In an interview with German magazine Spiegel online, the Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann has effectively admitted that his country never held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because they knew that people would vote no.
No doubt this is precisely why none of the others (except Ireland) did either:
He said:
"The fact that we only ratified the new EU Constitution and then the Lisbon Treaty in our parliament is not exactly glowing proof that we were confident that we had popular approval. And now, if we are asked to vote a third time because the Irish will perhaps vote no once again, then we cannot claim that this is what a parliament is authorized to do. It's a matter of style, as far as I am concerned."
Visit our new website.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
"Europe, can you hear me?"
This is hilarious.
We learn from Agence Europe that the indefatigable EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has announced that she is launching yet a new campaign to encourage participation in the EP elections in June.
This one will be run by the MTV music channel and will target the usual suspects - young people and women. It is "meant to echo the voice of the young", and will cost the Commission (or rather us as taxpayers) €2.3 million.
Apparently, since 6 April, three TV ads have been diffused on the MTV channels to "attract the curiosity of young viewers", and on 30 April at 3.30pm the campaign will gather young people from European cities to cry out “Europe, can you hear me?”.
Artists backing the campaign include Depeche Mode and the Italian singer Tiziano Ferro, who, according to Agence Europe "will be sending out positive messages on Europe."
We learn from Agence Europe that the indefatigable EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has announced that she is launching yet a new campaign to encourage participation in the EP elections in June.
This one will be run by the MTV music channel and will target the usual suspects - young people and women. It is "meant to echo the voice of the young", and will cost the Commission (or rather us as taxpayers) €2.3 million.
Apparently, since 6 April, three TV ads have been diffused on the MTV channels to "attract the curiosity of young viewers", and on 30 April at 3.30pm the campaign will gather young people from European cities to cry out “Europe, can you hear me?”.
Artists backing the campaign include Depeche Mode and the Italian singer Tiziano Ferro, who, according to Agence Europe "will be sending out positive messages on Europe."
Sounds familiar
In a rant in the Yorkshire Post Richard Corbett MEP churns out his familiar and tired old claim that critics of the European Union such as Open Europe are "anti-Europe".
Great to see we have MEPs who want to engage in a grown-up debate.
His particular beef is our report about the escalating cost of EU regulation - which he claims is "one-sided and misleading propaganda" - despite the fact that it is based on information from more than 2,000 of the Government's own Impact Assessments.
However, we note with much amusement that every single one of his suggestions about how to improve things are lifted straight from our report.
Corbett: "At Westminster, we could improve parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation by having a more effective European Scrutiny Committee and departmental select committees more focused on EU legislation."
Our report: "There also needs to be real-time scrutiny of EU proposals at Westminster, with a bolstered new committee system... Every Departmental Committee should become far more focussed on EU legislation."
Corbett: "We could establish a Danish-style mandate system whereby Ministers have to appear before committee ahead of negotiation in the EU Council, to explain their position, allowing Parliament to help shape the position of the Minister."
Our report: "One proposal for reform would be to make the system more like the Danish or Swedish models, where Ministers set out their negotiation positions to the Committee ahead of European Council meetings, and gain its approval."
Corbett: "The Government could also increase transparency by introducing an 'audit trail' for each new legislative proposal. "
Our report: "One of the simplest reforms the UK Government could pursue is to publish proper ‘audit trails’ for each new legislative proposal."
Corbett: "In a bid to finally end the debate about how much UK law emanates from the EU, the Government could follow the Swedish and Polish governments and draw up a definitive list of laws that originate from legislation or decisions made at EU level."
Our report: "If we want to achieve accountability in regulation, we need to know who the regulator actually is. That means finding out where and how our laws our made. In October 2008 Mark Harper attempted – unsuccessfully – to pass a Bill in Parliament which would have required a Minister to certify on a Government Bill or a Statutory Instrument whether or not it was a result of a decision of the EU."
On this last point, of course Corbett neglects to mention that this very sensible proposal was voted down by his own Labour friends in Westminster when the Government whipped them to oppose it back in October.
Great to see we have MEPs who want to engage in a grown-up debate.
His particular beef is our report about the escalating cost of EU regulation - which he claims is "one-sided and misleading propaganda" - despite the fact that it is based on information from more than 2,000 of the Government's own Impact Assessments.
However, we note with much amusement that every single one of his suggestions about how to improve things are lifted straight from our report.
Corbett: "At Westminster, we could improve parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation by having a more effective European Scrutiny Committee and departmental select committees more focused on EU legislation."
Our report: "There also needs to be real-time scrutiny of EU proposals at Westminster, with a bolstered new committee system... Every Departmental Committee should become far more focussed on EU legislation."
Corbett: "We could establish a Danish-style mandate system whereby Ministers have to appear before committee ahead of negotiation in the EU Council, to explain their position, allowing Parliament to help shape the position of the Minister."
Our report: "One proposal for reform would be to make the system more like the Danish or Swedish models, where Ministers set out their negotiation positions to the Committee ahead of European Council meetings, and gain its approval."
Corbett: "The Government could also increase transparency by introducing an 'audit trail' for each new legislative proposal. "
Our report: "One of the simplest reforms the UK Government could pursue is to publish proper ‘audit trails’ for each new legislative proposal."
Corbett: "In a bid to finally end the debate about how much UK law emanates from the EU, the Government could follow the Swedish and Polish governments and draw up a definitive list of laws that originate from legislation or decisions made at EU level."
Our report: "If we want to achieve accountability in regulation, we need to know who the regulator actually is. That means finding out where and how our laws our made. In October 2008 Mark Harper attempted – unsuccessfully – to pass a Bill in Parliament which would have required a Minister to certify on a Government Bill or a Statutory Instrument whether or not it was a result of a decision of the EU."
On this last point, of course Corbett neglects to mention that this very sensible proposal was voted down by his own Labour friends in Westminster when the Government whipped them to oppose it back in October.
Monday, April 06, 2009
By-passing Parliament
The Guardian's Comment is Free site has an important piece about the fact that the EU's intrusive Data Retention Directive - which compels all internet service providers to retain information from all emails and website visits - has been brought into force today... without debate in Parliament.
Make your mind up
It sometimes seems amazing that the EU Commission can spend so much money on its own special department for Communications, and yet prove so spectacularly terrible at PR.
EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has thrown her hat in the ring and responded to Open Europe's recent findings that Commissioners leaving office this year can expect in excess of £1 million in pensions and pay-offs, courtesy of EU taxpayers.
In response to questions about her own enormous (£1.8m) pay-off in an interview with Focus Information Agency, she said:
"I'd like to thank you for the possibility to respond to the series of 'clever' press releases by 'Open Europe' - a British NGO, advertising itself as a think-tank - which has been regularly publishing articles against the club of 27, containing deliberately twisted and exaggerated data. Stepping in office within the European Commission (EC) does not include talks about salaries, allowances and retirement payments. It's the Council of the European Union that decided in the matter and therefore all changes are up to it. The current rules have been around since 1967 and are open to the public."
Why is the Commissioner responsible for Communications now saying that Open Europe's figures are "deliberately twisted and exaggerated data", when the Commission has already confirmed the truth of the figures?
When the news first broke a couple of weeks ago, Commission Spokesperson Valerie Rampi said, "Open Europe did not discover anything new, it's all public and online".
Then, when confronted with the reports, Development Commissioner Louis Michel exclaimed "if that's true, I'll retire immediately." Belgian daily De Standaard went on to report that, "after consulting an assistant, the message however appeared to be accurate. This was followed by Louis Michel suddenly changing his mind, saying the compensation is completely justified: 'We are being well paid. But every morning getting up at 5 o'clock, lots of travelling, heavy files...This is a parachute but not a golden one.'"
Not only that, but as we have seen, Danish Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel responded to the figures saying "I'm worth all the millions."
For an organisation which spends millions of taxpayers' euros a year on its very own PR office, it is surprising how bad it is at putting out a straight line of defence.
The spokesperson was spot on - all we did was to use the publicly available data and estimate how much these people stood to receive. In fact we used the figures pretty conservatively - we reckon they're an underestimate.
The point is there really is no need to "twist" and "exaggerate" the data, because it's devastating enough on its own.
Still, at least Wallstrom didn't do a Fischer-Boel and try a "Because I'm worth it" type argument. Given the clear failure to get people to like the EU and the Lisbon Treaty - her main job - that would have been hilariously difficult to defend.
Friday, April 03, 2009
G20 finesse
An interesting feature in today's Guardian showcased at the reaction of correspondents around Europe to the world leaders at the G20.
Fabio Cavalera from Corriere della Sera made a good point that, "Now we will have to check if the political agreements made here will be transformed into legal agreements. The summit also showed the end of the era. Emerging countries like China, India and Brazil are much more important than old countries like France and Italy."
Marc Roche for Le Monde wrote, "It was a particular success for the French and German approach to the crisis. They put on the agenda the fact that you can't just print money to fund your budgetary hole like the British and Americans are doing...The summit has highlighted the fractures between the Anglo-Saxon leaders and the continental leaders." While there has been a great deal reported on divisions between EU leaders on the merits of financial regulation vs fiscal stimulus, there is now more media coverage pointing to the emergence of a G2 - highlighting that, in the context of the G20, the US and China are the two countries that really matter in reaching global agreement on issues - they are an "elite partnership". This isn't how Eduardo Suarez at El Mundo sees things, however. He said: "It was funny to see all the journalists leave his [Brown's] press conference before it was over to get to Sarkozy's. I think the summit has shown Sarkozy and Obama are the important leaders here."
Not sure about that. The agreement finally reached by the G20 on banking secrecy and tax havens was reportedly that they would "take note" of the OECD's list of rogue offshore tax havens, rather than "endorse" the list, as Sarko wanted.
Sarko seemed to be targeting Hong Kong and Macau, outside the transparency framework set up by the OECD, of which China is not a member.
You might also remember last year's diplomatique faux pas when Sarkozy spectacularly soured relations with China over his decision to meet with the Dalai Lama, causing China to postpone its summit with the EU, for the first time in the history of such meetings.
Perhaps it was a combination of these two slights, but the Chinese actually refused to turn up to a meeting with the French until a joint statement was issued, moderating France's position on Tibet and reaffirming its commitment to the "One-China" policy. Even then, it took the intervention of Barack Obama to seal a deal on tax havens, requiring the diplomatic finesse that seemed to otherwise elude President Sarkozy.
Fabio Cavalera from Corriere della Sera made a good point that, "Now we will have to check if the political agreements made here will be transformed into legal agreements. The summit also showed the end of the era. Emerging countries like China, India and Brazil are much more important than old countries like France and Italy."
Marc Roche for Le Monde wrote, "It was a particular success for the French and German approach to the crisis. They put on the agenda the fact that you can't just print money to fund your budgetary hole like the British and Americans are doing...The summit has highlighted the fractures between the Anglo-Saxon leaders and the continental leaders." While there has been a great deal reported on divisions between EU leaders on the merits of financial regulation vs fiscal stimulus, there is now more media coverage pointing to the emergence of a G2 - highlighting that, in the context of the G20, the US and China are the two countries that really matter in reaching global agreement on issues - they are an "elite partnership". This isn't how Eduardo Suarez at El Mundo sees things, however. He said: "It was funny to see all the journalists leave his [Brown's] press conference before it was over to get to Sarkozy's. I think the summit has shown Sarkozy and Obama are the important leaders here."
Not sure about that. The agreement finally reached by the G20 on banking secrecy and tax havens was reportedly that they would "take note" of the OECD's list of rogue offshore tax havens, rather than "endorse" the list, as Sarko wanted.
Sarko seemed to be targeting Hong Kong and Macau, outside the transparency framework set up by the OECD, of which China is not a member.
You might also remember last year's diplomatique faux pas when Sarkozy spectacularly soured relations with China over his decision to meet with the Dalai Lama, causing China to postpone its summit with the EU, for the first time in the history of such meetings.
Perhaps it was a combination of these two slights, but the Chinese actually refused to turn up to a meeting with the French until a joint statement was issued, moderating France's position on Tibet and reaffirming its commitment to the "One-China" policy. Even then, it took the intervention of Barack Obama to seal a deal on tax havens, requiring the diplomatic finesse that seemed to otherwise elude President Sarkozy.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Contemplating working time restrictions... until 4am
Talks in Brussels on the revisions to the EU Working Time Directive ended last night without agreement. At least nine EU countries now using the opt-out from the 48-hour week, including the UK, refused to budge over MEPs' demands that the concession be scrapped. One last round of negotiations between officials from EU governments and a delegation of MEPs could take place this month - or plans to update the Working Time Directive will fall and the opt-out will continue.PA reports that at the very least, MEPs are pushing for an updated working hours law to include a review of the opt-out to phase it out in three years - flatly rejected by the UK.
A press release from the Tories in the European Parliament tells us that Conservative employment spokesman Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP - who by the way is doing a great job trying to stop this madness - walked out of negotiations at 4am, branding them a "sham discussion going round in endless circles". Interesting at least how politicians wanting to limit the working hours of ordinary people are themselves working into the small hours. Apparently some are more equal than others...
One of the leading voices in the European Parliament calling for an end to the UK’s opt-out from the 48-hour week, which we estimate would cost up to £11.9 billion a year by 2011, is Labour's very own Stephen Hughes (pictured).
On the Today programme yesterday he actually tried to blame teenage pregnancies on the opt-out:
"I think another useful study might be to look at the correlation between very long working time in Britain and teenage pregnancy, social dysfunction; a whole range of social indices that might well suffer as a consequence of the long working hours culture in Britain.”
Mandy's mixed message on regulation
As part of a statement regarding measures to help businesses cope with regulation, Lord Mandelson has today announced that the Government is going to shelve its plans for regulatory budgets, which would have seen departments having to account for the cost of, and therefore restrict, the new regulations they produce.
In our report on the cost of regulation to the UK we welcomed the Government's plans for regulatory budgets as one way of stemming the increasing flow of regulation, although we did question how departments would cope with the fact that the most costly regulations actually come from the EU and are essentially out of their control.
According to PA, Mandelson said his reason for pulling the plug on these budgets is due to the "economic situation" and he pointed to the need for new regulation "in response to the current banking crisis".
However, with financial services regulation acounting for only around 5% of the cost of all regulation introduced in the last ten years, it would seem that the Government is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Given that Government budgets tend to be 'flexible' at the best of times, introduction of the budgets would be unlikely to jeopordise any new financial services regulations, which the EU/UK propose in the coming weeks/months.
What is important is that the Government continues to recognise the importance of quantifying the cost of regulation, plus the fact that the vast majority of regulations impact on small and medium sized businesses. Backpeddling on plans to introduce these budgets gives the wrong signal to businesses struggling to cope with the recession.
Mandelson also announced that, "The Government will also be working closely with EU partners to further embed the EU better regulation agenda and to ensure the current pressures on business are taken into account when new European regulation is being considered."
But today's announcement undermines any attempt by the UK to lead by example at EU level in tackling the increasing flow of EU regulation affecting businesses across the EU. The UK and the EU need more, not less, robust processes to cope with burdensome regulation.
In our report on the cost of regulation to the UK we welcomed the Government's plans for regulatory budgets as one way of stemming the increasing flow of regulation, although we did question how departments would cope with the fact that the most costly regulations actually come from the EU and are essentially out of their control.
According to PA, Mandelson said his reason for pulling the plug on these budgets is due to the "economic situation" and he pointed to the need for new regulation "in response to the current banking crisis".
However, with financial services regulation acounting for only around 5% of the cost of all regulation introduced in the last ten years, it would seem that the Government is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Given that Government budgets tend to be 'flexible' at the best of times, introduction of the budgets would be unlikely to jeopordise any new financial services regulations, which the EU/UK propose in the coming weeks/months.
What is important is that the Government continues to recognise the importance of quantifying the cost of regulation, plus the fact that the vast majority of regulations impact on small and medium sized businesses. Backpeddling on plans to introduce these budgets gives the wrong signal to businesses struggling to cope with the recession.
Mandelson also announced that, "The Government will also be working closely with EU partners to further embed the EU better regulation agenda and to ensure the current pressures on business are taken into account when new European regulation is being considered."
But today's announcement undermines any attempt by the UK to lead by example at EU level in tackling the increasing flow of EU regulation affecting businesses across the EU. The UK and the EU need more, not less, robust processes to cope with burdensome regulation.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Clueless II
During a debate on a different topic in the Commons yesterday our Europe Minister Caroline made a very bold claim indeed. She said:
"Over the past few years, we have seen some huge reductions in regulation in the European Union."
Can she - can anybody - back that up with any proof? Probably not, because the evidence would suggest that it simply isn't true.
Here at Open Europe we spent an arduous 6 months trawling painstakingly through more than 2,000 government impact assessments dating since 1998 to get a grip on the number of regulations, and the proportion and cost of those coming from the EU. We also took a long, hard look at the EU's so-called 'Better Regulation Agenda', and found that what small efforts had been made to scale back the mountains of existing legislation, these had been swamped by the tsunami of new regulations being introduced every year.
In fact, since the Commission launched its ‘Better Regulation Agenda’ in 2005, the annual cost of EU legislation across the bloc has gone from €108 billion to over €161 billion – an increase of 50%.
"Over the past few years, we have seen some huge reductions in regulation in the European Union."
Can she - can anybody - back that up with any proof? Probably not, because the evidence would suggest that it simply isn't true.
Here at Open Europe we spent an arduous 6 months trawling painstakingly through more than 2,000 government impact assessments dating since 1998 to get a grip on the number of regulations, and the proportion and cost of those coming from the EU. We also took a long, hard look at the EU's so-called 'Better Regulation Agenda', and found that what small efforts had been made to scale back the mountains of existing legislation, these had been swamped by the tsunami of new regulations being introduced every year.
In fact, since the Commission launched its ‘Better Regulation Agenda’ in 2005, the annual cost of EU legislation across the bloc has gone from €108 billion to over €161 billion – an increase of 50%.
To add a couple of other relevant factoids:
- In 2008 alone the cost of regulation for the EU-27 was €269.5 billion. This is up from €229.6 billion in 2007 and €183.4 billion in 2006.
- Between 1995 and 2004 almost 11,000 new legal acts were added to the acquis communautaire.
- Overall, the cost of EU legislation has gone up steadily year-on-year over the past decade. In
2008 alone, EU legislation dating from 1998 cost the UK economy £18.5 billion – up from £12.2
billion in 2005.
These are figures which even the Commission's own Director for Better Regulation, Programming and Impact Assessment Marianne Klingbeil did not argue with at an event on this subject organised by Open Europe in Brussels this week.
So where on earth does Flint get the idea that there have been "huge" reductions in regulation?
In our report we make several proposals for reform, but this government has no chance of reducing the burden of regulation if it won't face up to the problem in the first place.
- In 2008 alone the cost of regulation for the EU-27 was €269.5 billion. This is up from €229.6 billion in 2007 and €183.4 billion in 2006.
- Between 1995 and 2004 almost 11,000 new legal acts were added to the acquis communautaire.
- Overall, the cost of EU legislation has gone up steadily year-on-year over the past decade. In
2008 alone, EU legislation dating from 1998 cost the UK economy £18.5 billion – up from £12.2
billion in 2005.
These are figures which even the Commission's own Director for Better Regulation, Programming and Impact Assessment Marianne Klingbeil did not argue with at an event on this subject organised by Open Europe in Brussels this week.
So where on earth does Flint get the idea that there have been "huge" reductions in regulation?
In our report we make several proposals for reform, but this government has no chance of reducing the burden of regulation if it won't face up to the problem in the first place.
Clueless
Europe Minister Caroline Flint made a big mistake when she admitted in Parliament on Monday that she hadn't read all of the EU Lisbon Treaty. This is the woman who patronisingly told the Irish that they had voted 'no' because they misunderstood the Treaty.
We always suspected she didn't have the foggiest about the EU, especially after telling an audience at Leeds university that it was important to be in favour of European integration if you like pizza.
But this new revelation is something else.
When the Government went back on its promise to hold a referendum on the Treaty last year, it argued over and over that 'politicians know best' on the big issues like EU treaty change.
Caroline Flint's ignorance, and her ability to admit that she hadn't even believed it necessary to read - let alone understand - crucial bits of the Lisbon Treaty , shows that this argument is well and truly defunct. This Government needs to get a grip and give the people the say they were promised on this thing - before it's too late.
We always suspected she didn't have the foggiest about the EU, especially after telling an audience at Leeds university that it was important to be in favour of European integration if you like pizza.
But this new revelation is something else.
When the Government went back on its promise to hold a referendum on the Treaty last year, it argued over and over that 'politicians know best' on the big issues like EU treaty change.
Caroline Flint's ignorance, and her ability to admit that she hadn't even believed it necessary to read - let alone understand - crucial bits of the Lisbon Treaty , shows that this argument is well and truly defunct. This Government needs to get a grip and give the people the say they were promised on this thing - before it's too late.
Round 2
Today is the second day of 'conciliation' talks in Brussels on the Working Time Directive, where politicians will be discussing whether or not Britain's opt-out from the 48-hour week should stay or go.
We will keep you updated with any developments, but in the meantime, you can get our take on this crucially important issue here in our pamphlet, "Time's up! The case agasint the EU's 48-hour week"
We will keep you updated with any developments, but in the meantime, you can get our take on this crucially important issue here in our pamphlet, "Time's up! The case agasint the EU's 48-hour week"
Recipe for disaster
Check out the TPA's celebrity chef programme with a difference - the Jamie Oliveoil recipe for EU Agriculture Fudge. It's pretty funny. The more serious message - about the disastrous waste that is the Common Agricultural Policy - is covered in the Telegraph this morning - and is something we've been writing about for a while.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Get with the programme
Just noticed this piece on LabourList by Labour Parliamentary candidate for South-East Cambridgeshire John Cowan.
He tries to argue that working long hours and the EU Working Time Directive limiting the working week to 48 hours is a health and safety issue, based on the fact that:
"The other night on my way back from yet another Labour Party meeting, I made a number of silly errors on the road - nothing major, but enough to ensure the local police stopped me on suspicion of drunk driving."
He then goes on to say, "It's amazing that despite all this evidence the Tories are opposed to the Working Time Directive opt-out being abolished."
Come again? What's amazing is that a Labour candidate doesn't seem to realise that the Government is also committed - at least in rhetoric - to keeeping the opt-out, for reasons we have outlined before. Both the Conservatives and Labour (bar the MEPs, over which Gordon Brown and co appear to have no control whatsoever) recognise that we can ill afford to lose the opt-out at a time of economic recession.
If Mr Cowan did a little research on the subject, (beginning with reading Open Europe's report), he'd see the that the loss of the opt-out threatens patient care in hospitals, as well as fire service coverage in many rural areas. Aren't these health and safety issues too?
He tries to argue that working long hours and the EU Working Time Directive limiting the working week to 48 hours is a health and safety issue, based on the fact that:
"The other night on my way back from yet another Labour Party meeting, I made a number of silly errors on the road - nothing major, but enough to ensure the local police stopped me on suspicion of drunk driving."
He then goes on to say, "It's amazing that despite all this evidence the Tories are opposed to the Working Time Directive opt-out being abolished."
Come again? What's amazing is that a Labour candidate doesn't seem to realise that the Government is also committed - at least in rhetoric - to keeeping the opt-out, for reasons we have outlined before. Both the Conservatives and Labour (bar the MEPs, over which Gordon Brown and co appear to have no control whatsoever) recognise that we can ill afford to lose the opt-out at a time of economic recession.
If Mr Cowan did a little research on the subject, (beginning with reading Open Europe's report), he'd see the that the loss of the opt-out threatens patient care in hospitals, as well as fire service coverage in many rural areas. Aren't these health and safety issues too?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Louis Michel can't believe his luck
Belgian Daily De Standaard has picked up our research which states that Belgian EU Commissioner Louis Michel is to take home about 1.1 million euros in pension payments and so-called 'transitional' and 'resettlement' allowances after he leaves office.
Louis Michel, the second Commissioner to react to the research, said he couldn't believe it and "if that's true, I'll retire immediately".
However, the article goes on:
After consulting an assisstant, the message seems to be accurate. This was followed by Louis Michel suddenly changing his mind, saying the compensation is completely justified. “We are being well paid, that is. But every morning getting up at 5 o' clock, lots of travelling, heavy files… This is a parachute, but not a golden one”.
We can only add that Louis Michel is European Commissioner for "Development and Humanitarian Aid". Improve the world, start with yourself...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Because I'm worth it
Following wide reports around Europe about the fact that the EU Commissioners will receive millions of taxpayers' cash in pensions and pay-offs when they leave office, EU Agriculture Commissioner Marian Fischer Boel (not pictured) has defended herself, telling Danish newspaper Politiken ... wait for it...
"I'm worth all the millions"
You couldn't make it up.
"I'm worth all the millions"
You couldn't make it up.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
It's just peanuts to some
Open Europe published some figures over the weekend which found that EU Commissioners retiring this year can expect to walk away with pension pots worth over £1 million each.
According to EUobserver Commission spokesperson Valerie Rampi said that, "Open Europe didn't discover anything new, it's all public and online... Everyone who has worked as a commissioner is entitled to pension rights, like you and me". She then denied that Commissioners received "golden one-off payments".
Well, she is absolutely right about one thing. Commissioners' entitlements are available online, which was how we knew how much they would be receiving. In those entitlements, it states that Commissioners shall be entitled to "a resettlement allowance equal to one month's basic salary on ceasing to hold office."
Perhaps this doesn't seem like much of a "golden" pay-out to well-fed Commission bureaucrats, but it is more 19,900 euros for most Commissioners, and even more for the rest. This is more than some people earn in a year, but the Commission doesn't deem it "golden"?
We might also mention that this is just a fraction of what Commissioners will receive on leaving office - as well as their hefty pensions they will entitled to "transition" payments for three years of at least 90,000 euros a year.
But this probably isn't enough to count as "golden" either.
Next time the Commission wonders why citizens feel the EU institutions are out of touch, maybe this golden little penny will finally drop...
According to EUobserver Commission spokesperson Valerie Rampi said that, "Open Europe didn't discover anything new, it's all public and online... Everyone who has worked as a commissioner is entitled to pension rights, like you and me". She then denied that Commissioners received "golden one-off payments".
Well, she is absolutely right about one thing. Commissioners' entitlements are available online, which was how we knew how much they would be receiving. In those entitlements, it states that Commissioners shall be entitled to "a resettlement allowance equal to one month's basic salary on ceasing to hold office."
Perhaps this doesn't seem like much of a "golden" pay-out to well-fed Commission bureaucrats, but it is more 19,900 euros for most Commissioners, and even more for the rest. This is more than some people earn in a year, but the Commission doesn't deem it "golden"?
We might also mention that this is just a fraction of what Commissioners will receive on leaving office - as well as their hefty pensions they will entitled to "transition" payments for three years of at least 90,000 euros a year.
But this probably isn't enough to count as "golden" either.
Next time the Commission wonders why citizens feel the EU institutions are out of touch, maybe this golden little penny will finally drop...
On another planet
A pretty bizarre article in the FT today (and the EU Referendum blog) alerts us to the EU's new propaganda campaign for the European Parliament elections. Encouraging turnout is one thing - but, as usual, this is far more to do with trying to promote the whole idea of the EU. And at enormous cost to the taxpayer.
For €28 million, the European Parliament has hired ad agency Scholz and Friends European Agenda , to run
"a series of 3D installations. The larger than life sculptures will draw the public´s attention to the 2009 European Elections and illustrate different aspects of the voters’ influence on tangible political decisions that result from their participation. Interactive multimedia boxes invite the EU citizens to cast their personal wishes for Europe as a video message. Together with ten billboard motives, the 3D installations and the multimedia boxes show that Europeans have a choice and the chance to participate in the EU's decision making – emphasized by the claim "It's your choice!"
Plus some weird enormous billboards like the chickens above.
As if we needed any more evidence of the EU institutions being completely out of touch with the real world - here we have some of the best yet. In the middle of dire economic circumstances, with jobs, pensions and savings all going down the bog the good old EP sees fit to lavish millions on what this ad agency boasts is: "for sure Europe’s most complex communication campaign ever."
Great. Will it have any impact at all on turnout? It strikes us that a far cheaper option to energise voters and get them going would be to remind them about the referendum they never got on the Lisbon Treaty - and the efforts to bully Ireland into voting again.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Every woman every man, join the (EU) caravan
Apparently, the EU is now running what it calls a "citizen caravan initiative", which basically involves an EU-themed bus doing a 25-leg tour of France that will cover 4087 kilometres with the mandate of promoting EU citizenship.The start gun fires on May 9. This type of propaganda mission is of course not the first. CIDEM - who is running the bus - has run several similar information tours on behalf of the European Commmission since 2001, not to mention programs all the other EU Commission campaigns operating through hundreds of other European NGOs, think tanks and lobby groups.
According to CIDEM's official website and press release, both of which fail to disclose the estimated cost of the propaganda tour de France, it has the following as its primary objectives: to encourage participation in the upcoming elections; to familiarize EU citizens with "European questions" and European institutions; and to stimulate and reinforce European youths' connection with Europe as an institution.
Sounds naff.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
More threats
German Ambassador to Ireland, Christian Pauls, has added to the list of threats to the Irish people over ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Speaking as the Commission launched a €1.8m 'information' campaign to encourage a Yes vote in the second referendum, Herr Pauls warned that Ireland would "throw away its future" if it voted No a second time.
Another example of European solidarity at its finest!
Another example of European solidarity at its finest!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Too late?
The Parliament reports that negotiations in Brussels on the opt-out from the EU's 48 hour working week have reached an impasse, with neither MEPs nor national ministers willing to back down. Formal negotiations will continue in two weeks time, on 1 April.
Glenis Willmott, Labour's new leader in the European Parliament, is quoted saying that the opt-out should be maintained, pending a review in five years. She said:
"At a time of financial crisis, workers need the flexibility to earn extra money."
Clearly we welcome Glenis' public support - but it would have been far more helpful if she had not voted to abolish the opt-out last December along with 12 other Labour MEPs.
Glad to see that Glenis has come round - we just hope that this period of clear thinking will last long enough so that she remembers to vote the right way next time.
Glenis Willmott, Labour's new leader in the European Parliament, is quoted saying that the opt-out should be maintained, pending a review in five years. She said:
"At a time of financial crisis, workers need the flexibility to earn extra money."
Clearly we welcome Glenis' public support - but it would have been far more helpful if she had not voted to abolish the opt-out last December along with 12 other Labour MEPs.
Glad to see that Glenis has come round - we just hope that this period of clear thinking will last long enough so that she remembers to vote the right way next time.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Government reveals £77m yearly admin cost of farm payments
Hat tip to Wyn Grant for this from his Common Agricultural Policy blog.
Just when we thought the Single Farm Payment couldn't get any more ridiculous, we now discover that the cost of administering the payments in tens of thousands of cases is far higher than the value of the subsidy itself.
A Parliamentary question from Lib Dem MP Tim Farron has revealed that the average administration cost for processing an individual claim in the UK under the EU's Single Farm Payment Scheme is a whopping £742.
A separate Ministerial statement from UK Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, puts the number of individual claims for 2007/08 at around 104,000. This means the total cost of administering these claims is a staggering £77 million.
What's more, 14,645 of these claims were under £400 in value, and 636 of those were under £50 in value.
The total possible payout for these 636 claims is £30,315 but, according to the average cost of processing an individual claim, these could have cost £471,912 to administer!
Just when we thought the Single Farm Payment couldn't get any more ridiculous, we now discover that the cost of administering the payments in tens of thousands of cases is far higher than the value of the subsidy itself.
A Parliamentary question from Lib Dem MP Tim Farron has revealed that the average administration cost for processing an individual claim in the UK under the EU's Single Farm Payment Scheme is a whopping £742.
A separate Ministerial statement from UK Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, puts the number of individual claims for 2007/08 at around 104,000. This means the total cost of administering these claims is a staggering £77 million.
What's more, 14,645 of these claims were under £400 in value, and 636 of those were under £50 in value.
The total possible payout for these 636 claims is £30,315 but, according to the average cost of processing an individual claim, these could have cost £471,912 to administer!
Madness.
The time is now
Today is the day that formal talks begin (and possibly finish) on the opt-out from the EU's 48 working week. On the Guardian's CiF, Open Europe has set out its reasons why Brussels is the wrong place (if there is such a place) to decide how many hours people should work.
Talks are due to start this evening. We will keep you posted.
Talks are due to start this evening. We will keep you posted.
Democracy for Breakfast
Tomorrow morning, the European Commission will plan how to 'persuade' the Irish people to vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty in a second referendum, using €1.8 million of taxpayers' money.
Libertas, the group behind the successful 'No' campaign in the first referendum, which will fight in the European elections, will mark the occassion by mourning the death of democracy.
You can join them at the entrance of the Commission building at 8.45...
Libertas, the group behind the successful 'No' campaign in the first referendum, which will fight in the European elections, will mark the occassion by mourning the death of democracy.
You can join them at the entrance of the Commission building at 8.45...
Monday, March 16, 2009
Time's up?
Crucial negotiations will begin in Brussels tomorrow to try to find a compromise over the EU's controversial Working Time Directive.
You may remember that MEPs - led by Labour's very own Stephen Hughes - voted against a Council deal to keep the UK's opt-out from the EU's 48-hour week, back in December.
Now, the negotiations are at what's called the 'conciliation' stage - where MEPs and the Council have to come up with a compromise.
In theory, this stage can last for up to six weeks, but rumour has it that tomorrow's negotiations are likely to be the end of the story - and if not, it's likely there will be only one other meeting, in around two weeks' time. Crucially, the UK Government - which is in favour of the keeping the opt-out - does not have a veto over whatever is decided at the 'conciliation' state.
(You may or may not find comfort from the fact that we are being represented by Lord Mandelson - who, as we were reminded this morning - needs to keep the EU sweet if he is to continue receiving his generous EU payoff.)
With more than 3 million people working more than 48 hours a week, and plenty of others no doubt in favour of keeping the option to choose to do so, this is a huge deal.
Imagine if the House of Commons was set to vote tomorrow on whether or not to bring in a 48-hour maximum working week? The press would rightly be all over it like a rash. Imagine if the Government was proposing to put something through Parliament that would cost £8 billion a year - as we've calculated the loss of the opt-out would cost the economy? Ditto.
Instead, few people even seem to realise this is happening. And little wonder - the negotiations are going on behind closed doors in Brussels, and it is typically difficult to find out what any of the positions are or even when the actual decision will be made. Could be tomorrow, could be in a fortnight - could be in six weeks. Who knows?
In conversations with the British Steelwork Association (BCSA), which is leading a campaign to keep the opt-out*, civil servants apparently said that the Government was looking for all the evidence it can get to help strengthen its hand in the negotiations with EU partners.
So, we asked 10 UK workers from across the country and across industry to write and tell us why they think the loss of the opt-out would be a terrible idea, both for them personally, and for the industry or businesses they work for. See here to read what they have to say:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/wtdoptout2.pdf
*NB - the BSCA, after polling than 1,000 workers, taken from 30 companies all over the UK, found a staggering 90% signed a petition in favour of retaining the opt-out.
You may remember that MEPs - led by Labour's very own Stephen Hughes - voted against a Council deal to keep the UK's opt-out from the EU's 48-hour week, back in December.
Now, the negotiations are at what's called the 'conciliation' stage - where MEPs and the Council have to come up with a compromise.
In theory, this stage can last for up to six weeks, but rumour has it that tomorrow's negotiations are likely to be the end of the story - and if not, it's likely there will be only one other meeting, in around two weeks' time. Crucially, the UK Government - which is in favour of the keeping the opt-out - does not have a veto over whatever is decided at the 'conciliation' state.
(You may or may not find comfort from the fact that we are being represented by Lord Mandelson - who, as we were reminded this morning - needs to keep the EU sweet if he is to continue receiving his generous EU payoff.)
With more than 3 million people working more than 48 hours a week, and plenty of others no doubt in favour of keeping the option to choose to do so, this is a huge deal.
Imagine if the House of Commons was set to vote tomorrow on whether or not to bring in a 48-hour maximum working week? The press would rightly be all over it like a rash. Imagine if the Government was proposing to put something through Parliament that would cost £8 billion a year - as we've calculated the loss of the opt-out would cost the economy? Ditto.
Instead, few people even seem to realise this is happening. And little wonder - the negotiations are going on behind closed doors in Brussels, and it is typically difficult to find out what any of the positions are or even when the actual decision will be made. Could be tomorrow, could be in a fortnight - could be in six weeks. Who knows?
In conversations with the British Steelwork Association (BCSA), which is leading a campaign to keep the opt-out*, civil servants apparently said that the Government was looking for all the evidence it can get to help strengthen its hand in the negotiations with EU partners.
So, we asked 10 UK workers from across the country and across industry to write and tell us why they think the loss of the opt-out would be a terrible idea, both for them personally, and for the industry or businesses they work for. See here to read what they have to say:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/wtdoptout2.pdf
*NB - the BSCA, after polling than 1,000 workers, taken from 30 companies all over the UK, found a staggering 90% signed a petition in favour of retaining the opt-out.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Is the EU 'Fit for Purpose'?
Open Europe was in attendance at a debate on Monday night entitled "An EU 'Fit for Purpose' in the Global age", where the speakers, including Foreign Secretary David Miliband, offered their thoughts on policy options for the EU post-2009.
Frans Timmermans, the Dutch Europe Minister, said that "When Eurobarometer asks people in Europe, do you support the idea of Europe, the highest response, yes responses, is in the Netherlands, but this is on an abstract level. As soon as you go to the nitty gritty, you will see that the Dutch have become quite eurosceptical in general about the instruments of Europe, about the workings of Europe, ecetera. So what happens is that when talking about Europe, you immediately talk about the institutions, travelling from Brussels to Strasbourg and all sorts of other nonsense that should have been taken off the table a long time ago."
Ending the travelling circus certainly makes sense, but it would be interesting to know what Mr. Timmersmans is referring to when he says "other nonsense"...
Sir Stephen Wall, Britain's former Permanent Representative to the EU, went on to talk about financial regulation and the report by former Bank of France Governor Jacques de Larosiere. Interestingly he said that, "If you look at the de Larosiere report on regulation, it's a rather timid document, but the Commission document on the back of it is already proposing to go further."
He went on to talk about the financial crisis and the eurozone, saying, "It seems to me that for political and economic reasons, the eurozone cannot and will not be allowed to fail. If for the first time, the eurozone countries are compelled actually to make very large financial transfers from richer to poorer...then that will have big political consequences I believe in terms of political management of the eurozone."
The Foreign Secretary also welcomed the de Larosiere report, and described it as an "important contribution to the debate and a useful basis for further discussions on improving supervision and regulation in Europe. He [de Larosiere] has proposed a new independent European early warning body...a single body to become the source of technical financial rules with a clear mandate to iron out national divergences and closer integration and consolidation of EU financial structures."
He also warned that the European project was under "massive scrutiny as a result of the economic crisis. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Europe's core values and institutions are therefore going to be tested by this economic crisis in ways that perhaps we haven't fully come to appreciate."
"Reform of the European Union, which involves by definition critique of the European Union, should be what pro-Europeans do."
"I think that the economic crisis is a test, not just a policy test, but it is a political test for eurosceptics and for europhiles in Britain. To eurosceptics, to people who fear 'too much Europe', who argue that the European Union should be a single market or a trading bloc and no more, I would have a simple message. Instead of beating up on the straw man of the federal state, help Europe defend itself against the real threat that it faces, for example the fragmentation of the single market which would have a devestating effect on the British economy."
"...You cannot be in favour of the single market but against the very institutions that preserve the rules of the game on which we all depend. That is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the eurosceptic position that says it wants the benefits of the single market but thinks that the European Commission is too powerful. Over the next year, we need to defend the political institutions in Europe if we want to maintain our economic freedom."
Actually, this seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of David Miliband's argument. To be "pro-Europe", you should be in favour of reform of the EU and, by definition, all for critique of the EU. But in no way should this desire for reform extend to critiquing the Commission or the "political institutions of Europe".
Guarding against democracy
In response to arrival of Czech President Vaclav Klaus at the EU helm the Guardian has unsurprisingly jumped onto the "we-need-a-permanent-EU-President-in-order-to-silence-critics of the EU" bandwagon - a profoundly anti-democratic argument made in the Independent just a few weeks ago by Roland Rudd.
Just one EU leader - out of 27 - expresses scepticism about the direction of the EU, and everyone gangs up to insist that he shouldn't be allowed a platform to speak. Anyone would think that less than one 27th of the population of the EU shared his views...
The piece is also an argument in favour of EU unity for the sake of EU unity and at the expense of democracy.
The reference to “the egos of Eurosceptics” in particular seems a bit rich... Don't they remember Sarko?!
Just one EU leader - out of 27 - expresses scepticism about the direction of the EU, and everyone gangs up to insist that he shouldn't be allowed a platform to speak. Anyone would think that less than one 27th of the population of the EU shared his views...
The piece is also an argument in favour of EU unity for the sake of EU unity and at the expense of democracy.
The reference to “the egos of Eurosceptics” in particular seems a bit rich... Don't they remember Sarko?!
Potato-go-round
Greek potato farmers have launched an advertisement campaign in Sweden aimed at luring Swedes into buying more Greek potatoes - which is extremely odd given how many potatoes are already grown in Sweden (a lot!). Lately, Swedes have received random brochures in their mailboxes describing how great potatoes are, apparently using strangely awkward language - prompting suspicions that the original text has been translated into Swedish using Babel Fish.
That the potato (boiled not fried) has been a central part of Swedish cuisine for the last 200 years seems to have escaped the campaigners.
Who could fund such a thing?
You guessed it! The EU's Common Agricultural Policy, as confirmed by Commission spokesman Michael Mann.
In response, Swedish potato farmers have launched their own tit-for-tat campaign - using money from the exact same CAP funds.
Utterly bizarre. You must admire these people for their amazing creativity in coming up with new ways to waste taxpayers' money...
Hat tip: brilliant member of the Swedish Riksdag Karl Sigfrid and Swedish blogger HAX.
That the potato (boiled not fried) has been a central part of Swedish cuisine for the last 200 years seems to have escaped the campaigners.
Who could fund such a thing?
You guessed it! The EU's Common Agricultural Policy, as confirmed by Commission spokesman Michael Mann.
In response, Swedish potato farmers have launched their own tit-for-tat campaign - using money from the exact same CAP funds.
Utterly bizarre. You must admire these people for their amazing creativity in coming up with new ways to waste taxpayers' money...
Hat tip: brilliant member of the Swedish Riksdag Karl Sigfrid and Swedish blogger HAX.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Surrender for survival
There's an excellent piece in the Sunday Telegraph by Labour MP Gisela Stuart, explaining very clearly why the EU in its current structure cannot possibly continue.
Friday, March 06, 2009
First the Working Time rules, now this...
From PA:
NEW EU DIRECTIVE 'WILL FORCE RISE IN HOSPITAL RUNNING COSTS'
European plans to tighten controls on industrial pollution could impose massive extra running costs on about 70 NHS hospitals, it was claimed this afternoon.
The threat comes from the EU's Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive, which is already under fire in the UK for risking higher farm prices by extending emissions restrictions to small farms.
Now it is claimed the plans extending the scope of an existing EU Directive will put a new price on running boilers.
The 12-year-old Directive currently targets heavy industries - power stations, ferrous metal production, extraction and mining, chemicals production and waste management.
But the plans are to widen the scope and establish a permit system to prevent and limit pollution from "large-scale industrial installations."
Conservative MEP Caroline Jackson said today that means hospital boilers will be caught in the scheme.
Even their reserve boilers will fall within the scope of the Directive, she claimed.
Ms Jackson said she now hoped her amendments to exclude hospitals from the rules will be approved in a first vote on the new plans in Strasbourg next week.
"Hospitals require a great deal of spare boiler capacity to cope with fluctuations in demand and this law does not take account of that," she said.
"Unless our amendment is passed, hospitals will be faced with the tough choice of paying the huge costs associated with this law, or shutting down boilers, which could have grave consequences for patient care. The commission should have spotted this problem when they drew up the new law: we are not the only country affected.
"The NHS has said that up to 70 hospitals across the UK could be affected, so it is crucial that we recognise their special circumstances."
Earlier this week Farming and Environment Minister Jane Kennedy held talks with MEPs urging them not to back parts of the proposals which would hit small farms and push up the price of chicken, turkey, tomatoes and cucumbers.
In agriculture, the Directive applies to pig and poultry producers who have 40,000 poultry, or 2,000 pigs or more than 750 sows.
But if the rules are extended, the National Farmers' Union says the changes would affect many seasonal and small family farms, triggering price rises for household staples such as chicken, turkey, tomatoes and cucumbers.
The impact on hospitals could be more serious: NHS hospitals keep substantial spare boiler capacity to cope with emergencies and in case of technical failures. The changes to the EU Directive would include assessing their boilers on the basis of their potential emissions, rather than their actual emissions, adding to the costs of obtaining the necessary permit.
The European Parliament vote next week is not the end of the issue: EU ministers will have a say, and MEPs are expected to vote again later in the year before a final agreement is hammered out by the end of 2010.
NEW EU DIRECTIVE 'WILL FORCE RISE IN HOSPITAL RUNNING COSTS'
European plans to tighten controls on industrial pollution could impose massive extra running costs on about 70 NHS hospitals, it was claimed this afternoon.
The threat comes from the EU's Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive, which is already under fire in the UK for risking higher farm prices by extending emissions restrictions to small farms.
Now it is claimed the plans extending the scope of an existing EU Directive will put a new price on running boilers.
The 12-year-old Directive currently targets heavy industries - power stations, ferrous metal production, extraction and mining, chemicals production and waste management.
But the plans are to widen the scope and establish a permit system to prevent and limit pollution from "large-scale industrial installations."
Conservative MEP Caroline Jackson said today that means hospital boilers will be caught in the scheme.
Even their reserve boilers will fall within the scope of the Directive, she claimed.
Ms Jackson said she now hoped her amendments to exclude hospitals from the rules will be approved in a first vote on the new plans in Strasbourg next week.
"Hospitals require a great deal of spare boiler capacity to cope with fluctuations in demand and this law does not take account of that," she said.
"Unless our amendment is passed, hospitals will be faced with the tough choice of paying the huge costs associated with this law, or shutting down boilers, which could have grave consequences for patient care. The commission should have spotted this problem when they drew up the new law: we are not the only country affected.
"The NHS has said that up to 70 hospitals across the UK could be affected, so it is crucial that we recognise their special circumstances."
Earlier this week Farming and Environment Minister Jane Kennedy held talks with MEPs urging them not to back parts of the proposals which would hit small farms and push up the price of chicken, turkey, tomatoes and cucumbers.
In agriculture, the Directive applies to pig and poultry producers who have 40,000 poultry, or 2,000 pigs or more than 750 sows.
But if the rules are extended, the National Farmers' Union says the changes would affect many seasonal and small family farms, triggering price rises for household staples such as chicken, turkey, tomatoes and cucumbers.
The impact on hospitals could be more serious: NHS hospitals keep substantial spare boiler capacity to cope with emergencies and in case of technical failures. The changes to the EU Directive would include assessing their boilers on the basis of their potential emissions, rather than their actual emissions, adding to the costs of obtaining the necessary permit.
The European Parliament vote next week is not the end of the issue: EU ministers will have a say, and MEPs are expected to vote again later in the year before a final agreement is hammered out by the end of 2010.
National parliaments & the Lisbon Treaty: the myth
BBC Online is running a series of 'Viewpoints' on EU issues. This week it looks at the Lisbon Treaty, with arguments from us here at OE and from the Robert Schuman Foundation in Paris.
We argue that the provisions in the Treaty, which people always point to, that purport to give national parliaments more powers in the EU decision-making process, are pretty useless - as confirmed by both the President of the German Constitutional Court and the House of Common's cross-party EU scrutiny committee.
The President of the Robert Schuman Foundation, Jean-Dominique Giuliani, on the other hand, argues that "National parliaments will be able to challenge decisions that are the prerogative of member states. Under Lisbon, if one-third of the national parliaments agree on something, they can act together to oblige the Commission to cancel and review a wrong decision. They will also be able to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice."
This is plain wrong. National parliaments will be given no power whatsoever to "oblige" the Commission to "cancel" a proposal.
The Treaty says that, in the very unlikely event that a third of national parliaments - that's 9 - get together to oppose their governments on a piece of legislation, on the specific grounds of 'subsidiarity', and within an 8-week window, then the legislation would have to be reviewed, following which, it would be open to the institution which originated the proposal to choose whether to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal.
So absolutely no obligation to cancel the proposal at all.
The Treaty also states that where the Commission originated a proposal and the proposal was subject to qualified majority voting and co-decision by the Council and the European Parliament (so most of them), in the supremely unlikely event that a majority of national parliaments (so 14!) object to it, again on the narrow grounds of subsidiarity, then again, it would be open to the Commission to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal. The legislation would only have to fall if the Commission decided to maintain the proposal and then either 55% of the members of the Council, or a majority of the European Parliament agreed with the parliaments that it didn't comply with the principle of subsidiarity.
As the EU Scrutiny Committee has pointed out: "the decision on whether a proposal is compatible with subsidiarity will continue to rest with the EU institutions."
Which is why MEP Andrew Duff, who was involved in the drafting of the Treaty, admitted to the Scrutiny Committee that "It was understood by those of us involved in its drafting and, then, re-drafting that the mechanism, although a necessary addition to the system of governance of the Union, was not really intended to be used. It is, in Bagehot’s terms, more a dignified part of the European constitutional settlement than an efficient one.”
It may all sound pretty boring and complicated, but the bottom line is that, under Lisbon, Commission proposals can only be "cancelled" in the extremely unlikely event that 14 national parliaments all object to it, in a short 8-week window, and are then backed up by the majority of the Council or the European Parliament. Which is nothing like the argument put forward by our friend at the Robert Schuman Foundation.
Mr. Guiliani also believes "there is no particular need for national referendums on European issues. Those who ask for referendums want to vote against the EU and their own government." Not a particularly positive argument in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, is it?
We argue that the provisions in the Treaty, which people always point to, that purport to give national parliaments more powers in the EU decision-making process, are pretty useless - as confirmed by both the President of the German Constitutional Court and the House of Common's cross-party EU scrutiny committee.
The President of the Robert Schuman Foundation, Jean-Dominique Giuliani, on the other hand, argues that "National parliaments will be able to challenge decisions that are the prerogative of member states. Under Lisbon, if one-third of the national parliaments agree on something, they can act together to oblige the Commission to cancel and review a wrong decision. They will also be able to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice."
This is plain wrong. National parliaments will be given no power whatsoever to "oblige" the Commission to "cancel" a proposal.
The Treaty says that, in the very unlikely event that a third of national parliaments - that's 9 - get together to oppose their governments on a piece of legislation, on the specific grounds of 'subsidiarity', and within an 8-week window, then the legislation would have to be reviewed, following which, it would be open to the institution which originated the proposal to choose whether to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal.
So absolutely no obligation to cancel the proposal at all.
The Treaty also states that where the Commission originated a proposal and the proposal was subject to qualified majority voting and co-decision by the Council and the European Parliament (so most of them), in the supremely unlikely event that a majority of national parliaments (so 14!) object to it, again on the narrow grounds of subsidiarity, then again, it would be open to the Commission to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal. The legislation would only have to fall if the Commission decided to maintain the proposal and then either 55% of the members of the Council, or a majority of the European Parliament agreed with the parliaments that it didn't comply with the principle of subsidiarity.
As the EU Scrutiny Committee has pointed out: "the decision on whether a proposal is compatible with subsidiarity will continue to rest with the EU institutions."
Which is why MEP Andrew Duff, who was involved in the drafting of the Treaty, admitted to the Scrutiny Committee that "It was understood by those of us involved in its drafting and, then, re-drafting that the mechanism, although a necessary addition to the system of governance of the Union, was not really intended to be used. It is, in Bagehot’s terms, more a dignified part of the European constitutional settlement than an efficient one.”
It may all sound pretty boring and complicated, but the bottom line is that, under Lisbon, Commission proposals can only be "cancelled" in the extremely unlikely event that 14 national parliaments all object to it, in a short 8-week window, and are then backed up by the majority of the Council or the European Parliament. Which is nothing like the argument put forward by our friend at the Robert Schuman Foundation.
Mr. Guiliani also believes "there is no particular need for national referendums on European issues. Those who ask for referendums want to vote against the EU and their own government." Not a particularly positive argument in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)