entrepreneur Luke Johnson and Dr Daniel Mitrenga of the German Association of Family Enterprises identifying ways to cut EU regulation.
• UK Foreign Secretary William Hague addressing the “Reformers’ Reception”.
• Bulgarian Foreign Minister Kristian Vigenin, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, and former Slovakian Prime Minister Iveta Radicova, drawing lessons on reform from Eastern and Central Europe.
• Peter Norman, the Swedish Minister for Financial Markets, looking at how the single market can work for economic recovery.
• Young reformers from across Europe setting out their ideas for change in the concluding “Future of Europe” panel.

What do we hope to achieve?One conference will not achieve #EUReform on its own, but ahead of a crucial year in Europe - with the European elections and the selection of a new European Commission - it'll be a hugely important opportunity to really delve into the kind of policies that will achieve sweeping change in Europe. It'ls also be a key testing ground for what kind of reforms David Cameron might achieve ahead of a potential 2017 EU referendum.

We have provided a platform, now lets see what the delegates make of it...


We can't 'complete' the EU single market in services but we can do a lot better

The APPG on European Reform, to which Open Europe acts as the secretariat, has published a new report, following the Group's inquiry into the EU's single market in services. The APPG held evidence sessions with a wide range of business groups from the City, retail and small business sector to the creative services sector.

The inquiry concluded that there is no ‘single market in services’ in any meaningful sense of the term. This is due in part to the sheer diversity of service sectors in the EU, and because these sectors are regulated by a complex mix of national and EU regulation.

The diversity of services markets in the EU means that the single market in services cannot be ‘completed’ - a term of often used but little understood - by one harmonised set of rules. However, much more can be done to reduce barriers to trade in services across Europe.

The challenges are different depending on the sector. In financial services, the EU's passporting rules have provided firms with benefits to trade across borders - the primary concern is how new EU regulation could curb these benefits and how eurozone crisis response could spill over to the wider single market.

Other sectors, such as retail, are covered by the EU's so-called Services Directive (which regulates sectors that account for around 45% of EU GDP). But a mixture of poor implementation of the ban on some trade protectionism, such as economic needs tests, and the Directive's legal ambiguity mean a large number of barriers remain in place, with firms having to comply with home and host country regulation in order trade across borders, which adds cost and complexity.

The APPG proposes a package of changes and at the top of the list is adopting the ‘country of origin’ principle to enable service providers to trade across EU borders under their home country regulation – if necessary, through enhanced cooperation among a group of like-minded EU member states. This is an idea we've been keen on for a while and set out in detail in a report earlier this year.

Others proposals include:

• reducing the number of regulated professions;
• installing a liberalising EU Commissioner;
• developing the potential of e-commerce;
• applying “Better Regulation” principles; 
• and establishing new mechanisms to block unnecessary or discriminatory regulation and rules that hamper trade with non-EU countries.

The EU has held out for far too long on realising the potential of Europe's services sector. But with the German elections behind us and everyone in Europe talking about competitiveness, there’s now a huge window of opportunity to make this happen.

What would leaving the EU mean for the UK's services sector?

Our Director Mats Persson writes on his Telegraph blog,

The UK’s services sector accounts for around 75 per cent of the country’s GDP. Britain’s 0.6 per cent growth in the second quarter of this year was largely thanks to this sector, which grew at its fastest rate in over two years.

Whether we like it or not, the UK will remain a services-based economy for a very long time. So it goes without saying that as David Cameron looks to negotiate a new settlement with Europe, getting a good deal for the UK’s services sector should feature highly.

By far the most common argument from Better Off Outers is: “We sell more to them than they sell to us”, implying that the UK’s trade deficit would give London leverage to secure a favourable Free Trade Agreement in place of EU membership. It’s a persuasive argument. It is also simplistic. As the graph below shows (click to enlarge), the UK’s trade deficit with the EU is the result of a large goods deficit, while it is a net exporter of services.

This is critical for several reasons.

First, UK services firms clearly use their comparative advantage to do business in Europe, boosting UK growth.

Secondly, if you buy into the “trade deficit” argument, it follows that while Germany and others would have an interest in maintaining open markets for selling manufactured goods in the UK, this logic does not apply for services, where they are net importers from the UK.

Therefore, the UK would be vulnerable to tit-for-tat trade games in its key economic sector. Perhaps Germany would be so keen to continue selling tariff-free cars that it would happily offer market access for UK services firms as part of a new deal. However, it’s far easier to remove tariffs for goods than it is to eliminate the myriad of barriers that exist to market access in services. Despite 40 years of negotiations, the Swiss still have patchy EU market access for services, while the EU and US have spent decades trying but failing to agree reciprocal market access for certain types of funds.

Critically, there’s only one off-the-peg model offering full market access for services outside the EU – the Norwegian model (EEA) – which for a range of other reasons would be a bad deal for the UK. The other potential models – the Swiss, Turkish and WTO options – would restrict access for the UK services industry absent separate agreements for specific sectors. This also spells problems for the City of London, currently used by a range of firms as an entry point to the single market, often via a so-called passport (involving a firm being allowed to sell its services across the EU as long as it’s authorised to do so in one member state).

Again, given that the City is also a gateway to global markets for European firms, a deal might be struck. However, since “Anglo-Saxon” bankers and fund managers aren't exactly universally loved on the continent, it’s also easy to see France et al blocking passport-style provisions for UK financial firms in perpetuity.

So, there’s a strong argument for the UK to remain a full member, not only of the single market in goods, but also in services. Now, this cost-benefit analysis could of course change. For example, if the many non-trade costs of EU membership aren't reduced through fundamental reform; if the single market in services – which is under-developed – continues to be held up by protectionist interests; if the EU prevents the UK from taking advantage of growth opportunities from around the world; if Brussels continues to be more interested in restricting financial services activity rather than facilitating trade – then the case for fully remaining in the single market could weaken significantly.

Which is why another round of serious liberalisation of the EU services market is long overdue. Over to you, Berlin.

Services liberalisation: David Cameron has one more reason to love Spain

We reported in today's press summary that Spain's Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and opposition leader Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba have agreed to adopt a common position ahead of the 27-28 June EU summit. The full document - a draft resolution due to be voted on by the Spanish parliament a couple of days before the summit - is now available online.

We found the following paragraph very interesting (the emphasis is ours). The Spanish parliament urges the government to,

"Favour progress on the completion of the internal market through the swift adoption of the pending legislative proposals under the Single Market Act I and II. Particular attention shall also be paid to the full and effective implementation of the Services Directive."

We couldn't agree more. As we stressed in a recent report, the services sector represents a huge untapped source of growth for the EU. A quick reminder of the figures we're talking about:

• Further liberalisation of services by fully implementing the existing Services Directive and implementing a new 'country of origin' principle would result in a permanent boost to EU-wide GDP of up to an extra €294 billion a year;

• If Spain, the UK and the other ten EU countries that signed a 'pro-growth letter' in February 2012 decided to press ahead among themselves and open up their services markets under the so-called 'enhanced cooperation' procedure, this would still drive EU-wide GDP up by some €148 billion a year.

¿Por qué no?