From Ananova we hear that entrepreneurial Romanian witches - a recognised profession in the new member state - have expanded their operations since the country joined the EU.
(Stay with us - this is not some sort of Express style story about 'hordes' of Romanians with broomsticks boarding coaches heading for Victoria station.)
Apparently witches have found a lucrative new way of making money - concocting spells to help locals get EU grants.
According to Ananova: "Until now the country's witches have confined themselves to love potions and spells to get cows to produce more milk. But the EU expansion has seen funding for new projects flood into the country and now locals hoping to gain a slice of the action are turning to witches to boost their chances."
Witch Florica, from Pitesti in southern Romania, said: "It's a new type of spell that we had to work out of course.
"You cannot pretend you are a real witch if you cannot help a businessman get the European Union funds he wants. For example, only the other day I had a young businessman who came to me with his papers applying for European funds.
"I spread the cards on his documents, said my spells and splashed the papers with some potions. It only cost him about £40 for my charms but when he gets the money thanks to my spells he will be happy and I will be happy because he will bring me new customers."
Visit our new website.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
EU trade policy: tariffs increasing, discriminating against developing countries
The World Trade Organisation’s trade policy review for the EU was released yesterday. Today’s IHT has picked up on this, and summarises the report. Average tariff rates on farm goods have increased to 18.6%, compared to a rate of 16.5% in 2004.
As the report notes, products with relatively high tariff protection are almost exclusively agricultural or processed food. These include flours and meat (427.9%); mushrooms (300.8%); frozen beef (276.9%); pineapple juices (209.8%) and live chickens (167.2%).
The WTO reiterates the fact that agricultural products being exported to the EU face far higher tariff rates relative to other goods. Non-farm goods face average applied rates of just 4.0%. Incidentally, tariffs are consistently higher on agricultural product lines where producers in developing countries have a comparative advantage over their EU competitors, meaning that their exports are hit disproportionately hard by EU trade policy.
According to the widely used GTAP database, in 2002 poor countries with a GDP per capita of under £5,000 a year faced an EU tariff of 5% on average. Countries with a GDP per capita of between £5,000 and £15,000 face an average tariff of 2.9%. But countries with a GDP per capita over £15,000 a year face a tariff of just 1.6%
As the report notes, products with relatively high tariff protection are almost exclusively agricultural or processed food. These include flours and meat (427.9%); mushrooms (300.8%); frozen beef (276.9%); pineapple juices (209.8%) and live chickens (167.2%).
The WTO reiterates the fact that agricultural products being exported to the EU face far higher tariff rates relative to other goods. Non-farm goods face average applied rates of just 4.0%. Incidentally, tariffs are consistently higher on agricultural product lines where producers in developing countries have a comparative advantage over their EU competitors, meaning that their exports are hit disproportionately hard by EU trade policy.
According to the widely used GTAP database, in 2002 poor countries with a GDP per capita of under £5,000 a year faced an EU tariff of 5% on average. Countries with a GDP per capita of between £5,000 and £15,000 face an average tariff of 2.9%. But countries with a GDP per capita over £15,000 a year face a tariff of just 1.6%
Friday, February 23, 2007
Exposing the euro myths
When confronted with statistics about the burden that EU regulation places on UK businesses and voluntary bodies (at the last count it was over £38 billion since 1998) a classic Commission response is to blame it on national parliaments and civil servants "gold-plating" EU laws. (Gold plating in this context is when national politicians or bureaucrats add to EU regulations to make them even more cumbersome)
So I was surprised when at a seminar hosted by the Industry and Parliament Trust both David Arculus (former head of the Better Regulation Task Force) and Rick Haythornthwaite (Head, Better Regulation Unit) both agreed that problem of gold-plating was actually a bit of a white elephant red herring.
Rick Haythornthwaite said that he had looked into the issue but found "limited evidence that there had been significant burdens imposed by gold-plating". Similarly David Arculus said, "we could not find much evidence of UK parliament deliberately gold-plating EU law."
Haythornthwaite was also sceptical about the latest EU deregulatory fad - to attempt to cut "administrative burdens"(the amount of forms that regulations require businesses to fill in). The EU Commission recently announced that it intends to cut these burdens by 25%, but as Haythornthwaite implied, this is just a minor issue: "The big price is the policy cost".
Other interesting snippets: they blamed part of the problem on the plethora of regulators in the UK (the average hospital has to comply with rules from 42 different regulators). Blair and Brown are said to both privately be keen on establishing a one-in-one-out rule for business regulation. And both Arculus and Haythornthwaite called for a significant strengthening of parliamentary select committees - particularly the European Scrutiny Committee (as we have also argued).
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Massive massive hypocrisy (part 187)
No contradictions here:
(1) The Commission proposes various new environmental laws, casually helping itself to new competences in criminal law and taxation as it does so.
(2) The Commissioner in charge of fisheries admits (admittedly not exactly a newsflash) that the Common Fisheries policy is "morally wrong" and that "it is damaging the enviornment". He admits the EU's ludicrously designed policy is leading to the dumping of 880,000 tonnes of dead fish in the north sea every year (releasing at least their own weight in CO2 and methane).
(3) According to one of the other commissioners, Mandelson supposedly asked for his company car to be a environmentaly friendly er... Maserati. He didn't get the £80,000 supercar (in fact his people are denying it this morning), but at a cool 440gCO2 /km it would have been about three and a half times over the Commission's recently proposed 130g /km maximum. Some are more equal than others...
In other news, Dan Hannan has started a blog... his first piece looks at ludicrous EU expenses & perks. They are not going to be reformed any time soon... according to a recent written answer there is no discussion about stripping EU officials of their special low rates of tax. Dawn Primarolo says there are "no plans to amend" the current arrangements. At just 11% income tax EU officials can afford to cough up for the various measures the EU is now proposing.
The EU is also proposing a ban on smoking in public buildings which appears to have no legal basis, wheras the European Parliament has just dumped its own smoke ban. Remember: do as we say, not as we do.
(1) The Commission proposes various new environmental laws, casually helping itself to new competences in criminal law and taxation as it does so.
(2) The Commissioner in charge of fisheries admits (admittedly not exactly a newsflash) that the Common Fisheries policy is "morally wrong" and that "it is damaging the enviornment". He admits the EU's ludicrously designed policy is leading to the dumping of 880,000 tonnes of dead fish in the north sea every year (releasing at least their own weight in CO2 and methane).
(3) According to one of the other commissioners, Mandelson supposedly asked for his company car to be a environmentaly friendly er... Maserati. He didn't get the £80,000 supercar (in fact his people are denying it this morning), but at a cool 440gCO2 /km it would have been about three and a half times over the Commission's recently proposed 130g /km maximum. Some are more equal than others...
In other news, Dan Hannan has started a blog... his first piece looks at ludicrous EU expenses & perks. They are not going to be reformed any time soon... according to a recent written answer there is no discussion about stripping EU officials of their special low rates of tax. Dawn Primarolo says there are "no plans to amend" the current arrangements. At just 11% income tax EU officials can afford to cough up for the various measures the EU is now proposing.
The EU is also proposing a ban on smoking in public buildings which appears to have no legal basis, wheras the European Parliament has just dumped its own smoke ban. Remember: do as we say, not as we do.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Draft a Better EU Constitution
The Adam Smith Institute have launched a competition to design a new and better EU Constitution, with £1000 as a prize for the best contribution – to be judged by EU and UK policy experts. Unlike the monstrosity that EU leaders signed up to - the ASI have said that the winning Constitution is not allowed to be more than 2,000 words long.
To find out how to enter, click here.
To find out how to enter, click here.
A wall of soft propaganda
The Sunday Telegraph reported that Robin Cook's former advisor David Clark is planning to set up another pro-EU campaign group. Apparently it's a joint venture with the (EU-funded) Federal Trust.
The Robin Cook Foundation will add to the existing alphabet soup of ropey and often EU-funded groups campaigning for further integration. We already have The European Movement, the Federal Trust, Federal Union, (splitters!) Business for New Europe and the Foreign Policy Centre. Even the Centre for European Reform, which is pretty much independent, has taken EU funds for projects. And that's not to speak of the Commission's representation in London, which has ballooned in size since the no votes (up to about 40 staff). The Foreign Office also has a chunky budget for selling the EU to the public. And still they complain that the debate is biased against them.
The Commission spends a lot of money creating fake civil society organisations which then lobby for "more Europe". In fact a breakdown of the main budget line for propaganda - though of course there are lots of others - shows that they spent €33 million in 2005 on 307 different grants (only 70 of which managed to have their accounts certified).
The Robin Cook Foundation will add to the existing alphabet soup of ropey and often EU-funded groups campaigning for further integration. We already have The European Movement, the Federal Trust, Federal Union, (splitters!) Business for New Europe and the Foreign Policy Centre. Even the Centre for European Reform, which is pretty much independent, has taken EU funds for projects. And that's not to speak of the Commission's representation in London, which has ballooned in size since the no votes (up to about 40 staff). The Foreign Office also has a chunky budget for selling the EU to the public. And still they complain that the debate is biased against them.
The Commission spends a lot of money creating fake civil society organisations which then lobby for "more Europe". In fact a breakdown of the main budget line for propaganda - though of course there are lots of others - shows that they spent €33 million in 2005 on 307 different grants (only 70 of which managed to have their accounts certified).
Thursday, February 15, 2007
A day in the surreal life of the EU
OK, so other people pointed it out first. But things in Brussels are getting more and more surreal.EU observer reports that ministers today agreed to binding renewable energy targets and the breakup of large French and German energy monopolies. The only snag is that the binding renewable energy targets aren't actually binding and the French and German energy monopolies aren't going to be broken up. Now that's real progress.
This is why diplomats love Brussels. The endless opportunies to smooth bald disagreement into smiley happy togetherness. Adding to the weirdness the Commission have invited loads of weather presenters from around Europe to come to Brussels to become EU climate change ambassadors.
"These are credible celebrities. Many of them have meteorological training and speak with a great deal of awareness on the issues, as well as being faces that people see in their living rooms every day," an EU official said.
Careful who you invite...
EU plans ban on genocide denial, funds racist pamphlet
The German Presidency is seeking an agreement on a framework decision on racism and xenophobia which would outlaw “genocide denial” across the EU. The proposed measure says, “Each member state shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable: 'publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”. However a clause has been inserted which says that member states only have to actually punish such crimes if there is a threat to public order. The UK Government claims this clause will mean it will be able to avoid bringing in a new law as Britain
But hang on a minute. If the UK Government believes as a point of principle that (a) we don’t need a law on genocide denial and (b) that these are not questions which should be decided at European level anyway – which it is virtually impossible not to conclude if you have any belief in subsidiarity – then why are we going along with a decision which will establish a number of bad principles? Why not say no to this decision, and let each member state decide for itself whether to have such laws?
No-one should believe the Government’s line that “we are going to accept this but it won’t really change anything”.
Given the dynamic and deeply “fuzzy” qualities of EU jurisprudence, there is every chance that the conflict between the EU law making genocide denial a crime, and the lack of a corresponding UK law will become the subject of court cases. Will cases about whether Kosovo, Bosnia, Armenia etc “officially” count as genocide improve the chances of historic reconciliation? It is not easy to defend the right of deeply unpleasant people to free speech. But there is, or was, a consensus in the UK that they should have it (on the principle that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”). It will say something about the EU’s effect on our political culture if this principle is now abandoned.
Not content with giving the new extreme-right ITS group in the parliament a million euros a year, the European Parliament's budget for information is now being used to pay for a charming pamphlet from Maciej Giertych MEP, which is discussing "civilisations at war in Europe".
Apparently the clash of civilisations in question is "the Jews versus everyone else". It turns out they wanted to be in ghettos all along.
Uh-oh:
By their own will, they prefer to live a separate life, in apartheid from the surrounding communities. They form their own communes (kahals), they govern themselves by their own rules and they take care to maintain also a spatial separatness. They form the ghettos themselves (…) It was only Hitler’s germany that created the concept of forced separation, of a closed ghetto from which Jews were not allowed to leave... this clearly demonstrates that no middle ground is possible on issues differentiating civilisations
Another good reason there should be no state funding of political parties & nutters campaigning...
(htp Jean Quatremer)
But hang on a minute. If the UK Government believes as a point of principle that (a) we don’t need a law on genocide denial and (b) that these are not questions which should be decided at European level anyway – which it is virtually impossible not to conclude if you have any belief in subsidiarity – then why are we going along with a decision which will establish a number of bad principles? Why not say no to this decision, and let each member state decide for itself whether to have such laws?
No-one should believe the Government’s line that “we are going to accept this but it won’t really change anything”.
Given the dynamic and deeply “fuzzy” qualities of EU jurisprudence, there is every chance that the conflict between the EU law making genocide denial a crime, and the lack of a corresponding UK law will become the subject of court cases. Will cases about whether Kosovo, Bosnia, Armenia etc “officially” count as genocide improve the chances of historic reconciliation? It is not easy to defend the right of deeply unpleasant people to free speech. But there is, or was, a consensus in the UK that they should have it (on the principle that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”). It will say something about the EU’s effect on our political culture if this principle is now abandoned.
Not content with giving the new extreme-right ITS group in the parliament a million euros a year, the European Parliament's budget for information is now being used to pay for a charming pamphlet from Maciej Giertych MEP, which is discussing "civilisations at war in Europe".
Apparently the clash of civilisations in question is "the Jews versus everyone else". It turns out they wanted to be in ghettos all along.
Uh-oh:
By their own will, they prefer to live a separate life, in apartheid from the surrounding communities. They form their own communes (kahals), they govern themselves by their own rules and they take care to maintain also a spatial separatness. They form the ghettos themselves (…) It was only Hitler’s germany that created the concept of forced separation, of a closed ghetto from which Jews were not allowed to leave... this clearly demonstrates that no middle ground is possible on issues differentiating civilisations
Another good reason there should be no state funding of political parties & nutters campaigning...
(htp Jean Quatremer)
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
EU fraud worth £2m a day
Today's Mail has picked up on a report by the EU's anti-fraud office OLAF which calculates that the EU loses £2 million pounds of its funds a day to fraud. It put the cost of all EU fraud between 1999 and 2005 at £4.4 billion.
The EU's response to this shocking news? EU Anti-Fraud Commissioner Siim Kallas (who was himself accused of siphoning off 3.5 billion roubles when he was Governor of the Central Bank of Estonia) adopted the classic approach of half admitting that there used to be a problem and then going on to emphasise that everything is much better now. "New anti-fraud procedures have been introduced" etc.
Kallas' arguments might have been convincing if it wasn't for the fact that the auditors refused to sign off the EU's accounts for a 12th year running in November.
The auditors found, for example, that half of all cattle declared by farmers in Slovenia (in order to qualify for grants) did not exist, while a quarter of sheep and goats had similarly "disappeared". In Spain, Greece and Italy, payments worth over 2bn euros for olive oil producers were either inflated or wrong. Worse still, in Greece the statistics that are used to determine who gets what from the CAP are controlled by the Greek Farmers’ Union.
Things certainly aren't all rosy in the garden yet...
The EU's response to this shocking news? EU Anti-Fraud Commissioner Siim Kallas (who was himself accused of siphoning off 3.5 billion roubles when he was Governor of the Central Bank of Estonia) adopted the classic approach of half admitting that there used to be a problem and then going on to emphasise that everything is much better now. "New anti-fraud procedures have been introduced" etc.
Kallas' arguments might have been convincing if it wasn't for the fact that the auditors refused to sign off the EU's accounts for a 12th year running in November.
The auditors found, for example, that half of all cattle declared by farmers in Slovenia (in order to qualify for grants) did not exist, while a quarter of sheep and goats had similarly "disappeared". In Spain, Greece and Italy, payments worth over 2bn euros for olive oil producers were either inflated or wrong. Worse still, in Greece the statistics that are used to determine who gets what from the CAP are controlled by the Greek Farmers’ Union.
Things certainly aren't all rosy in the garden yet...
Monday, February 12, 2007
Brownite outriders gunning for Mandelson
Is Mandelson going to keep his job under a Brown administration?
While watching the tributes to Ian Richardson on Channel 4 news on Friday I was amused to see Nick Brown - former Labour Chief Whip and close ally of his namesake Gordon - use the occasion to score some points over an old rival.
He was asked if he ever encountered any characters like Richardson's Francis Urquhart while he was a party whip. He replied that the only person who compared to Urquhart in Machiavellian terms was Peter Mandelson, but that they were different for two key reasons.
1) Mandelson was too unpopular to be a good whip and no-one listened to him. Brown smirked as he described how poor old Peter was disliked so much by his other colleagues that the Chief Whip refused to give him a seat in the whip's office - forcing him to stand and make notes "on top of a filing cabinet".
2) Urquhart was a true-blue Tory and as such "believed in something... not a charge that could be made against Peter Mandelson".
Which made it all the more interesting to read Peter Oborne's article on Saturday about David Cameron's attempts to woo Mandelson, knowing that he won't get to keep his current job past 2009 if Gordon is still in power.
PS - the News of the World reckons that Gordon Brown is thinking about postponing the next General Election until May 2009. Apparently he is keen on combining it with the European elections in order that he can campaign on a platform of trying to make Cameron and the Tories look "soft on Europe". Does this mean that Brown will veto any attempts to bring back the EU Constitution?
While watching the tributes to Ian Richardson on Channel 4 news on Friday I was amused to see Nick Brown - former Labour Chief Whip and close ally of his namesake Gordon - use the occasion to score some points over an old rival.
He was asked if he ever encountered any characters like Richardson's Francis Urquhart while he was a party whip. He replied that the only person who compared to Urquhart in Machiavellian terms was Peter Mandelson, but that they were different for two key reasons.
1) Mandelson was too unpopular to be a good whip and no-one listened to him. Brown smirked as he described how poor old Peter was disliked so much by his other colleagues that the Chief Whip refused to give him a seat in the whip's office - forcing him to stand and make notes "on top of a filing cabinet".
2) Urquhart was a true-blue Tory and as such "believed in something... not a charge that could be made against Peter Mandelson".
Which made it all the more interesting to read Peter Oborne's article on Saturday about David Cameron's attempts to woo Mandelson, knowing that he won't get to keep his current job past 2009 if Gordon is still in power.
PS - the News of the World reckons that Gordon Brown is thinking about postponing the next General Election until May 2009. Apparently he is keen on combining it with the European elections in order that he can campaign on a platform of trying to make Cameron and the Tories look "soft on Europe". Does this mean that Brown will veto any attempts to bring back the EU Constitution?
Off topic
This is almost entirely off topic.
Remember the old joke where various poliical systems were described in terms of "you have two cows?" Someone in the City sent us a new version for various financial markets which has gone round on Bloomberg this morning... interesting to us for the City's suitibly jaded view of the EU carbon emissions market...
If Hedge Funds Kept Cows, Your Milk Would Go Sour: Mark Gilbert
2007-02-08 19:04 (New York)
Leveraged Buyouts
You have two cows. You come home from the fields one day to find Henry Kravis chatting to your spouse at the dining-room table. Two days later, you have no spouse, no farm, and no table. Two guys the size of sumo wrestlers have saddled up the cows and
are riding them around the farmyard.
Currency Market
You have two cows. China has 1 trillion cows. Guess who sets the price of milk?
Bond Market
You have two cows. One is Brazilian, one is Australian. They yield 25 quarts of milk per day. That's half as much as three years ago, when you traded your less-lactiferous German and U.S. cows for them. You are thinking of swapping for a pair of Namibian cows. They only have three legs but, hey, they produce 26 quarts per day.
Derivatives
You have two cows. You repackage five of them into a Collateralized Lactating Obligation, pay for a AAA credit rating, slice the CLO into 10 pieces and sell it to investors, skimming the cream from the milk for yourself. Three of the cows fall ill, and the credit rating plummets. You get to keep the cream.
Hedge Funds
You have two cows. A guy in an open-necked shirt drives up in his Bentley and offers to take care of them for you in return for a year's supply of steak and 50 percent of their milk. They won't be allowed to leave his compound for two years. Six months later, you have half a cow, producing sour milk. ``You have to be willing to lose rump today to get rib-eye tomorrow,'' the hedge-fund guy mumbles through a mouthful of sirloin and champagne.
Economics
Assume two cows.
Carbon-Emissions Trading
You have two cows. They produce 1.2 tons of methane gas per day. After a hefty donation to the re-election campaign of your local representative, the government gives you enough emission permits for six cows. You sell three permits, buy another cow, and apply for a European Commission grant to build a methane-gas power station.
Apple Inc.
Nobody wants your cows. You design the cutest little milk bottle. Now, everybody wants your cows.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
You have 26,467 cows. They are strapped into the milking machines 24/7. Some of them have more hay than they could ever hope to eat. Others aspire to one day having more hay than they could ever hope to eat. The cows with the most hay end up with
big government jobs.
Pension-Fund Management
You have two cows. How boring is that? You pay a month's supply of milk to a consultant, who advises you to sell one cow and buy two aardvarks instead. The aardvarks die. The consultant charges you four months of your (now reduced) milk supply and advises you to sell half of your remaining cow and buy a wombat. The wombat dies. The consultant charges eight months of milk for a copy of his new report, ``Two-Cow Strategies for Alleviating
the Impending Pensions Crisis.''
Russian Energy
You have two cows. Comrade, those cows are an environmental hazard. We suggest you hand one of them over to us.
Interest-Rate Swaps
You have two cows. You pledge one of them to me as collateral in a swap for some of my pigs. I pledge the cow to my neighbor as collateral in a swap for some of his sheep. He pledges the cow to his cousin as collateral in a swap for some of his cousin's goats. Better pray the livestock market doesn't crash and we have to try and round up that cow.
Commodities
You have lots of stocks and bonds, but no cows. Are you crazy? Cows are the hot new market. Here, buy this exchange-traded cow futures contract. It can't lose. It gained 40 percent in the past six months.
Gold
You have two cows. You wear a cap you made out of tin foil so that the tiny black helicopters can't read your thoughts. You spend your days blogging about how the government's decision to abandon the cattle standard in 1933 was part of a global conspiracy by the world's central banks to destroy the value of your herd.
I wonder if anyone can add to that?
Remember the old joke where various poliical systems were described in terms of "you have two cows?" Someone in the City sent us a new version for various financial markets which has gone round on Bloomberg this morning... interesting to us for the City's suitibly jaded view of the EU carbon emissions market...
If Hedge Funds Kept Cows, Your Milk Would Go Sour: Mark Gilbert
2007-02-08 19:04 (New York)
Leveraged Buyouts
You have two cows. You come home from the fields one day to find Henry Kravis chatting to your spouse at the dining-room table. Two days later, you have no spouse, no farm, and no table. Two guys the size of sumo wrestlers have saddled up the cows and
are riding them around the farmyard.
Currency Market
You have two cows. China has 1 trillion cows. Guess who sets the price of milk?
Bond Market
You have two cows. One is Brazilian, one is Australian. They yield 25 quarts of milk per day. That's half as much as three years ago, when you traded your less-lactiferous German and U.S. cows for them. You are thinking of swapping for a pair of Namibian cows. They only have three legs but, hey, they produce 26 quarts per day.
Derivatives
You have two cows. You repackage five of them into a Collateralized Lactating Obligation, pay for a AAA credit rating, slice the CLO into 10 pieces and sell it to investors, skimming the cream from the milk for yourself. Three of the cows fall ill, and the credit rating plummets. You get to keep the cream.
Hedge Funds
You have two cows. A guy in an open-necked shirt drives up in his Bentley and offers to take care of them for you in return for a year's supply of steak and 50 percent of their milk. They won't be allowed to leave his compound for two years. Six months later, you have half a cow, producing sour milk. ``You have to be willing to lose rump today to get rib-eye tomorrow,'' the hedge-fund guy mumbles through a mouthful of sirloin and champagne.
Economics
Assume two cows.
Carbon-Emissions Trading
You have two cows. They produce 1.2 tons of methane gas per day. After a hefty donation to the re-election campaign of your local representative, the government gives you enough emission permits for six cows. You sell three permits, buy another cow, and apply for a European Commission grant to build a methane-gas power station.
Apple Inc.
Nobody wants your cows. You design the cutest little milk bottle. Now, everybody wants your cows.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
You have 26,467 cows. They are strapped into the milking machines 24/7. Some of them have more hay than they could ever hope to eat. Others aspire to one day having more hay than they could ever hope to eat. The cows with the most hay end up with
big government jobs.
Pension-Fund Management
You have two cows. How boring is that? You pay a month's supply of milk to a consultant, who advises you to sell one cow and buy two aardvarks instead. The aardvarks die. The consultant charges you four months of your (now reduced) milk supply and advises you to sell half of your remaining cow and buy a wombat. The wombat dies. The consultant charges eight months of milk for a copy of his new report, ``Two-Cow Strategies for Alleviating
the Impending Pensions Crisis.''
Russian Energy
You have two cows. Comrade, those cows are an environmental hazard. We suggest you hand one of them over to us.
Interest-Rate Swaps
You have two cows. You pledge one of them to me as collateral in a swap for some of my pigs. I pledge the cow to my neighbor as collateral in a swap for some of his sheep. He pledges the cow to his cousin as collateral in a swap for some of his cousin's goats. Better pray the livestock market doesn't crash and we have to try and round up that cow.
Commodities
You have lots of stocks and bonds, but no cows. Are you crazy? Cows are the hot new market. Here, buy this exchange-traded cow futures contract. It can't lose. It gained 40 percent in the past six months.
Gold
You have two cows. You wear a cap you made out of tin foil so that the tiny black helicopters can't read your thoughts. You spend your days blogging about how the government's decision to abandon the cattle standard in 1933 was part of a global conspiracy by the world's central banks to destroy the value of your herd.
I wonder if anyone can add to that?
Friday, February 09, 2007
More email banter with Corbett
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Corbett MEP
Sent: 09 February 2007 17:13
Subject: Re:
Thank you for your email from earlier today.
Interesting that you found my reference to the lies and hypocrisy of "eurosceptics" as a reference to you, and I take it that it is now official that Openeurope is a partisan eurosceptic outfit.
Granted, I had not looked at your report on the Financial Services Action Plan in which you say (and I will have a look) that you are specific about some pieces of legislation which you do not think are worth keeping. If so, I am sure you will agree that this is the
exception rather than the rule in the bulk of general eurosceptic criticisms about European legislation.
Interestingly, this very morning, I read in a newspaper belonging to the Economist group, the headline "The EU's Financial Services Action Plan has been one of the more successful exercises in European integration", so there are obviously different perspectives on this one.
I am not sure why you think I am kidding when I say "a large proportion"of EU regulation is designed to cut bureaucracy: I did not say "all" EU regulation. Obviously, some legislation pursues other purposes. To take a topical example, the Commission's proposals this week on cutting emissions from cars is one that primarily pursues an environmental
objective - though I hope you would agree that it would make sense to have a common standard in our common market on this point rather than 27 different ones?
I would also be interested to hear your views on the question in my blog piece (delighted you are reading it!) on trade marks and whether you agree with the idea that it would be useful to consolidate and codify EU legislation.
I stand by my comment that it is rather simplistic to say that the EU has "imposed" unwanted and unnecessary legislation on member states when it is the member states themselves, in the EU Council, which approve or not the legislation in question, and when a very large majority (if not unanimity) is required to adopt such legislation. This is quite contrary to the impression that eurosceptic newspapers are all too willing to promote, that it is the European Commission that imposes legislation.
As to the idea that something will slip through because Gordon Brown was away for the birth of his son, this allegation beggars belief in that, if a minister cannot go to a meeting of the Council he is always replaced by another minister and Britain would certainly not have been
unrepresented.
As to the takeover directive, you may recall that this fell on a tied vote in the European Parliament. Had some of the eurosceptic conservatives who were in the building but not present at the vote been there to support their party's official position of supporting the
directive, it would have been adopted.
All that being said, thanks for sending me your comments. I do welcome comments and I do respond to all comments received. I'm off to have my cup of tea now!
Best wishes,
Richard Corbett MEP
-----Original Message-----
To: 'richard@richardcorbett.org.uk'
From: Open Europe
Subject: RE:
Many thanks for your speedy reply. Never let it be said that MEPs aren't listening.
In fairness, it's in a piece which is about us and a report we did. Or is it "the lies and hypocrisy" of some other group that is making you feel nauseous? In which case we accept your apology unreservedly. :-)
Yes of course - when Brown was away he was replaced by Paul Boateng at short notice. There was then a snap vote, despite him requesting that there wasn't one. That was the point at which MIFID was laden down with all kinds of protectionist and unnecessary requirements, and those who wanted real market opening spent the rest of the process trying to recover lost ground.
The car standard for emissions is an interesting case in point. Leaving aside the question of the meaningfulness of the "average" targets that are now being discussed, and imagining that we really were going to set a "hard" environmental target - would that work?
Are we going to stop cars with worse carbon-mileage coming into the EU from outside? If not, aren't you just going to relocate production of all these types of vehicles to outside the EU?
Re: comments on your blog - is that a no?
Best wishes
From: Richard Corbett MEP
Sent: 09 February 2007 17:13
Subject: Re:
Thank you for your email from earlier today.
Interesting that you found my reference to the lies and hypocrisy of "eurosceptics" as a reference to you, and I take it that it is now official that Openeurope is a partisan eurosceptic outfit.
Granted, I had not looked at your report on the Financial Services Action Plan in which you say (and I will have a look) that you are specific about some pieces of legislation which you do not think are worth keeping. If so, I am sure you will agree that this is the
exception rather than the rule in the bulk of general eurosceptic criticisms about European legislation.
Interestingly, this very morning, I read in a newspaper belonging to the Economist group, the headline "The EU's Financial Services Action Plan has been one of the more successful exercises in European integration", so there are obviously different perspectives on this one.
I am not sure why you think I am kidding when I say "a large proportion"of EU regulation is designed to cut bureaucracy: I did not say "all" EU regulation. Obviously, some legislation pursues other purposes. To take a topical example, the Commission's proposals this week on cutting emissions from cars is one that primarily pursues an environmental
objective - though I hope you would agree that it would make sense to have a common standard in our common market on this point rather than 27 different ones?
I would also be interested to hear your views on the question in my blog piece (delighted you are reading it!) on trade marks and whether you agree with the idea that it would be useful to consolidate and codify EU legislation.
I stand by my comment that it is rather simplistic to say that the EU has "imposed" unwanted and unnecessary legislation on member states when it is the member states themselves, in the EU Council, which approve or not the legislation in question, and when a very large majority (if not unanimity) is required to adopt such legislation. This is quite contrary to the impression that eurosceptic newspapers are all too willing to promote, that it is the European Commission that imposes legislation.
As to the idea that something will slip through because Gordon Brown was away for the birth of his son, this allegation beggars belief in that, if a minister cannot go to a meeting of the Council he is always replaced by another minister and Britain would certainly not have been
unrepresented.
As to the takeover directive, you may recall that this fell on a tied vote in the European Parliament. Had some of the eurosceptic conservatives who were in the building but not present at the vote been there to support their party's official position of supporting the
directive, it would have been adopted.
All that being said, thanks for sending me your comments. I do welcome comments and I do respond to all comments received. I'm off to have my cup of tea now!
Best wishes,
Richard Corbett MEP
-----Original Message-----
To: 'richard@richardcorbett.org.uk'
From: Open Europe
Subject: RE:
Many thanks for your speedy reply. Never let it be said that MEPs aren't listening.
In fairness, it's in a piece which is about us and a report we did. Or is it "the lies and hypocrisy" of some other group that is making you feel nauseous? In which case we accept your apology unreservedly. :-)
Yes of course - when Brown was away he was replaced by Paul Boateng at short notice. There was then a snap vote, despite him requesting that there wasn't one. That was the point at which MIFID was laden down with all kinds of protectionist and unnecessary requirements, and those who wanted real market opening spent the rest of the process trying to recover lost ground.
The car standard for emissions is an interesting case in point. Leaving aside the question of the meaningfulness of the "average" targets that are now being discussed, and imagining that we really were going to set a "hard" environmental target - would that work?
Are we going to stop cars with worse carbon-mileage coming into the EU from outside? If not, aren't you just going to relocate production of all these types of vehicles to outside the EU?
Re: comments on your blog - is that a no?
Best wishes
An email to Richard Corbett MEP
From: Open Europe
Sent: 09 February 2007 11:56
To: Richard Corbett MEP
Subject: Your blog
Dear Richard
Regarding our report on the growing burden of EU regulation - I'm sorry that "our lies and hypocrisy make you sick". As with your earlier post about how EU-critics are "like Goebbels", it made us worry that you might have been overdoing it a bit lately. Perhaps you should have a nice cup of tea and calm down.
You mention that we are “rarely specific” about what legislation we do and don’t want repealed. I’m not sure that’s fair. For example on our website you can find a 120 page report on the Financial Services Action Plan, in which we look (in a pretty high level of detail to be fair) at which pieces of legislation are and are not worth keeping. We also look how individual bits of legislation might be reformed.
You argue that "a large proportion of this EU regulation is designed precisely to cut bureaucracy and red-tape for businesses by setting a common EU norm to replace 27 divergent national standards in the EU's single market."
You have to be kidding. Whether it is serious (like rules on working time), or ridiculous (making 12 year olds kids sit in car seats) a lot of EU legislation is not replacing a national standard but creating a new regulation.
Even where it is supposedly harmonisation, the process of reconciling 27 regulations often leads to a sort of "highest common denominator" approach: every national requirement lumped together - with regulation across the whole economy increased as an outcome. What about mutual recognition?
You say that it's "somewhat simplistic" to say that the EU "imposes" regulations by majority vote. But it happens all the time. Think about Gordon Brown being ambushed in the vote over MIFID when he was away at the birth of his son. Think about the number of things we have dumped (like the takeover directive, principled commitment to free trade) in order to try and hold the line on working hours.
Anyway, we would have left you a reply on the blog but you don't seem to have comments turned on for some reason. Perhaps you might turn them on, in the interests of dialogue rather than monologue?
Have a good weekend.
Sent: 09 February 2007 11:56
To: Richard Corbett MEP
Subject: Your blog
Dear Richard
Regarding our report on the growing burden of EU regulation - I'm sorry that "our lies and hypocrisy make you sick". As with your earlier post about how EU-critics are "like Goebbels", it made us worry that you might have been overdoing it a bit lately. Perhaps you should have a nice cup of tea and calm down.
You mention that we are “rarely specific” about what legislation we do and don’t want repealed. I’m not sure that’s fair. For example on our website you can find a 120 page report on the Financial Services Action Plan, in which we look (in a pretty high level of detail to be fair) at which pieces of legislation are and are not worth keeping. We also look how individual bits of legislation might be reformed.
You argue that "a large proportion of this EU regulation is designed precisely to cut bureaucracy and red-tape for businesses by setting a common EU norm to replace 27 divergent national standards in the EU's single market."
You have to be kidding. Whether it is serious (like rules on working time), or ridiculous (making 12 year olds kids sit in car seats) a lot of EU legislation is not replacing a national standard but creating a new regulation.
Even where it is supposedly harmonisation, the process of reconciling 27 regulations often leads to a sort of "highest common denominator" approach: every national requirement lumped together - with regulation across the whole economy increased as an outcome. What about mutual recognition?
You say that it's "somewhat simplistic" to say that the EU "imposes" regulations by majority vote. But it happens all the time. Think about Gordon Brown being ambushed in the vote over MIFID when he was away at the birth of his son. Think about the number of things we have dumped (like the takeover directive, principled commitment to free trade) in order to try and hold the line on working hours.
Anyway, we would have left you a reply on the blog but you don't seem to have comments turned on for some reason. Perhaps you might turn them on, in the interests of dialogue rather than monologue?
Have a good weekend.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
tax cooperation
There are a bunch of interesting things in the Treasury's review of the internal market (which comes ahead of the Commission's own review in March).
What exactly is this passage on tax "cooperation" about?
Looking ahead, in an increasingly global economy, no country will be able to set its tax policy in isolation from other countries and so cooperation between countries in the EU and elsewhere will important in ensuring that national tax systems can coexist effectively. This will involve continuously working together to drive down costs to business, improve transparency, exchange information and tackle fraud. The key is to preserve national flexibility, while strengthening the effective cooperation between Member States, rather than creating rigid structures incapable of adapting to the evolving demands of globalisation.
It's certainly a change from Gordon Brown's previous attitude to tax coordination (i.e. "no, no, no"). Presumably they are trying to play nice because they need the Commission's permission to take action on VAT carousel fraud.
What exactly is this passage on tax "cooperation" about?
Looking ahead, in an increasingly global economy, no country will be able to set its tax policy in isolation from other countries and so cooperation between countries in the EU and elsewhere will important in ensuring that national tax systems can coexist effectively. This will involve continuously working together to drive down costs to business, improve transparency, exchange information and tackle fraud. The key is to preserve national flexibility, while strengthening the effective cooperation between Member States, rather than creating rigid structures incapable of adapting to the evolving demands of globalisation.
It's certainly a change from Gordon Brown's previous attitude to tax coordination (i.e. "no, no, no"). Presumably they are trying to play nice because they need the Commission's permission to take action on VAT carousel fraud.
EU to harmonise environmental crimes
According to the FT the EU Commission will tomorrow put forward a proposal to require member states to punish environmental crimes with harmonised penalties. The new law is the result of the controversial ECJ ruling in September 2005, which said for the first time that the European Community is able to set criminal penalties and offences if it is necessary to achieve one of the fundamental objectives of the treaties.
It will be interesting to see what happens to this proposal. 11 of the then 15 EU member states fought in court against giving the EU Commission the power to set criminal law for member states. After the ruling the British government’s line was: “We firmly believed it was inappropriate to harmonise criminal law at EU level. We believe criminal law is a matter for member states co-operating intergovernmentally.” Either the UK and others will be forced by the majority to back down from this stance, which would be a major u-turn and a watershed in EU politics, or this proposal will end up in deadlock in council.
It will be interesting to see what happens to this proposal. 11 of the then 15 EU member states fought in court against giving the EU Commission the power to set criminal law for member states. After the ruling the British government’s line was: “We firmly believed it was inappropriate to harmonise criminal law at EU level. We believe criminal law is a matter for member states co-operating intergovernmentally.” Either the UK and others will be forced by the majority to back down from this stance, which would be a major u-turn and a watershed in EU politics, or this proposal will end up in deadlock in council.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Hyperactive europropaganda
The most mental EU funded propaganda ever? Why yes, we think it might be.
http://www.europocket.tv/
After approx 3.5 seconds of hyperactive, cackhanded, fake "yoof" TV your eyes start to hurt.
http://www.europocket.tv/
After approx 3.5 seconds of hyperactive, cackhanded, fake "yoof" TV your eyes start to hurt.
More bad news for Sego...
Iconic French farmer and anti-globalisation activist Jose Bove today announced he is running for president of France, a move that could further split the country's divided left.
Bove, who gained fame in 1999 for ransacking a McDonald's restaurant near his home in southern France and has encouraged the destruction of genetically modified crops, said his campaign would focus on protecting the environment and fighting globalization
"It is time to decree an electoral uprising against economic liberalism," Bove said.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The WTO goes back to the future
There's talk about restarting WTO talks soon. But according to the IHT the new talks will happen on a product by product-by-product basis, rather than the across-the-board formulas which have been discussed so far.
That would take the WTO way back the way that it (or rather the GATT) used to work in 1947. Back when crucial trade talks used to take place in glamorous locations like Torquay, trade ministers got sick of endless haggling over individual tariffs and decided to start hacking right across all tariffs with "formula cuts" (say, a 10% reduction in all tariffs). That simple change turbocharged the process of globalisation.
Now, thanks to endless intransigence from the EU (and some others) we are back to square one. Hmmmph.
At least some people seem to see the problem for the EU: Jean-Claude Trichet noted that "Intra-EU trade is going fast [but] extra-EU trade is going faster."
That would take the WTO way back the way that it (or rather the GATT) used to work in 1947. Back when crucial trade talks used to take place in glamorous locations like Torquay, trade ministers got sick of endless haggling over individual tariffs and decided to start hacking right across all tariffs with "formula cuts" (say, a 10% reduction in all tariffs). That simple change turbocharged the process of globalisation.
Now, thanks to endless intransigence from the EU (and some others) we are back to square one. Hmmmph.
At least some people seem to see the problem for the EU: Jean-Claude Trichet noted that "Intra-EU trade is going fast [but] extra-EU trade is going faster."
Tough on smokers, (not so) tough on the causes of smokers
Is the EU attempting to pull off some sort of cunning triangulation strategy on smoking?1) Yesterday EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou announced that he wanted to create a "smoke free Europe". He called for smoking in public places to be outlawed across the continent within 2 years.
2) Last week the British Government tells parliament that the EU spent nearly €1 billion on tobacco subsidies in 2006. EU subsidised farmers grew enough tobacco to produce over 7 million fags.
Perhaps - given that over half of the EU's fags were dumped on developing countries - the EU (like BAT) has moved on and is now happy poisoning non-Europeans instead.
Sherpa roundup
Jan Siefert, leader of the "Young European Federalists" has pulled together a list of the people taking part in the behind closed doors talks on the future of the EU Constitution.
If you can ignore the scary pic his blog has some interesting snippets on it.
Interesting were the comments of Tamas Szucs, head of strategy in DG Comm and just returned from Berlin. He emphasised the German’s commitment to have a Constitutional text revised already by the end of 2007.
It gives you an interesting flavour of planet Brussels.
If you can ignore the scary pic his blog has some interesting snippets on it.
Interesting were the comments of Tamas Szucs, head of strategy in DG Comm and just returned from Berlin. He emphasised the German’s commitment to have a Constitutional text revised already by the end of 2007.
It gives you an interesting flavour of planet Brussels.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Le Freak, C'est Chic... Freak out!
Just as Ségolène Royal's campaign appears to be tanking, rocked by a series of gaffes, her smooth rival Nicolas Sarkozy brings out the big guns.
On a new website aimed at catching the youth vote he transforms himself into a moon-walking, jive-talking Disco Sarko... he looks like a winner already.
On a new website aimed at catching the youth vote he transforms himself into a moon-walking, jive-talking Disco Sarko... he looks like a winner already.
Hat-tip the Guardian
Monday, January 29, 2007
Mad as a bag of spiders
From time to time we get some rather peculiar correspondence from pro-euro fanatics. Invariably they are banged up on a type writer/ in green ink/ both.
I just couldn't resist sharing this latest one with you, which was sent in response to our "hidden" EU jobs story...
From: Benoît Foulon [mailto:xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 29 January 2007 16:07
To: Paul Stephenson
Subject: Brussels’ Hidden Employees...
At least Brussels creates jobs contrary to the 'right' which lets people literally die in the streets.
I just couldn't resist sharing this latest one with you, which was sent in response to our "hidden" EU jobs story...
From: Benoît Foulon [mailto:xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 29 January 2007 16:07
To: Paul Stephenson
Subject: Brussels’ Hidden Employees...
At least Brussels creates jobs contrary to the 'right' which lets people literally die in the streets.
How many people work for the EU?
An old EU joke: "How many people work in Brussels?" "About half of them."
For years groups like Britain in Europe have been saying that 'only' around 20,000 people work for the EU. We decided to check that up, and there is a piece in the Sunday Telegraph about it.
The European Commission's website says that it employs 25,000 people. The French Government says all the EU institutions put together employ about 35,000. In a recent parliamentary answer in the UK, the Government plumped for 37,000 for the EU as a whole.
However, if you can find them, the official figures from the EU's "establishment plans" for 2007 (on page 6 of the DG Admin 'statistical bulletin') show that there are 42,548 temporary and permanent EU officials. In addition, it lists 8,123 "external" Commission staff, which are staff paid on appropriations - contract agents, seconded national experts, technical and administrative assistance etc, giving a total of over 50,000.
However the Commission's table does not list any external staff employed by the other institutions and the agencies. Since the summer we've been trying to find out these numbers, which has proved a bit of a nightmare. Some agencies, such as the European Police College have refused to supply the numbers, and others have sent pretty prickly emails. One said that we had to send them a "motivated letter" (Our motive: we want to know and it's our money). However, despite all that, the information we've managed to uncover shows a significant number of 'hidden' employees.
We've found, for example, that the European Parliament has at least an extra 2,254 staff working for it not listed on the statistical bulletin (this figure is likely to have increased since it was supplied back in June, given that the official numbers of staff have gone up).
And there are lots of "off balance sheet" staff in the balooning number of EU agencies too. We're still waiting for some further figures and clarification, but based on the Commission's statistical bulletin, plus what additional figures we have for external staff, for the other institutions and agencies, the EU has around 54,000 staff.
And there may well be more on top of this. The Commission's confusing table doesn't list second and third 'pillar' agencies such as Europol (which has a staff of 600), or the European Defence Agency (which has a staff of at least 94), or the EU Satellite Centre.
Trying to make a comparison with the size of the UK civil service isn't easy, because so many of the EU numbers are just not published. However, we found that while there are 4,640 Senior Civil Servants in the Government (earning £54K upwards), there are almost 10,000 officials in the Commission alone earning a comparable salary. We only have the salary grades for the Commission, but if one assumes that the same proportion (34%) of all EU staff (54,000 or so) were on roughly this salary scale, then there will be around 18,000 members of EU staff on Senior Civil Service pay (so it's nearly four times as big).
What's going on? Why so many new agencies?
One factor is the EU agencies' role in the development of US-style 'pork-barrel' spending in the EU: "You get the food standards agency, we get the gender institute" etc. This motive for expansion is made incredibly overt during talks on the budget.
For example, during the negotiations on the new financial perspective the EU's budget for administration (and setting up lots of lovely new agencies) was increased from 49.3 billion euros to 50.3 billion euros, between the publication of the United Kingdom Presidency Proposal on 14 December and the publication of the UK's final proposals on 19 December.
Amazingly the UK Government actually admitted in a parliamentary answer that it had agreed to the extra €1bn as a kind of sweetener:
"A number of changes, including the change to the budget for administration costs,were necessary to the UK presidency proposal of14 December in order to generate a political consensus for an agreement on the 2007-13 Financial Perspective at the European Council on 15-17 December"
The growth of EU agencies is also an example of the EU's turn towards populism: price controls on text messages, putative 'bans' on violent computer games etc. The agencies allow the EU to be seen to be "doing something" in a whole range of new areas, from food safety to human rights.
Bizarrely, the EU is now also investing in advertising its agencies - a glossy new 'EU agencies campaign' tells people "Whatever you do - we work for you", and has placed adverts in in-flight magazines on some of Europe's biggest airlines, boasting of agency staff of "more than 2,500" (actually it's more like 4,500) and "significant budgetary resources." (why doesn't the civil service just start plugging itself too?)
Of course, the real point about the EU is not the number of people who work for it. Every day literally thousands of national civil servants descend on Brussels to take part in its hundreds of expert committees, and the drawing up of regulations, directives and decisions which affect nearly half a billion people. The power of the EU doesn't just depend on employing a lot of pen pushers, but on imposing a whole supranational legal system.
For years groups like Britain in Europe have been saying that 'only' around 20,000 people work for the EU. We decided to check that up, and there is a piece in the Sunday Telegraph about it.
The European Commission's website says that it employs 25,000 people. The French Government says all the EU institutions put together employ about 35,000. In a recent parliamentary answer in the UK, the Government plumped for 37,000 for the EU as a whole.
However, if you can find them, the official figures from the EU's "establishment plans" for 2007 (on page 6 of the DG Admin 'statistical bulletin') show that there are 42,548 temporary and permanent EU officials. In addition, it lists 8,123 "external" Commission staff, which are staff paid on appropriations - contract agents, seconded national experts, technical and administrative assistance etc, giving a total of over 50,000.
However the Commission's table does not list any external staff employed by the other institutions and the agencies. Since the summer we've been trying to find out these numbers, which has proved a bit of a nightmare. Some agencies, such as the European Police College have refused to supply the numbers, and others have sent pretty prickly emails. One said that we had to send them a "motivated letter" (Our motive: we want to know and it's our money). However, despite all that, the information we've managed to uncover shows a significant number of 'hidden' employees.
We've found, for example, that the European Parliament has at least an extra 2,254 staff working for it not listed on the statistical bulletin (this figure is likely to have increased since it was supplied back in June, given that the official numbers of staff have gone up).
And there are lots of "off balance sheet" staff in the balooning number of EU agencies too. We're still waiting for some further figures and clarification, but based on the Commission's statistical bulletin, plus what additional figures we have for external staff, for the other institutions and agencies, the EU has around 54,000 staff.
And there may well be more on top of this. The Commission's confusing table doesn't list second and third 'pillar' agencies such as Europol (which has a staff of 600), or the European Defence Agency (which has a staff of at least 94), or the EU Satellite Centre.
Trying to make a comparison with the size of the UK civil service isn't easy, because so many of the EU numbers are just not published. However, we found that while there are 4,640 Senior Civil Servants in the Government (earning £54K upwards), there are almost 10,000 officials in the Commission alone earning a comparable salary. We only have the salary grades for the Commission, but if one assumes that the same proportion (34%) of all EU staff (54,000 or so) were on roughly this salary scale, then there will be around 18,000 members of EU staff on Senior Civil Service pay (so it's nearly four times as big).
What's going on? Why so many new agencies?
One factor is the EU agencies' role in the development of US-style 'pork-barrel' spending in the EU: "You get the food standards agency, we get the gender institute" etc. This motive for expansion is made incredibly overt during talks on the budget.
For example, during the negotiations on the new financial perspective the EU's budget for administration (and setting up lots of lovely new agencies) was increased from 49.3 billion euros to 50.3 billion euros, between the publication of the United Kingdom Presidency Proposal on 14 December and the publication of the UK's final proposals on 19 December.
Amazingly the UK Government actually admitted in a parliamentary answer that it had agreed to the extra €1bn as a kind of sweetener:
"A number of changes, including the change to the budget for administration costs,were necessary to the UK presidency proposal of14 December in order to generate a political consensus for an agreement on the 2007-13 Financial Perspective at the European Council on 15-17 December"
The growth of EU agencies is also an example of the EU's turn towards populism: price controls on text messages, putative 'bans' on violent computer games etc. The agencies allow the EU to be seen to be "doing something" in a whole range of new areas, from food safety to human rights.
Bizarrely, the EU is now also investing in advertising its agencies - a glossy new 'EU agencies campaign' tells people "Whatever you do - we work for you", and has placed adverts in in-flight magazines on some of Europe's biggest airlines, boasting of agency staff of "more than 2,500" (actually it's more like 4,500) and "significant budgetary resources." (why doesn't the civil service just start plugging itself too?)
Of course, the real point about the EU is not the number of people who work for it. Every day literally thousands of national civil servants descend on Brussels to take part in its hundreds of expert committees, and the drawing up of regulations, directives and decisions which affect nearly half a billion people. The power of the EU doesn't just depend on employing a lot of pen pushers, but on imposing a whole supranational legal system.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Dirty bomb anyone?
A Russian man has been caught trying to sell weapons grade uranium in Georgia. Oleg Khinsagov was arrested with 100g of uranium wrapped in a plastic bag in his pocket - he boasted that he had another 4kg of the stuff back at his flat. This is easily enough to make a small bomb - the Hiroshima bomb was made from 50kg of similar grade uranium. Luckily the buyers were Georgian secret services masquerading as Muslim terrorists from "a serious organisation". The FBI - who were also involved in the sting operation - claimed that the uranium must have been smuggled out of the Soviet Union within the last decade.
Given that this is all scary stuff, it seems strange that it was pretty much ignored by the British press. Hats off then to the Indie for being the only national newspaper to print the story - even if it was on page 27 (the first three pages were dedicated to a 'splash' on "foul smelling" British litter being sent to China).
Given that this is all scary stuff, it seems strange that it was pretty much ignored by the British press. Hats off then to the Indie for being the only national newspaper to print the story - even if it was on page 27 (the first three pages were dedicated to a 'splash' on "foul smelling" British litter being sent to China).
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Swedish secrets uncovered
The Swedish press has been awash with rumours that Angela Merkel sent a letter to the Swedish Government which - among other things - set out how the Swedes could go about avoiding holding a referendum on the EU Constitution. The intrigue was largely created by the Swedish Government's insistence that the letter was secret and should remain confidential - running counter to the convention that all official documents are should be made public.
Swedish online news site Europaportalen has got hold of a leaked copy of the letter. Unfortunately, as with most of these things, the reality isn't quite as interesting as the rumours. Merkel is simply asking Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt to appoint an adviser "who enjoys your confidence" to take part in the discussions which will draw up the Berlin Declaration and will attempt to revive the EU Constitution.
Of greater interest is the "tentative schedule" that Merkel attaches to the letter. The "focal points" (advisers/sherpas) will focus on drawing up the declaration until March. Attention will only turn to the Constitution after that - first with a gathering of heads of government "on the margins of the celebrations". The Germans are obviously hoping to ram the thing through in under three months - although much will depend on the outcome of the French Presidential elections.
The Germans are reported to be pulling out the diplomatic stops - they have already identified the Poles, Czechs and the Brits as the problem countries and are threatening them with "isolation" unless they fall into line. It should be an interesting few months...
Swedish online news site Europaportalen has got hold of a leaked copy of the letter. Unfortunately, as with most of these things, the reality isn't quite as interesting as the rumours. Merkel is simply asking Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt to appoint an adviser "who enjoys your confidence" to take part in the discussions which will draw up the Berlin Declaration and will attempt to revive the EU Constitution.
Of greater interest is the "tentative schedule" that Merkel attaches to the letter. The "focal points" (advisers/sherpas) will focus on drawing up the declaration until March. Attention will only turn to the Constitution after that - first with a gathering of heads of government "on the margins of the celebrations". The Germans are obviously hoping to ram the thing through in under three months - although much will depend on the outcome of the French Presidential elections.
The Germans are reported to be pulling out the diplomatic stops - they have already identified the Poles, Czechs and the Brits as the problem countries and are threatening them with "isolation" unless they fall into line. It should be an interesting few months...
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
EU Constitution deal - the UK position?
More nuggets from the Fabian conference, this time from Charles Grant, who has played an influential role in developing New Labour's EU policy.
Grant suggested that the Government is looking to give up control of Britain's borders once it has introduced ID cards:
"I have heard British officials say that when we in Britain have ID cards then Britain would benefit greatly from joining Schengen and abolishing passport controls."
He was then asked what he would propose as a compromise package on the Constitution. He said:
"I would propose being practical and sign up to something that Gordon Brown could be persuaded to agree to. Basically the key for me is not to transfer new powers to the EU. I think that Britain will not accept more QMV unless they can opt-out of it."
He also said that the UK Foreign Office is very keen to see the introduction of an EU Foreign Minister, EU Diplomatic Service and EU President. He stressed that "they won't accept the Charter of Fundamental Rights, that is an absolute no... the British government will never sign up to that. It's got to be a pretty mini-IGC [Inter-Governmental Conference] to get the British on board."
Grant suggested that the Government is looking to give up control of Britain's borders once it has introduced ID cards:
"I have heard British officials say that when we in Britain have ID cards then Britain would benefit greatly from joining Schengen and abolishing passport controls."
He was then asked what he would propose as a compromise package on the Constitution. He said:
"I would propose being practical and sign up to something that Gordon Brown could be persuaded to agree to. Basically the key for me is not to transfer new powers to the EU. I think that Britain will not accept more QMV unless they can opt-out of it."
He also said that the UK Foreign Office is very keen to see the introduction of an EU Foreign Minister, EU Diplomatic Service and EU President. He stressed that "they won't accept the Charter of Fundamental Rights, that is an absolute no... the British government will never sign up to that. It's got to be a pretty mini-IGC [Inter-Governmental Conference] to get the British on board."
Once Byrned, twice shy
Just got back from a Fabian Society conference on "making EU enlargement work." The event turned into a bit of a love-in for good old Geoff Hoon. The acting head of the Romanian Embassy Raduta Matache declared "If only there were more ministers like Geoff Hoon". Well, he does need all the loving he can get at the moment.
But Hoon wasn't generous enough to share the love with his own governmental colleagues. When asked about the new system for "managing" migration from Bulgaria and Romania he mumbled something about the "transitional problems" of the last accession and likened them to the experiences of provincial towns which have been flooded with students in recent years.
Tellingly, he refused to publicly support the limits that have been placed on Bulgarian and Romanian workers instead saying, "I see [Immigration Minister] Liam Byrne is speaking this afternoon - perhaps you should ask him about that." According to one insider Geoff and Liam had "stand-up rows" over the issue... Hoon is obviously still feeling a wee bit sensitive about it.
But Hoon wasn't generous enough to share the love with his own governmental colleagues. When asked about the new system for "managing" migration from Bulgaria and Romania he mumbled something about the "transitional problems" of the last accession and likened them to the experiences of provincial towns which have been flooded with students in recent years.
Tellingly, he refused to publicly support the limits that have been placed on Bulgarian and Romanian workers instead saying, "I see [Immigration Minister] Liam Byrne is speaking this afternoon - perhaps you should ask him about that." According to one insider Geoff and Liam had "stand-up rows" over the issue... Hoon is obviously still feeling a wee bit sensitive about it.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Operation Red Dragon
Oh no - another appalling EU cartoon.
The Liberal Democrats' group in the European Parliament - ALDE - have produced an online comic strip about the life of an MEP.
It aims to "illustrate the activities and processes of the European Parliament in a more accessible and enjoyable format than studying text books about the EU." It describes what all frustrated MEPs wish they were doing - getting involved in exciting issues of global importance.
"Set in the European Parliament and the fictitious country Fang Dong, “Operation Red Dragon” is the fictional story of Elisa Correr, an MEP who gets embroiled in a risky and fascinating adventure whilst in pursuit of her parliamentary activities."
We recommend that you read the whole thing, but if you're just in it for the laughs you only need to check out the last page.
Basic plot spoiler: heroic MEP takes nasty national governments to task over their dodgy deals with the completely fabricated and evil far-Eastern dictatorship "Fang Dong". A threat is made on her life but she prevails and the story ends with our heroine uttering the immortal line:
"I request that the vote be Deferred and that my report be sent to the Parliamentary Committee until further details of the Council’s proposal are known!" [Cue general rejoicing]
The Liberal Democrats' group in the European Parliament - ALDE - have produced an online comic strip about the life of an MEP.
It aims to "illustrate the activities and processes of the European Parliament in a more accessible and enjoyable format than studying text books about the EU." It describes what all frustrated MEPs wish they were doing - getting involved in exciting issues of global importance.
"Set in the European Parliament and the fictitious country Fang Dong, “Operation Red Dragon” is the fictional story of Elisa Correr, an MEP who gets embroiled in a risky and fascinating adventure whilst in pursuit of her parliamentary activities."
We recommend that you read the whole thing, but if you're just in it for the laughs you only need to check out the last page.
Basic plot spoiler: heroic MEP takes nasty national governments to task over their dodgy deals with the completely fabricated and evil far-Eastern dictatorship "Fang Dong". A threat is made on her life but she prevails and the story ends with our heroine uttering the immortal line:
"I request that the vote be Deferred and that my report be sent to the Parliamentary Committee until further details of the Council’s proposal are known!" [Cue general rejoicing]
Fun in Berlin
The so-called sherpas (EU leaders' envoys to behind-closed-doors talks on reviving the Constituiton) are meeting together tomorrow in Berlin.
As well as the big picture stuff, they are supposed to be discussing what to put in the Berlin Declaration on 25 March. But that rather turns on what is going to happen in May in the French elections.
Brussels opinion seems divided between two schools of thought. "Camp A" say it will be a load of bland flannel, probably rather along the lines of the "five points" suggested by Barroso the other day. "Camp B" also expect the flannel count to be pretty high, but expect at least a few bigger points to be dealt with - the logic being that the more that the declaration can be seen to have "responded" to voters concerns the easier it will be to push through a snap deal in June on the "purely technical and institutional" (of course) points that EU leaders are obsessed with: making it easier to pass legislation, an EU foreign minister etc.
If they are going to come back to the big questions later anyway (the Royal route), the Berlin declaration can be a load of piffle. But if you are going for a quick and dirty deal (the Sarko option) they may feel the need to do rather more with the declaration.
The UK Government are purpoting to be surpremely uninterested in all this, hoping that it will remain someone else's political problem. The Commission, meanwhile, are looking to get back control of the initiative, with their "review of the internal market" now scheduled for publication around March. (Do you think they might find that they "need more power to complete the single market"? - we're just guessing here...)
As well as the big picture stuff, they are supposed to be discussing what to put in the Berlin Declaration on 25 March. But that rather turns on what is going to happen in May in the French elections.
Brussels opinion seems divided between two schools of thought. "Camp A" say it will be a load of bland flannel, probably rather along the lines of the "five points" suggested by Barroso the other day. "Camp B" also expect the flannel count to be pretty high, but expect at least a few bigger points to be dealt with - the logic being that the more that the declaration can be seen to have "responded" to voters concerns the easier it will be to push through a snap deal in June on the "purely technical and institutional" (of course) points that EU leaders are obsessed with: making it easier to pass legislation, an EU foreign minister etc.
If they are going to come back to the big questions later anyway (the Royal route), the Berlin declaration can be a load of piffle. But if you are going for a quick and dirty deal (the Sarko option) they may feel the need to do rather more with the declaration.
The UK Government are purpoting to be surpremely uninterested in all this, hoping that it will remain someone else's political problem. The Commission, meanwhile, are looking to get back control of the initiative, with their "review of the internal market" now scheduled for publication around March. (Do you think they might find that they "need more power to complete the single market"? - we're just guessing here...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)