... the EU is expanding its control over member states' criminal justice systems.
Two good examples from the agenda of today's meeting of EU interior ministers :
1) EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini is proposing to create an EU-wide criminal offence of selling computer games to children. Back in November Frattini publicly criticised a computer game Rule of Rose in which a girl is bullied. Originally he spoke of creating a voluntary code for computer games companies. But now it seems as though he's been emboldened by some favourable publicity in unfamiliar places (such as the Daily Mail) and is being much more ambitious. This is another obvious example of the Commission's current tendency to champion populist causes (price caps on text messages and footballers' salaries etc) - as part of its "Europe of results" agenda.
2) The German Government is keen to reach agreement on a proposal for an EU-wide criminal sanction for racism and xenophobia. In particular the Germans want to impose prison sentences for holocaust denial and ban the use of the swastika across Europe. This proposal is unlikely to be approved as it would require unanimity. Several governments -including the UK - are unsure. The British Government is unlikely to want to have to repeat the rows over the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill which was passed last year. The amendments which were secured by campaigners and the opposition to that Bill could well be overturned if the EU's proposals go through.
We hate to be boring, but what about the idea of subsidiarity? What exactly is the case for these political decisions being made at an EU level? Anyone?
Visit our new website.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Friday round up
The FT reveals that Joseph Daul - the man just sworn in as head of the EPP - is under investigation for fraud. The investigation centres on the alleged diversion of €16m in government farming funds to finance the French farmers’ union FNSEA in the 1990s.
The EU tells off Russia for turning off its oil supplies to Belarus. EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said "We have told them that the disruptions to oil supplies we have seen in the last few days must never, never happen again". Reminding one team member of the film Team America and Hans Blix's threat to write Kim Jong-Il a "very angry letter" if he keeps refusing to have a weapons inspection.
EU proposes new law to limit carbon emissions from vehicles, which would add £1,600 to the price of every new car in the UK.
France rules out the EU making any concessions on farm tariffs in the WTO talks - a position which would all but kill off the Doha round.
And EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini announces he wants to begin setting national immigration quotas for EU members.
The EU tells off Russia for turning off its oil supplies to Belarus. EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said "We have told them that the disruptions to oil supplies we have seen in the last few days must never, never happen again". Reminding one team member of the film Team America and Hans Blix's threat to write Kim Jong-Il a "very angry letter" if he keeps refusing to have a weapons inspection.
EU proposes new law to limit carbon emissions from vehicles, which would add £1,600 to the price of every new car in the UK.
France rules out the EU making any concessions on farm tariffs in the WTO talks - a position which would all but kill off the Doha round.
And EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini announces he wants to begin setting national immigration quotas for EU members.
Football crazy
March 2007 will be a month of carnivals, concerts and parties across much of Brussels . The EU hopes to win over the affection of its citizens by showing "it can dance" (Uh-oh: cue dad-on-the-dancefloor style embarrassment).
The celebrations are to mark the Union's 50th birthday and all EU countries are taking part. Italy is holding a youth summit, 27 clubs in Berlin are holding a mass all-night rave and the French and Belgians are hosting big concerts.
Until today we wondered how the occasion would be marked in the UK. Let's face it, it was always going to be unlikely that the EU would be able to attract hordes of "prommers" to wave starred flags and bounce around the Albert Hall to Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
Still, we were a bit surprised to find out that it plans to celebrate it with a football match - the EU vs Man United. After all - football is hardly famous for "uniting" Europeans - particularly in England. Jose Barroso tells us that:
"The best of European football will be on show at the “Theatre of Dreams” in Manchester next March, to mark the 50th Anniversary of the creation of the European Union. There is no better way to showcase the European Union at 50 than through Europe’s favourite sport that unites Europeans in a unique way, through a passion we all share and a language we all speak."
Perhaps they are hoping that by playing arguably the most hated team in Britain the EU will actually get some British support - even if it's only for an evening...
But this will not be the EU's last adventure into the world of football. As part of its ever expanding search to "re-connect" with its citizens by championing populist causes, the EU has identified football as an area for action. It wants to bring football under EU control - making national leagues report to UEFA - and will introduce wage and transfer caps. Watch this space...
The celebrations are to mark the Union's 50th birthday and all EU countries are taking part. Italy is holding a youth summit, 27 clubs in Berlin are holding a mass all-night rave and the French and Belgians are hosting big concerts.
Until today we wondered how the occasion would be marked in the UK. Let's face it, it was always going to be unlikely that the EU would be able to attract hordes of "prommers" to wave starred flags and bounce around the Albert Hall to Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
Still, we were a bit surprised to find out that it plans to celebrate it with a football match - the EU vs Man United. After all - football is hardly famous for "uniting" Europeans - particularly in England. Jose Barroso tells us that:
"The best of European football will be on show at the “Theatre of Dreams” in Manchester next March, to mark the 50th Anniversary of the creation of the European Union. There is no better way to showcase the European Union at 50 than through Europe’s favourite sport that unites Europeans in a unique way, through a passion we all share and a language we all speak."
Perhaps they are hoping that by playing arguably the most hated team in Britain the EU will actually get some British support - even if it's only for an evening...
But this will not be the EU's last adventure into the world of football. As part of its ever expanding search to "re-connect" with its citizens by championing populist causes, the EU has identified football as an area for action. It wants to bring football under EU control - making national leagues report to UEFA - and will introduce wage and transfer caps. Watch this space...
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Climate change goes off the (Media) scale
According to the Press Association David Cameron has claimed today that the Conservatives are leading the way on climate change. He claimed credit for "pressurising" the Government into drafting the Climate Change Bill. "If it wasn't for our pressure the Government would not have put the Climate Change Bill in the Queen's Speech." Climate change is certainly now taking up a rainforest-destroying amount of space in the newspapers.
It chimed with a question posed to us by a journalist yesterday: "Remind me again - when exactly was it that climate change became a massive issue?". So using the power of intern slave labour we've plotted the number of times the phrase "climate change" came up on the lexis-nexis database of UK papers each month since the turn of the century. For the purposes of assessing what's occupying our national attention we have also plotted "competitiveness".
Climate change was already on the up before Cameron - starting to take off some time in 04. But the graph has certainly gone nuts since he became leader at the end of 05. Climate change now takes up about four times as much media space as competitiveness. It remains to be seen whether it will carry on though. What does this say about where we are as a country?
It chimed with a question posed to us by a journalist yesterday: "Remind me again - when exactly was it that climate change became a massive issue?". So using the power of intern slave labour we've plotted the number of times the phrase "climate change" came up on the lexis-nexis database of UK papers each month since the turn of the century. For the purposes of assessing what's occupying our national attention we have also plotted "competitiveness".
Climate change was already on the up before Cameron - starting to take off some time in 04. But the graph has certainly gone nuts since he became leader at the end of 05. Climate change now takes up about four times as much media space as competitiveness. It remains to be seen whether it will carry on though. What does this say about where we are as a country?
The EU and the environment: rhetoric and reality
The EU’s statement on climate change and energy security came out yesterday. It said several eye catching things:
First some dramatic predictions: southern Europe will become a desert, thousands will die from floods and forest fires, millions of environmental refugees will migrate northwards and decent English wine may finally be a possibility. Then the Commission also touted (out of pretty thin air) the possibility of 30% cut in EU emissions relative to 1990. The BBC's coverage led on the Commission's headline grabbing call for a second "industrial revolution" in clean technologies.
All that was enough to get the attention of the media. But to what end?
The report itself suggests that the authors spent a lot longer thinking about how to enlarge the power and role of the EU than they did thinking about energy security or climate change. There are pages and pages on setting up a single energy regulator for Europe, a "European Energy Observatory", getting member states to sign up to "solidarity agreements" and spending more on trans-EU interconnections (all longstanding pet projects of the Commission). There is also a suggestion (unlikely to be accepted by Germany and France) that they should break up their monopolistic public energy companies.
But even if all this happened, it won't solve the problem. Creating a free market in energy (some chance) would be good in its own right, but wouldn't decrease the EU's overall dependence on Russia or reduce emissions (in fact if it led to marginally lower prices it might mean marginally higher emissions).
Other suggestions would be meaningful but misguided. The Commisison suggests EU wide targets for biofuels and renewables. But that isn't the best way to go - in some countries biofuels and renewables might be the most cost effective way to cut emissions, in others not. Why impose a one-size-fits-all strategy?
Hugo from Open Europe debated the report with Will Hutton yesterday. Hutton conceded that the EU’s flagship Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) “hasn’t worked well” in its first phase, branding it a “pointless, fruitless exercise”. However, he then went on to claim that “the mood has changed over the past two years…all the continental countries that have got any high ground have noticed there being lack of snow this year. I was in Rome at Christmas and café life was conducted as if it was June."
This is a nice example of the europhile style in two respects: (a) the admission there were problems in the past but they have now been solved - a perennial europhile claim - and (b) a certain kind fuzzy logic, as part of which demonstrating "concern" is more important than focussing on effectivness.
On the upside, the Commission suggests spending more of its research budget on energy (although that sort of policy pledge often leads to all kinds of existing projects simply being 'relabeled'). There is also a screaming u-turn on nuclear energy, which the Commission now seems to be a big fan of.
But overall the document is a lot like the Lisbon agenda: the Commission proposes all kinds of targets which are outside the control of the EU, but doesn't look at the effects of its own policies: For example, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is very expensive to run, costing theUK
All this is not helped by the EU's agonisingly long implementation of reforms. According to a recent paper circulated to the Council, the Commission will not even consider making changes to the failing ETS before 2013.
The paper reinforces the sense that the EU and advocates of deeper integration are essentially using the climate change and energy security issues rather than taking them seriously. As David Milliband wrote: "The environment is the issue that can best reconnect Europe with its citizens and re-build trust in European institutions. The needs of the environment are coming together with the needs of the EU: one is a cause looking for a champion, the other a champion in search of a cause."
First some dramatic predictions: southern Europe will become a desert, thousands will die from floods and forest fires, millions of environmental refugees will migrate northwards and decent English wine may finally be a possibility. Then the Commission also touted (out of pretty thin air) the possibility of 30% cut in EU emissions relative to 1990. The BBC's coverage led on the Commission's headline grabbing call for a second "industrial revolution" in clean technologies.
All that was enough to get the attention of the media. But to what end?
The report itself suggests that the authors spent a lot longer thinking about how to enlarge the power and role of the EU than they did thinking about energy security or climate change. There are pages and pages on setting up a single energy regulator for Europe, a "European Energy Observatory", getting member states to sign up to "solidarity agreements" and spending more on trans-EU interconnections (all longstanding pet projects of the Commission). There is also a suggestion (unlikely to be accepted by Germany and France) that they should break up their monopolistic public energy companies.
But even if all this happened, it won't solve the problem. Creating a free market in energy (some chance) would be good in its own right, but wouldn't decrease the EU's overall dependence on Russia or reduce emissions (in fact if it led to marginally lower prices it might mean marginally higher emissions).
Other suggestions would be meaningful but misguided. The Commisison suggests EU wide targets for biofuels and renewables. But that isn't the best way to go - in some countries biofuels and renewables might be the most cost effective way to cut emissions, in others not. Why impose a one-size-fits-all strategy?
Hugo from Open Europe debated the report with Will Hutton yesterday. Hutton conceded that the EU’s flagship Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) “hasn’t worked well” in its first phase, branding it a “pointless, fruitless exercise”. However, he then went on to claim that “the mood has changed over the past two years…all the continental countries that have got any high ground have noticed there being lack of snow this year. I was in Rome at Christmas and café life was conducted as if it was June."
This is a nice example of the europhile style in two respects: (a) the admission there were problems in the past but they have now been solved - a perennial europhile claim - and (b) a certain kind fuzzy logic, as part of which demonstrating "concern" is more important than focussing on effectivness.
On the upside, the Commission suggests spending more of its research budget on energy (although that sort of policy pledge often leads to all kinds of existing projects simply being 'relabeled'). There is also a screaming u-turn on nuclear energy, which the Commission now seems to be a big fan of.
But overall the document is a lot like the Lisbon agenda: the Commission proposes all kinds of targets which are outside the control of the EU, but doesn't look at the effects of its own policies: For example, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is very expensive to run, costing the
All this is not helped by the EU's agonisingly long implementation of reforms. According to a recent paper circulated to the Council, the Commission will not even consider making changes to the failing ETS before 2013.
The paper reinforces the sense that the EU and advocates of deeper integration are essentially using the climate change and energy security issues rather than taking them seriously. As David Milliband wrote: "The environment is the issue that can best reconnect Europe with its citizens and re-build trust in European institutions. The needs of the environment are coming together with the needs of the EU: one is a cause looking for a champion, the other a champion in search of a cause."
Blair out! (say Brownites)
Mild panic setting in among Brown's people about the prospect of Blair stitching up a deal on the future of the EU Constitution just before he leaves office.
According to a piece by James Blitz in the FT this morning:
“Senior ministers believe Tony Blair must give way to Gordon Brown well before a European Union summit this June, warning the UK's negotiating position [on the EU Constitution] could be undermined if the prime minister were still in office.”
A “government figure” is quoted saying, "The risk, to be blunt, is we'll be represented by a lame duck premier and that is worrying.”
An unnamed Minister is quoted saying, "You could see Merkel and Sarkozy doing a quick and dirty deal at the June summit to get parts of the constitution approved. If that happens,Britain Brussels
As we argued in our doc on the EU in 2007 - it looks like Brown is not going to be in charge during any of the key summits (there are about half a dozen high level meetings planned) unless he can get Blair to go before the local elections. Broon doesn't really want to stir up trouble again after the previous farce (nicely described by one insider as the 'butter knife coup') but as the FT piece shows - he doesn't want to get stitched up by Blair and Hoon on their way out the door either.
*UPDATE* Someone is obviously stirring this up - also now being written up Ben Brogan
According to a piece by James Blitz in the FT this morning:
“Senior ministers believe Tony Blair must give way to Gordon Brown well before a European Union summit this June, warning the UK's negotiating position [on the EU Constitution] could be undermined if the prime minister were still in office.”
A “government figure” is quoted saying, "The risk, to be blunt, is we'll be represented by a lame duck premier and that is worrying.”
An unnamed Minister is quoted saying, "You could see Merkel and Sarkozy doing a quick and dirty deal at the June summit to get parts of the constitution approved. If that happens,
As we argued in our doc on the EU in 2007 - it looks like Brown is not going to be in charge during any of the key summits (there are about half a dozen high level meetings planned) unless he can get Blair to go before the local elections. Broon doesn't really want to stir up trouble again after the previous farce (nicely described by one insider as the 'butter knife coup') but as the FT piece shows - he doesn't want to get stitched up by Blair and Hoon on their way out the door either.
In recent months, Mr Brown has refrained from putting any further pressure on Mr Blair to clarify his departure plans, reiterating that position in a television interview at the weekend. Close allies of the chancellor said last night they were confident Mr Blair would not sign any deal on the European constitution that undermined the national interest.Is this a veiled threat we see before us?
*UPDATE* Someone is obviously stirring this up - also now being written up Ben Brogan
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The unacceptable face...
...of old Europe.
Joseph Daul celebrates his victory in the EPP leadership elections in Le Monde.
France
Joseph Daul celebrates his victory in the EPP leadership elections in Le Monde.
“My main rival, Swedish Gunnar Hokmark, stood for liberalism and the small countries, whereas I incarnated the social market economy and the Franco-German couple… The deputies of the founding EU countries rallied around me in the third round of the vote.” He says he will “respect the commitments made by Hans-Gert Pottering” vis-à-vis the British Conservatives, saying, “There will be no concessions…. After 2009, I hope we will be able to keep them, but it is they who will decide. That said, if they leave, where will they go? Chez Le Pen?”He says the German EU Presidency:
“will have to find an intermediary solution between the mini-treaty proposed by Sarkozy and the Constitution… The French and Dutch rejections should not be ignored, but we should respect the numerous countries which have already adopted it.”Le Monde writes that Daul’s election “expresses the coming together of the German Christian Democrats and the French neo-Gaullists that took effect on the European political scene following the formation of the UMP in
“France needs to go back to being ‘European’ in its thinking, and admit that she is no longer the centre of the world. Otherwise she will be forgotten.”
Whoops!
Great story in the Evening Standard Londoner's Diary about an extraordinary typo in the EU's 2007 pocket diary, which has already been sent out. The diary informs readers that the Bulgarian European Parliament Office is in Bucharest, and that the Romanian Office is in Sofia. As if the new members didn't already feel unwelcome.
Now we all miss the odd typo - but that is a real clanger. That said, it's good to see that even professionals get it wrong. The same article quotes a certain "Derek Scott" from the UK's European Parliament Office. Presumably they spoke to Dermot Scott not our Deputy Chairman..?
Now we all miss the odd typo - but that is a real clanger. That said, it's good to see that even professionals get it wrong. The same article quotes a certain "Derek Scott" from the UK's European Parliament Office. Presumably they spoke to Dermot Scott not our Deputy Chairman..?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Rating Cameron in Bavaria
Ben Brogan has picked up on Cameron's trip to Bavaria, where he's speaking at the CSU conference.
Overall they are doing quite well in terms of repositioning the way they handle Europe: basically out goes the naff digital pound clock, in come (better) arguments about the EU's appalling trade policy vis-a-vis developing countries. Still, it needs a lot more "bite" and to be made into a "campaign." There is far too much cackhanded "triangulation" - the determination to balance every criticism of the EU with a pledge to be in favour of something else. (e.g. as one tory researcher told us re the ETS: "we want to be in favour of this"). Having a positive agenda is right. Translating that into support for various doomed EU projects isn't.
“There is a positive agenda for the EU which I describe as the 3 P’s: people, planet and poverty. De-regulation and economic reform would give people in Europe a better chance of prosperity...Kind of cheesy - but basically good.
...Co-operation on the environment and the Emissions Trading System to reduce carbon emissions would help improve the environment of the planet...Er... yeah, "cooperation on the environment" might be good if it was going to be a good way to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately the EU's ETS delivers increased pollution at incredible cost.
"...And pushing for a WTO deal to reduce tariffs will help reduce poverty in the developing world."Uh huh. The tories need to get stuck in more on this. But it needs a bit more edge than, "lets all have a WTO deal" though - everyone is in favour of that.
“But a negative agenda for the EU would be the inward looking ambition of bringing back the EU Constitution which has already been rejected. The Constitution has been both distracting and disruptive and it represents the wrong direction for the EU. The Conservative Party will not support a Constitution that is about transferring more power to the EU. Any such Constitution would have to be put to a referendum in Britain and we would vigorously campaign for a no vote.”That's fairly carefully worded - but at least they are thinking about calling for a referendum, which is a good start.
"I absolutely agree with Edmund Stoiber when he says irrespective of the differences about the EPP issue, there should be a close co-operation of a formal nature between the CDU/ CSU Parties and the Conservative Party.”
Overall they are doing quite well in terms of repositioning the way they handle Europe: basically out goes the naff digital pound clock, in come (better) arguments about the EU's appalling trade policy vis-a-vis developing countries. Still, it needs a lot more "bite" and to be made into a "campaign." There is far too much cackhanded "triangulation" - the determination to balance every criticism of the EU with a pledge to be in favour of something else. (e.g. as one tory researcher told us re the ETS: "we want to be in favour of this"). Having a positive agenda is right. Translating that into support for various doomed EU projects isn't.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Can the EU change?
There's a good piece in this week's Economist, in the Charlemagne column about the debate over resurrecting the EU Constitution. Its such a depressing debate.
The post-post-Cold-War world is full of grim problems like Iran, the west's loss of competitiveness relative to China, and the drift of Russia away from democracy.
But the EU's response to all this is... yet another round of institutional tinkering. Even more years wasted having mindnumbing rows in Brussels about how many European commissioners to have.
Falling support for integration and the prospect of further referendums means that the new "mini treaty" or "EU Constitution mark 2" - or whatever it ends up being called - is ultimately not likely to be ratified in all member states. At that point there is going to be a crunch.
Our guess is that there will either be an attempt to come up with some kind of more flexible structure for the EU as a whole, or give some member states a looser relationship with the rest of the EU. Either could potentially be a way of getting to the kind of arrangement that most voters in Britain - and several other members - want.
With that in mind, we have just updated our vision of how things are likely to pan out on the Open Europe website. We'd be interested to know your thoughts...
The post-post-Cold-War world is full of grim problems like Iran, the west's loss of competitiveness relative to China, and the drift of Russia away from democracy.
But the EU's response to all this is... yet another round of institutional tinkering. Even more years wasted having mindnumbing rows in Brussels about how many European commissioners to have.
Falling support for integration and the prospect of further referendums means that the new "mini treaty" or "EU Constitution mark 2" - or whatever it ends up being called - is ultimately not likely to be ratified in all member states. At that point there is going to be a crunch.
Our guess is that there will either be an attempt to come up with some kind of more flexible structure for the EU as a whole, or give some member states a looser relationship with the rest of the EU. Either could potentially be a way of getting to the kind of arrangement that most voters in Britain - and several other members - want.
With that in mind, we have just updated our vision of how things are likely to pan out on the Open Europe website. We'd be interested to know your thoughts...
EPP elections
Johan Norberg has an interesting thing from a Swedish blog about the upcoming election of a new leader of the EPP next tuesday.
He says MEPs face a choice between "a French friend of the CAP, Joseph Daul, or a reliable Swedish market-liberal, Gunnar Hökmark, who would be a force against EU regulation and protectionism. "
However, he thinks some Tory MEPs might vote tactially for Daul - on the Leninist logic that "the worse, the better" - in order to strengthen the case for leaving. Not so sure. Be interesting to see who wins though. Daul holds some kind of French medal for agriculture, so we are thinking he is probably not exactly a friend of free trade. Anyone know how the Tories are (officially) voting?
He says MEPs face a choice between "a French friend of the CAP, Joseph Daul, or a reliable Swedish market-liberal, Gunnar Hökmark, who would be a force against EU regulation and protectionism. "
However, he thinks some Tory MEPs might vote tactially for Daul - on the Leninist logic that "the worse, the better" - in order to strengthen the case for leaving. Not so sure. Be interesting to see who wins though. Daul holds some kind of French medal for agriculture, so we are thinking he is probably not exactly a friend of free trade. Anyone know how the Tories are (officially) voting?
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Looking into the crystal ball...
A few bits and pieces:
We've just published our latest pamphlet: The EU in 2007. We attempt to assess how the French elections and the expected changes in No 10 Downing Street next year will affect EU politicians' plans to bring back the EU Constitution. We also look at the rising tensions within the eurozone and flag up some of the most controversial aspects of the incoming German Presidency's agenda.
For an interesting article on recent trends and the future of politics in Central and Eastern Europe, have a look at this piece from Marian Tupy from the CATO Institute (hat-tip the beatroot).
Another area of great uncertainty in 2007 will of course be the situation in Iran, and whether the international community will actually take any military action if Tehran continues to flout UN resolutions. An Israeli think-tank - the Institute for National Strategic Studies - has released a report which claims that the country could take out the Iranians' nuclear capability on its own.
They stress however, that military strikes should strictly be a last option. Interestingly though, they are split over whether or not to involve the US in the plan - which as the Foreign Policy blog points out would need to give assent as it controls Iraqi airspace.
We've just published our latest pamphlet: The EU in 2007. We attempt to assess how the French elections and the expected changes in No 10 Downing Street next year will affect EU politicians' plans to bring back the EU Constitution. We also look at the rising tensions within the eurozone and flag up some of the most controversial aspects of the incoming German Presidency's agenda.
For an interesting article on recent trends and the future of politics in Central and Eastern Europe, have a look at this piece from Marian Tupy from the CATO Institute (hat-tip the beatroot).
Another area of great uncertainty in 2007 will of course be the situation in Iran, and whether the international community will actually take any military action if Tehran continues to flout UN resolutions. An Israeli think-tank - the Institute for National Strategic Studies - has released a report which claims that the country could take out the Iranians' nuclear capability on its own.
They stress however, that military strikes should strictly be a last option. Interestingly though, they are split over whether or not to involve the US in the plan - which as the Foreign Policy blog points out would need to give assent as it controls Iraqi airspace.
INSS head Zvi Shtauber, a retired general who also served as Israel's ambassador in London and senior policy adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, said Israel was "technically" capable of striking alone and would have to do so if it takes action, because no other country would agree to work openly with Israel. Taking issue with [another INSS board member's] assessment that the U.S. must sign off on such an attack, he said, "There are certain things that it's better the U.S. not know
about."
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Random roundup
A few interesting things from the last few days:
Franco-Russian energy tie-up. Ever wonder why Jacques Chirac decided to give Vladimir Putin the Légion d'honneur, France's highest decoration? Or why he invited him to his birthday dinner in Riga? Could it be anything to do with this? So much for the EU speaking with "one voice" on Russia...
Democracy- Iran style. For an interesting analysis of the recent Iranian elections check out the Head Heeb. The author Jonathan Edelman cautions against seeing the result as a victory for the reformers, despite their gains. Instead it should be seen as a victory for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who managed to stop President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his spiritual mentor Ayatollah Mohammed Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi from taking control of the Assembly of Experts, which would have allowed them to replace Khamenei and concentrate power in the hands of the President. His tactics? Simple: just use the Guardian Council to block two-thirds of candidates - particularly those who were pro-Ahmedinejad.
And finally:
"What a sorrow has fallen the Turkmen people": President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan has died of heart failure. The colourful but oppressive Niyazov was known for spending his country's considerable energy wealth on grand schemes such as a huge, man-made lake in the Kara Kum desert, a vast cypress forest to change the desert climate, and an ice palace outside the capital. He gave himself the title of Turkmenbashi "Great Leader of all Turkmen." He ordered the months and days of the week named after himself and his family, and had statues of himself erected throughout the nation. He even built a statue of himself on top of the capital's neutrality arch which rotates 360 degrees so that it is always facing the sun. Modestly, he said “I'm personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets - but it's what the people want.” Children pledged allegiance to him every morning in schools before studying from books he had written. His writings were also required reading for driving tests and for all adults on Saturdays.
Franco-Russian energy tie-up. Ever wonder why Jacques Chirac decided to give Vladimir Putin the Légion d'honneur, France's highest decoration? Or why he invited him to his birthday dinner in Riga? Could it be anything to do with this? So much for the EU speaking with "one voice" on Russia...
Democracy- Iran style. For an interesting analysis of the recent Iranian elections check out the Head Heeb. The author Jonathan Edelman cautions against seeing the result as a victory for the reformers, despite their gains. Instead it should be seen as a victory for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who managed to stop President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his spiritual mentor Ayatollah Mohammed Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi from taking control of the Assembly of Experts, which would have allowed them to replace Khamenei and concentrate power in the hands of the President. His tactics? Simple: just use the Guardian Council to block two-thirds of candidates - particularly those who were pro-Ahmedinejad.
And finally:
"What a sorrow has fallen the Turkmen people": President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan has died of heart failure. The colourful but oppressive Niyazov was known for spending his country's considerable energy wealth on grand schemes such as a huge, man-made lake in the Kara Kum desert, a vast cypress forest to change the desert climate, and an ice palace outside the capital. He gave himself the title of Turkmenbashi "Great Leader of all Turkmen." He ordered the months and days of the week named after himself and his family, and had statues of himself erected throughout the nation. He even built a statue of himself on top of the capital's neutrality arch which rotates 360 degrees so that it is always facing the sun. Modestly, he said “I'm personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets - but it's what the people want.” Children pledged allegiance to him every morning in schools before studying from books he had written. His writings were also required reading for driving tests and for all adults on Saturdays.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The BBC and the RIIA: an axis of weasels
The BBC is leading this morning with the ridiculous Chatham House paper on Blair's Foreign Policy record.
Who are these people? The author of the document (all five-and-a-half pages of it) is Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, who had a background in Latin American politics before taking over at the RIIA (Chatham House).
It's an astonishingly thin, intellectually hazy, and lazy piece of work. He writes that:
Margaret Beckett has hit the nail on the head with her response: "This paper is threadbare, insubstantial and just plain wrong. Chatham House has established a great reputation over the years, but this paper will do nothing to enhance it."
So why does this ludicrous piece of junk get on the top of the news? It coincides exactly with the BBC world-view: Blair's a poodle, Bush is an ape, we should bin the yanks and "get deeper into Europe" in some unspecified way.
Quite apart from the headline message, the paper is a frustrating read. For example there is a throwaway line about how "The emphasis on aid and debt relief for Africa in return for an improvement in governance may come to look strangely old-fashioned." What does this mean? We are not told.
The sniffy tone doesn't help either: "Tony Blair has learnt the hard way that loyalty in international politics counts for very little." That sort of stuff obviously does it for the BBC in a big way, but it doesn't leave any of us any the wiser about how the RIIA think we should run our foreign policy.
The only good thing about the report is that it's a good distillation of the intellectual incoherence / fantasy politics at the heart of the pro-euro movement. For example:
The US would certainly like European countries to pull their finger out, deploy troops in the dangerous parts of Afghanistan, and relax the rule-of-engagement / human rights law constraints on what they can do. The US would like European countries to spend more on defence. They would probably like more diplomatic support too.
The problem is that for several countries European defence is about finding a way to spend even less on defence. Its about pointlessly confronting the US diplomatically, and it weakens the international structure (NATO) which allows meaningful transatlantic cooperation. Instead the EU offers the prospect of endless meetings, and press-release diplomacy. Somebody once said that the EU was a like a retirement home for former world powers. In that sense the EU and RIIA suit each other well.
Who are these people? The author of the document (all five-and-a-half pages of it) is Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, who had a background in Latin American politics before taking over at the RIIA (Chatham House).
It's an astonishingly thin, intellectually hazy, and lazy piece of work. He writes that:
"Tony Blair's successor(s) will not be able to offer unconditional support for US initiatives in foreign policy and a rebalancing of the UK's foreign policy between the US and Europe will have to take place."And that's as detailed as the argument gets - basically an assertion of the random political preferences of Prof. Bulmer-Thomas.
Margaret Beckett has hit the nail on the head with her response: "This paper is threadbare, insubstantial and just plain wrong. Chatham House has established a great reputation over the years, but this paper will do nothing to enhance it."
So why does this ludicrous piece of junk get on the top of the news? It coincides exactly with the BBC world-view: Blair's a poodle, Bush is an ape, we should bin the yanks and "get deeper into Europe" in some unspecified way.
Quite apart from the headline message, the paper is a frustrating read. For example there is a throwaway line about how "The emphasis on aid and debt relief for Africa in return for an improvement in governance may come to look strangely old-fashioned." What does this mean? We are not told.
The sniffy tone doesn't help either: "Tony Blair has learnt the hard way that loyalty in international politics counts for very little." That sort of stuff obviously does it for the BBC in a big way, but it doesn't leave any of us any the wiser about how the RIIA think we should run our foreign policy.
The only good thing about the report is that it's a good distillation of the intellectual incoherence / fantasy politics at the heart of the pro-euro movement. For example:
What US governments want is a European Union that can make a real contribution to the international political and security agenda, and any European government with the diplomatic skills to deliver EU support will be hugely appreciated. Britain has an opportunity to play that role provided it is taken seriously by its European partners and contributes fully to the European project. In due course, that will require the United Kingdom to revisit its opposition to joining both the Schengen agreement and the Eurozone.So the solution for our problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran etc is... for Britain to join the euro? These people have lost their minds.
The US would certainly like European countries to pull their finger out, deploy troops in the dangerous parts of Afghanistan, and relax the rule-of-engagement / human rights law constraints on what they can do. The US would like European countries to spend more on defence. They would probably like more diplomatic support too.
The problem is that for several countries European defence is about finding a way to spend even less on defence. Its about pointlessly confronting the US diplomatically, and it weakens the international structure (NATO) which allows meaningful transatlantic cooperation. Instead the EU offers the prospect of endless meetings, and press-release diplomacy. Somebody once said that the EU was a like a retirement home for former world powers. In that sense the EU and RIIA suit each other well.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Enlargement fatigue hitting Romania?
According to the Sunday Telegraph many Romanians are already getting fed up with the EU and its attempts to ban local traditions such as sheep-stomach wrapped cheeses, leaving corpses at home for three days after death, and under-aged marriages in the Roma community. They also want the Romanians to start packaging veg before it is sold from farms, begin taxing home made plum brandy and start killing animals in a more humane manner in front of an inspector.
Railway worker George Margarit summed up this growing disenchantment for the paper:
"I thought when we joined the EU we'd get lots of benefits and freedom. But what does freedom mean if I can't slaughter my own pig in my back yard?"
Railway worker George Margarit summed up this growing disenchantment for the paper:
"I thought when we joined the EU we'd get lots of benefits and freedom. But what does freedom mean if I can't slaughter my own pig in my back yard?"
Friday, December 15, 2006
Ever closer regulation
The Open Europe team has had all hands on deck this week stuffing envelopes with our new report on EU financial regulation which we're sending out to as many people as we can afford.
When the posties came to pick up the mail bags filled with the reports they shook their heads in that familiar plumber-style fashion: "Sorry pal, won't be able to take them."
OE: "Why not?"
"Too heavy... It's these bloody European directives. Can't carry anything over 11 kilo..."
They left telling us that they would return when we'd made the bags lighter and EU compliant. The irony of a report on EU over-regulation being slowed down by EU red tape was not lost on the team...
To be fair though, we're not experts in EU postal directives so we can't immediately check that this isn't just another "euromyth". We're going to look into it and will update you at a later date. If any readers can clear this matter up for us we'd we'd love to know, or if you've got any EU regulation stories that you want to share / get us to chase up stick them in the comments.
When the posties came to pick up the mail bags filled with the reports they shook their heads in that familiar plumber-style fashion: "Sorry pal, won't be able to take them."
OE: "Why not?"
"Too heavy... It's these bloody European directives. Can't carry anything over 11 kilo..."
They left telling us that they would return when we'd made the bags lighter and EU compliant. The irony of a report on EU over-regulation being slowed down by EU red tape was not lost on the team...
To be fair though, we're not experts in EU postal directives so we can't immediately check that this isn't just another "euromyth". We're going to look into it and will update you at a later date. If any readers can clear this matter up for us we'd we'd love to know, or if you've got any EU regulation stories that you want to share / get us to chase up stick them in the comments.
MacShane: his battle with the truth
Former Europe Minister Denis McShane has a letter in today’s FT, in response to an article by Malcolm Rifkind in the paper on Wednesday.
Some familiar MacShane themes:
“The idea of ‘moderate’ euroscepticism advanced by Sir Malcolm is rather like being a ‘moderate’ unilateralist in the debate over nuclear weapons or a ‘moderate’ anti-American. The difference between euroscepticism and anti-Europeanism is a semantic fiction.”
…Sounds like a reheat of his previous mildly hysterical claim that "Euroscepticism is a misnomer. What we are actually taking about is hatred of Europe and a sense of superiority… I'm afraid we have got a dark streak of xenophobia and racism in our mentality. Anti-Europeanism allows it to get a lot closer to the surface”.
Also some peculiar new claims:
“David Cameron has moved today's Tories further away from Europe than any of his predecessors.”
Eh? More sceptical than IDS or Michael Howard? Hasn’t he just binned a load of their previous pledges, e.g. on unilaterally pulling of the CFP? MacShane also includes his usual spiel about how being critical of the EU will make the Tories unelectable:
“until the Conservative leadership, not backbenchers, take on the Tory anti-Europeans in the same manner Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Smith vanquished Labour's eurosceptics, then we must judge David Cameron's Tories by what they say and do and not by what Sir Malcolm wishes his party to be.”
Er… quite apart from the fact that euroscepticism doesn’t have the same role for the Tories as nuclear disarmament did for Labour, this strikes us as kind of off-the-pace even in terms of what is happening within Labour. Opinion within Labour (and the Lib Dems) is now past the high water mark of the starry eyed, everything-Brussels-does-is-great mentality which MacShane represents. It’s not yet clear exactly what approach Gordon Brown will take when he makes the move to No 10, but given his past positioning on Europe, it is highly unlikely to be a mere continuation of Blairite policy. So come next year MacShane is likely to find himself writing a lot more manic green-ink letters to the FT…
Some familiar MacShane themes:
“The idea of ‘moderate’ euroscepticism advanced by Sir Malcolm is rather like being a ‘moderate’ unilateralist in the debate over nuclear weapons or a ‘moderate’ anti-American. The difference between euroscepticism and anti-Europeanism is a semantic fiction.”
…Sounds like a reheat of his previous mildly hysterical claim that "Euroscepticism is a misnomer. What we are actually taking about is hatred of Europe and a sense of superiority… I'm afraid we have got a dark streak of xenophobia and racism in our mentality. Anti-Europeanism allows it to get a lot closer to the surface”.
Also some peculiar new claims:
“David Cameron has moved today's Tories further away from Europe than any of his predecessors.”
Eh? More sceptical than IDS or Michael Howard? Hasn’t he just binned a load of their previous pledges, e.g. on unilaterally pulling of the CFP? MacShane also includes his usual spiel about how being critical of the EU will make the Tories unelectable:
“until the Conservative leadership, not backbenchers, take on the Tory anti-Europeans in the same manner Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Smith vanquished Labour's eurosceptics, then we must judge David Cameron's Tories by what they say and do and not by what Sir Malcolm wishes his party to be.”
Er… quite apart from the fact that euroscepticism doesn’t have the same role for the Tories as nuclear disarmament did for Labour, this strikes us as kind of off-the-pace even in terms of what is happening within Labour. Opinion within Labour (and the Lib Dems) is now past the high water mark of the starry eyed, everything-Brussels-does-is-great mentality which MacShane represents. It’s not yet clear exactly what approach Gordon Brown will take when he makes the move to No 10, but given his past positioning on Europe, it is highly unlikely to be a mere continuation of Blairite policy. So come next year MacShane is likely to find himself writing a lot more manic green-ink letters to the FT…
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The whistleblowers strike back
Jose Sequeira, the Commission bureaucrat marched from his office two years ago after the Commission's own medical service said he was mentally unfit to work has been vindicated by an employment tribunal in Luxembourg, with the original decision against him overturned.
This story originally came to light in the FT back in September. Sequeira had raised allegations of corruption in the Jacques Santer-led Commission during the late 1990s. He was then accused of circulating a “defamatory dossier” by his superiors (the dossier was never produced), before being branded mentally unstable by a Commission-contracted psychiatrist. He was then placed on “indefinite sick leave” as a result. Three different doctors have since given him a clean bill of health.
Such cases of mental illness are curiously prevalent in Brussels. Out of the 200 Commission staff members placed on long term sick leave each year, half are prescribed as having mental illness, at a cost to EU taxpayers €74m a year.
Marta Andreassen, who was sacked by then-Commissioner Neil Kinnock in 2004 for blowing the whistle on its financial incompetence, claimed earlier this week that before her departure she had received internal emails which warned, "We have ways of breaking people like you.” Perhaps sometimes, but not in Mr Sequeira's case.
This story originally came to light in the FT back in September. Sequeira had raised allegations of corruption in the Jacques Santer-led Commission during the late 1990s. He was then accused of circulating a “defamatory dossier” by his superiors (the dossier was never produced), before being branded mentally unstable by a Commission-contracted psychiatrist. He was then placed on “indefinite sick leave” as a result. Three different doctors have since given him a clean bill of health.
Such cases of mental illness are curiously prevalent in Brussels. Out of the 200 Commission staff members placed on long term sick leave each year, half are prescribed as having mental illness, at a cost to EU taxpayers €74m a year.
Marta Andreassen, who was sacked by then-Commissioner Neil Kinnock in 2004 for blowing the whistle on its financial incompetence, claimed earlier this week that before her departure she had received internal emails which warned, "We have ways of breaking people like you.” Perhaps sometimes, but not in Mr Sequeira's case.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Get Gunter
This story literally gets more extraordinary by the day. As Dan Hannan wrote a couple of months ago, "It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that the two events are linked. One day, Günter Verheugen, the Commission Vice-President, attacks the cost of Euro-bureaucracy. The next, photographs appear of the Commissioner strolling hand in hand with a female aide while on a visit to Lithuania."
For those of you who haven't been following the story - a quick recap. Back in October Verheugen told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung that there was a "permanent power struggle" going on between EU Commissioners and their top civil servants. He said that the civil servants had "too much power" and that he had "strongly criticised" some of them for thwarting his deregulation drive. He then upped the stakes further by telling the FT that this failure to deregulate is costing the EU economy €600 billion a year.
That weekend pictures of Verheugen and his chief of staff Petra Erler holding hands on a trip to Lithuania were published in the German press. The following week FT Deutschland reported that EU officials were openly calling for Verheugen to resign over his attack on Commission staff and his reported favouritism in recently promoting Erler - a relative Commission outsider.
Then just last Friday the whole thing got nastier. The Times reported that German weekly Focus was threatening to publish pictures of Verheugen wearing just a baseball cap - on a nudist beach with Erler. Even though the pictures haven't yet been published they have caused quite a stink in Germany where many are calling for Verheugen to resign. One MEP, Herbert Reul said, "It’s unacceptable that an EU Commissioner should be running around naked on a beach with a senior female colleague”.
The powers that be in both Berlin and Brussels have publicly given Verheugen their support -maintaining that this is a private matter. It is unlikely that either he or Erler will be forced out: Verheugen is too important a member of the Social Democrats to be touched while there is a weak governning coalition. Indeed, Erler used to employ a certain Angela Merkel as her spokeswoman when she was in the Eastern German government.
Even still suspicions remain that certain people in Brussels are intent on getting their revenge on Gunter. As the Irish Independent reports:
For those of you who haven't been following the story - a quick recap. Back in October Verheugen told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung that there was a "permanent power struggle" going on between EU Commissioners and their top civil servants. He said that the civil servants had "too much power" and that he had "strongly criticised" some of them for thwarting his deregulation drive. He then upped the stakes further by telling the FT that this failure to deregulate is costing the EU economy €600 billion a year.
That weekend pictures of Verheugen and his chief of staff Petra Erler holding hands on a trip to Lithuania were published in the German press. The following week FT Deutschland reported that EU officials were openly calling for Verheugen to resign over his attack on Commission staff and his reported favouritism in recently promoting Erler - a relative Commission outsider.
Then just last Friday the whole thing got nastier. The Times reported that German weekly Focus was threatening to publish pictures of Verheugen wearing just a baseball cap - on a nudist beach with Erler. Even though the pictures haven't yet been published they have caused quite a stink in Germany where many are calling for Verheugen to resign. One MEP, Herbert Reul said, "It’s unacceptable that an EU Commissioner should be running around naked on a beach with a senior female colleague”.
The powers that be in both Berlin and Brussels have publicly given Verheugen their support -maintaining that this is a private matter. It is unlikely that either he or Erler will be forced out: Verheugen is too important a member of the Social Democrats to be touched while there is a weak governning coalition. Indeed, Erler used to employ a certain Angela Merkel as her spokeswoman when she was in the Eastern German government.
Even still suspicions remain that certain people in Brussels are intent on getting their revenge on Gunter. As the Irish Independent reports:
“Mr Verheugen’s difficulties were predicted last month by the Commission's former chief accountant, Marta Andreassen, who was sacked by then-Commissioner Neil Kinnock in 2004 for blowing the whistle on its financial incompetence... She claimed that Mr. Verheugen was being dragged through the mud because of his complaint that "too much is decided by [EU] civil servants on spending in a non-accountable way. Ms Andreassen says that she received internal emails which warned, "We have ways of breaking people like you."
Friday, December 08, 2006
McCreevy debates the facts
Charlie McCreevy, the Internal Market Commissioner, has a comment piece in today’s FT on EU financial services regulation, disputing the arguments of our recent study, and a leader in the FT that followed its release.
A few interesting points to pull out from the article:
1) McC: “all the main regulatory issues have been agreed unanimously with member states, with the strong support of the European parliament”…This is a puzzling assertion to make: arguably the most important piece of financial regulation to ever come out of Brussels – MiFID – was certainly not agreed unanimously: the Italian Presidency pushed it through the first reading on a majority vote, which was opposed by a number of member states, including the UK and Ireland. And the Irish Finance Minister who voted against MiFID? A certain Charlie McCreevy…
2) McC: “MiFID is a pro-competitive strategic change of direction”. It’s certainly a change of direction, but whether it will be pro-competition, or even of net benefit is still a highly contentious point. Smaller firms don’t see it in McCreevy’s terms – many fear that it is so onerous that it will drive them out of certain business lines, leaving the larger banks – who can absorb the large compliance costs – to mop up. Industry in general is still lukewarm over the supposed opportunities of MiFID. A survey conducted for the FSA said that “firms are particularly sceptical about the likelihood of benefits arising from MiFID, and generally take the view that the costs of MiFID pose greater challenges than the benefits provide opportunities."
3) McC: “Europe’s share of business rose relative to the US between 2001 and 2005”. This is incredibly complacent. Yes - London has succeeded in prising business away from New York. But the reason for this is not so much an enlightened approach from Brussels as a short-sighted, complacent stance from US regulators in pushing through the Sarbanes Oxley Act, which has unquestionably caused business to migrate offshore. Many of the most important FSAP measures have not yet begun to “bite” – MiFID doesn’t come into force until late 2007 – so it’s probably premature for McCreevy to say that the EU is safe from a similar flight of business. In fact, many of the more mobile companies are considering off-shoring already. Complacency was the undoing of regulators in the US in drafting Sarbox. The Commission could easily fall into the same trap with the Financial Services Action Plan.
A few interesting points to pull out from the article:
1) McC: “all the main regulatory issues have been agreed unanimously with member states, with the strong support of the European parliament”…This is a puzzling assertion to make: arguably the most important piece of financial regulation to ever come out of Brussels – MiFID – was certainly not agreed unanimously: the Italian Presidency pushed it through the first reading on a majority vote, which was opposed by a number of member states, including the UK and Ireland. And the Irish Finance Minister who voted against MiFID? A certain Charlie McCreevy…
2) McC: “MiFID is a pro-competitive strategic change of direction”. It’s certainly a change of direction, but whether it will be pro-competition, or even of net benefit is still a highly contentious point. Smaller firms don’t see it in McCreevy’s terms – many fear that it is so onerous that it will drive them out of certain business lines, leaving the larger banks – who can absorb the large compliance costs – to mop up. Industry in general is still lukewarm over the supposed opportunities of MiFID. A survey conducted for the FSA said that “firms are particularly sceptical about the likelihood of benefits arising from MiFID, and generally take the view that the costs of MiFID pose greater challenges than the benefits provide opportunities."
3) McC: “Europe’s share of business rose relative to the US between 2001 and 2005”. This is incredibly complacent. Yes - London has succeeded in prising business away from New York. But the reason for this is not so much an enlightened approach from Brussels as a short-sighted, complacent stance from US regulators in pushing through the Sarbanes Oxley Act, which has unquestionably caused business to migrate offshore. Many of the most important FSAP measures have not yet begun to “bite” – MiFID doesn’t come into force until late 2007 – so it’s probably premature for McCreevy to say that the EU is safe from a similar flight of business. In fact, many of the more mobile companies are considering off-shoring already. Complacency was the undoing of regulators in the US in drafting Sarbox. The Commission could easily fall into the same trap with the Financial Services Action Plan.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Cameron in Brussels
Mixed messages from the Cameron trip to Brussels.
This morning the hard stuff:
This afternoon though, he was more EU-friendly:
Tory home have condensed it into four issues: global poverty, climate change, fighting fraud and economic competitiveness. They write that: "They neatly combine Euroscepticism with modernising messages on the environment and poverty."
So what to make of it?
Basically in some ways they are on the right track - definitely in terms of picking the "right fights to have". The question is whether/how they now refine it into a clear set of detailed goals and campaigns. It's not 100% clear which way they are going to go yet.
If the tories bought into the Commission & FCO's repositioning line that "the Commission has changed and are now on Britain's side" they would be in real trouble. The bottom line is that despite Barosso talking a good game on deregulation and free trade, the EU regulatory burden is still going up and up; and on trade the EU is the biggest obstacle to a pro-development Doha round. It seems like Cameron is not inclined to believe the hype on those issues.
On the environment things are a bit more mixed. Quite a lot of tories really want to back the ETS because it's green and will make them look softer on Europe. The only snag is that its an expensive failure, and doesn't reduce emissions (as sources as diverse as the Carbon Trust, the FT, the Environment Agency, and the Economist have now pointed out).
Anyway - it's good that they are re-engaging with the issue a bit. But they have a long way to go. Given that the Constitution (sadly) isn't dead - and is in fact coming back in March next year - they don't have long to turn around the way they deal with the issue.
This morning the hard stuff:
"The Common Agricultural Policy is an economic and humanitarian disaster which pushes up food prices for the poorest in Europe and helps lock the developing world into poverty. And the EU still has higher trade barriers against poor countries than it does against rich."All sounds like part of the new "gritty agenda".
"If a company director failed to sign off accounts for 11 years, they would probably be heading for jail,"
"We are a new generation. We have no time for the culture of hopelessness that has plagued the way the EU has often attempted to address the big global challenges we face."
This afternoon though, he was more EU-friendly:
Daisy has more pictures (mostly of Nick Watt's head).“Everybody keeps going on about how disconnected Europe is. Let’s get the Doha trade round started, trade justice is what will connect the EU with voters – rather than the EU picking the fluff out of its own navel,” he said.
“Climate change is what people take to the streets to protest about and the EU has the power to do something. We have a positive message on Europe. There is a new agenda. This is about being positive on the environment, getting change for ACP countries.”
Describing institutional reform as “the boring bit” of European affairs, Cameron said his conviction that Brussels can secure change without a constitution has the backing of many in the European commission.
“Commissioner Dimas was very optimistic that emissions trading can be made to work under the current set up,” he insisted.
“Emissions trading is a great example of what I am talking about. The architecture is already there to make it work…we do not need institutional reform to do this.”
Tory home have condensed it into four issues: global poverty, climate change, fighting fraud and economic competitiveness. They write that: "They neatly combine Euroscepticism with modernising messages on the environment and poverty."
So what to make of it?
Basically in some ways they are on the right track - definitely in terms of picking the "right fights to have". The question is whether/how they now refine it into a clear set of detailed goals and campaigns. It's not 100% clear which way they are going to go yet.
If the tories bought into the Commission & FCO's repositioning line that "the Commission has changed and are now on Britain's side" they would be in real trouble. The bottom line is that despite Barosso talking a good game on deregulation and free trade, the EU regulatory burden is still going up and up; and on trade the EU is the biggest obstacle to a pro-development Doha round. It seems like Cameron is not inclined to believe the hype on those issues.
On the environment things are a bit more mixed. Quite a lot of tories really want to back the ETS because it's green and will make them look softer on Europe. The only snag is that its an expensive failure, and doesn't reduce emissions (as sources as diverse as the Carbon Trust, the FT, the Environment Agency, and the Economist have now pointed out).
Anyway - it's good that they are re-engaging with the issue a bit. But they have a long way to go. Given that the Constitution (sadly) isn't dead - and is in fact coming back in March next year - they don't have long to turn around the way they deal with the issue.
Glasnost in Whitehall?
The Treasury have released figs on how much the ECJ ruling on Controlled Foreign Companies is going to cost them. Its easy to find... if you happen to be looking through the footnotes to table 4B, on page 240, Annex B.
Its 540m in total to 2010 and goes up over time:
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10
-15m -100m -175m -250m
PBR also contains further evidence of how hard the Treasury finds it to predict how much we are going to be paying into the EU: Spending for this year, for instance, has gone up from £600m to £2,800 m since the Budget a couple of months ago. Its a bit of a mess.
Its 540m in total to 2010 and goes up over time:
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10
-15m -100m -175m -250m
PBR also contains further evidence of how hard the Treasury finds it to predict how much we are going to be paying into the EU: Spending for this year, for instance, has gone up from £600m to £2,800 m since the Budget a couple of months ago. Its a bit of a mess.
| £bn | 99-00 | 00-01 | 01-02 | 02-03 | 03-04 | 04-05 | 05-06 | 06-07 | 07-08 |
| Budget 1999 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.8 | ||||||
| Budget 2000 | 3 | 3.3 | 3.4 | ||||||
| Budget 2001 | 3.3 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.8 | ||||
| Budget 2002 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 3 | 3.2 | |||||
| Budget 2003 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 4 | ||||
| Budget 2004 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 4.3 | |||||
| Budget 2005 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 5.2 | |||||
| Budget 2006 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 4.2 | |||||
| PBR 2006 | 4.4 | 2.8 | 4.5 |
Ming Campbell: live and reheated
Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell is to make his first "big" speech on Europe next tuesday morning.
Apparently there is going to be some stuff about distancing ourselves from the US, some stuff about having missed an opportunity to lead in Europe by not joining the euro, and some vague stuff about the need for the EU to be a bit less bureaucratic.
*Sigh*
... the whole thing sounds a bit like it fell through a time tunnel from 1997. Which is a real shame because MC is certainly not thick, and is supposed to have a comparitive advantage on foreign affairs. It will be a bit depressing for Lib Dem MPs too - many of whom have moved away from the starry-eyed nothing-that-comes-from-Brussels-can-be-bad mentality.
It certainly isn't what Lib Dem voters believe. Last time they were asked about the euro (Dec 04) they were 57-43 against joining.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Your MEP: hot or not?
People say that curiosity killed the cat. It's certainly capable of absorbing an incredible amount of research time.
We wanted to know which MEPs were most effective in gaining publicity. So we've done a quick back-of-the-envelope ranking based on how many times they have appeared in the press over the last 6 months (as measured by the Lexis Nexis database) and how many hits they turn up on Google.
We're certainly not claiming it's an exact science, and it's definitely not a measure of whether someone is a "good" MEP. There are probably all kinds of problems with the data, which I'm sure you will let us know about.
But anyway, with all that borne in mind it's still quite an interesting ranking. There seems to be a big publicity gap between the best and the worst performing MEPs. Top of the Pops are recently reinstated Tory Roger Helmer and anti-euro Green MEP Caroline Lucas. The Lib Dems seem to dominate the rest of the top of the chart, with the exception of Labour's Richard Corbett.
If anyone thinks they have been hard done by please do let us know, or if you think anyone has been let off lightly, the same applies...
We wanted to know which MEPs were most effective in gaining publicity. So we've done a quick back-of-the-envelope ranking based on how many times they have appeared in the press over the last 6 months (as measured by the Lexis Nexis database) and how many hits they turn up on Google.
We're certainly not claiming it's an exact science, and it's definitely not a measure of whether someone is a "good" MEP. There are probably all kinds of problems with the data, which I'm sure you will let us know about.
But anyway, with all that borne in mind it's still quite an interesting ranking. There seems to be a big publicity gap between the best and the worst performing MEPs. Top of the Pops are recently reinstated Tory Roger Helmer and anti-euro Green MEP Caroline Lucas. The Lib Dems seem to dominate the rest of the top of the chart, with the exception of Labour's Richard Corbett.
If anyone thinks they have been hard done by please do let us know, or if you think anyone has been let off lightly, the same applies...
Return of the 'potato wars'?
Mischievous German newspaper die Tageszeitung yesterday tried its best to instigate a repeat of this summer's "potato wars" between Berlin and Warsaw.
In July the paper described the Polish President Lech Kaczynski as Poland's "new potato" on the eve of a Berlin summit between Germany, Poland and France. Kaczynski urged Merkel's government to demand an apology, when they refused, he cancelled the summit, claiming that he had a stomach bug.
The summit was rearranged for today and TAZ decided to finally "welcome" the Polish President by printing two pictures of him next to potatoes on its front page below the headline: "Which one of you is it that's coming again?"
According to Reuters "to liken someone to a potato is seen in Polish culture as rather like calling them a peasant."
Ouch. The whole thing is a symptom of a wider tension between the two countries involving everything from the baltic pipeline between Germany and Russia (which goes around Poland) to feelings of a lack of gratitude on the German side - where they feel like they did more than their fair share to aid Poland after the fall of the wall, and to help it join the EU.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Rumsfeld reincarnated
According to PA John Reid has today ruled out giving up the UK's veto over police and justice issues. In typical straight-talking fashion he said,
John Denham asked him:
Great news. Although I'm not so sure the Commission would agree. One only needs to read an interview from last week with Jonathan Faull, Director-General of the EU Commission's justice department, by the Commons Home Affairs committee (who we gave evidence to a couple of weeks ago)."It's time to move on - it is time to concentrate on our main business,
which should always be delivering practical outcomes. There's a clear and
probably overwhelming majority against (giving up the veto). That's our view.
That's the view of our governments. We should not, by using weasel words,
attempt to revisit this at a higher level when there's such a clear
majority."
John Denham asked him:
(14 countries were apparently against the move)Can I assume, given the lack of success in the Finnish Presidency, that we
will not hear any more about the passerelle proposal?
Some other interesting points from his interview:Mr Faull: No.
Chairman: When do you expect us to hear about it next?
Mr Faull: ... By next summer we may have a better view of where the Union is going more generally, and then it may or may not be necessary to come back to the bridging clause issue.
- Faull says that Europol might soon take on a more hands-on policing approach - something the UK is trying to resist."Europol is designed to co-ordinate, and perhaps one day actually to run, investigations itself in a way which Interpol is not designed to do at all”. The Austrian Presidency also recently mooted giving Europol a greater role in national investigations. Watch this space.
- He calls for an EU wide migration policy, so that the EU Commission can barter with non-EU countries over how many of their citizens the EU as a whole should let in each year.
- Faull shows just how native he has gone: "among nearly all Europeans, not you [the UK] and not Ireland, of course, the borders have disappeared internally"
And there's this curious answer to Denham's question of whether different countries applying the European Arrest Warrant in different ways has caused any practical problems:
That's cleared that one up then...We know what has happened. We do not necessarily know, and this sounds a bit
Rumsfeldian, what has not happened. We do not know what we do not know, and
these are early days.
If only rugby could solve all our problems
Each month the International Crisis Group sends out a bulletin alerting us to new conflicts as they arise. They have just declared November 2006 to be the worst month since they started nearly four years ago:
- The sectarian fighting in Iraq is at its worst level since the invasion in 2003. Kofi Annan has described it as "much worse" than a civil war.
- Fighting in Sudan is spilling over into its neighbouring countries and the French airforce has been bombing rebels in the Central African Republic.
- The political crisis in Lebanon looks increasingly precarious.
There has also been some trouble in the South Pacific. Australia and New Zealand had to send in troops to quell the rioting in Tonga and it looks like Fiji might be heading towards its fourth coup in 20 years.
The Fijian military set a deadline for their demands to be met by last Friday. But at the last minute they decided to delay their struggle for power for several days so that the much anticipated annual Police vs Army rugby match could take place. Unfortunately the delay was only temporary, the army moved in to take control of Suva this morning...
Hat-tip: FP and the Head HeebA FSAP in the face for London
Our work on the Financial Services Action Plan is out.
Its on the top half of P4 of the FT (here and here).
Richard North doesn't like it (surprise surprise).
A measure of how much the EU cares about the City? Take the MiFID directive - just one of 42 meaures intended to create "a single market in financial services". It's going to cost the UK about £6 billion or so by 2010.
The original idea sounded good - let banks compete more with stock exchanges. Problem: various member states didn't want their tiny bourses to get eaten up by gigantic (London based) banks. So they start presssing for loads and loads of onerous pre-trade trasparency rules to stop all but the most enormous banks getting involved.
Gordon Brown has to take the afternoon off for the birth of his son (fair play considering circumstances). Paul Boateng turns up, asks for a delay. Instead the Italians force an (unprecendented) snap vote to add in the red tape. Then to add insult to injury they pass the final directive by rubber stamping it in the fisheries council.
No wonder people in the City are being driven nuts by all this stuff.
Its on the top half of P4 of the FT (here and here).
Richard North doesn't like it (surprise surprise).
A measure of how much the EU cares about the City? Take the MiFID directive - just one of 42 meaures intended to create "a single market in financial services". It's going to cost the UK about £6 billion or so by 2010.
The original idea sounded good - let banks compete more with stock exchanges. Problem: various member states didn't want their tiny bourses to get eaten up by gigantic (London based) banks. So they start presssing for loads and loads of onerous pre-trade trasparency rules to stop all but the most enormous banks getting involved.
Gordon Brown has to take the afternoon off for the birth of his son (fair play considering circumstances). Paul Boateng turns up, asks for a delay. Instead the Italians force an (unprecendented) snap vote to add in the red tape. Then to add insult to injury they pass the final directive by rubber stamping it in the fisheries council.
No wonder people in the City are being driven nuts by all this stuff.
Booker spiked?
Richard North reports that Chris Booker on the Sunday Telegraph had his column cut after he penned a piece critical of David Cameron. Regardless of what you think of the piece or the argument - that's a pretty serious thing.
I was told by the SunTel editor today that my item attacking Cameron is to be dropped. This is the first time such a thing has happened since I began writing the column 16 years ago.
I was told by the SunTel editor today that my item attacking Cameron is to be dropped. This is the first time such a thing has happened since I began writing the column 16 years ago.
Friday, December 01, 2006
What's in a name?
Ludicrous titles for academic papers are a great source of fun at 2AM when you are trying to research mindbendingly complicated trade policy issues.
From IDS:
From IDS:
- Knowing Me, Knowing You: Social Networks in the Surgical Instrument Cluster of Sialkot, Pakistan
Khalid Nadvi
Discussion Paper 364, 1998
- Money Can't Buy Me Love? Re-evaluating Gender, Credit and Empowerment in Rural Bangladesh
Naila Kabeer
Discussion Paper 363, 1998
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)