News @ Justice & Home Affairs Council. The Council has recently reached an agreement with the European Parliament on the Directive for the protection of the environment through criminal law (at first reading, under the co-decision procedure). According to Hartmut Nassauer, European Parliament rapporteur, “we are setting a precedent” whilst stressing that criminal penalties might be extended to other areas than protection of environment. This Directive intends to harmonise the approach of Member States in the breach of EU environmental protection rules. Presently, there is no express power conferred by the EC Treaty to the Community to adopt criminal law measures.
In 2001, the European Commission proposed a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law however the Council had adopted a framework decision instead. In September 2005, the ECJ ruled that the Community had the competence to adopt criminal measures to ensure compliance with environmental protection rules and annulled the framework decision. Obviously, the ECJ ruling was an important victory for the European Commission which could not wait to initiate legislation in criminal matters. In February 2007 the European Commission had put forward a proposal for a Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law aiming at replacing the Council Framework Decision annulled by the ECJ. The Directive will apply to breaches of Community law on the protection of the environment such as the illegal transport of waste, illegal trafficking of threatened species, the significant deterioration of protected habitats, unauthorized emissions into the water, air or soil, through dangerous activities which includes the production, storage and transportation of nuclear material, or the production and placing on the market or use of ozone depleting substances. Under the Directive such behaviour will be considered as a criminal offence throughout the EU when unlawful and committed intentionally or with serious negligence.
Member States are therefore required to introduce in their national legislation criminal penalties for serious violation of Community environmental protection law committed intentionally or by seriously neglect and to introduce the necessary measures to ensure that these offences are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. Under the Directive, inciting, aiding and abetting of such conduct will also be considered a criminal offence. The Commission was initially aiming at harmonizing the minimum levels for fines but this was withdrawn as the ECJ ruled that the Community does not have competence to determine the type and the level of the criminal sanctions.
The Lisbon Treaty confers powers on the Union to define criminal offences and sanctions when they are necessary for the implementation of one of its policies. The Justice and Home Affairs Council gave its blessing to this Directive on 6 June. The power to determine criminal liability and to impose criminal penalties is another sovereign power which has been transferred from Member States to Brussels.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
EU Parliament seeks larger role in foreign and defence policy
It is well known that the role played by the EU in the international arena would be enhanced if the Lisbon Treaty goes through. On 5 June, the European Parliament adopted two reports on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and on the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Obviously, the European Parliament wants to have a bigger role in these areas. The European Parliament adopted by a large majority (520 votes in favour) Jacek Saryusz-Wolskin’s own initiative report on the Council’s 2006 Annual Report on CFSP. The European Parliament welcomed the “improvements” introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon regarding external action, the CFSP and the ESDP, which will become the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
The European Parliament has stressed the necessity of improving EU political unity in order to strengthen the CFSP. Under the Lisbon Treaty, there is an overall transfer of further political power to EU level, through the new President of the European Council and the High Representative on Foreign and Security policy. All these changes would eliminate or diminish the ability of Member States to conduct their own foreign policy. The intergovernmental nature of the CFSP is maintained under the Lisbon Treaty however it increases the areas in which QMV would be applied to CFSP matters which includes decisions on proposals presented by the High Representative, all of which is unacceptable.
However, the European Parliament wants to scrap the veto on CFSP matters. According to the European Parliament, the Lisbon Treaty improves the existing CFSP arrangements but “further efforts are needed in order to streamline the decision-making process as regards foreign policy with a view to overcoming the veto power and introducing qualified majority voting.” The European Parliament has called for further transfer of power from the Member States to the Union. If the Lisbon Treaty goes through, the Union would not only have a “foreign affairs minister” but also a European external action service (EEAS), meaning a diplomatic service with delegations in several countries. The organisation and functioning of the EEAS will be established by a Council decision, acting by a QMV, on a proposal from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the consent of the Commission. The European Parliament has stressed its right to be consulted on the establishment of the EEAS. Obviously the creation of the European external action service will challenge the distinction of European and national foreign policy priorities and interests. The Member States would no longer represent themselves but the Union on the international stage.
The European Parliament also adopted Helmut Kuhne’s own initiative report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy (ESS) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) by a large majority (500 votes in favour). According to Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, Conservative Spokesman on Defence, “This report is a manifesto for an EU takeover of our armed forces – the greatest prize for the federalists and their ambition to create a state called Europe.”
The European Parliament has invited the High Representative to include in a White Paper major proposals endeavouring to improving and complementing the European Security Strategy (ESS), mainly “the definition of common European security interests and criteria for the launching of ESDP missions.” The European Parliament has also called on the High Representative “to define new targets for civilian and military capabilities (…) and to reflect on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty with regard to ESDP and proposals for a new EU-NATO partnership.”
The European Parliament has welcomed the Lisbon Treaty’s major innovations in the area of ESDP such as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a European External Action Service, a provision on mutual defence assistance, a solidarity clause, permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence and an extension of the “Petersberg tasks.” The Common Security and Defence Policy would be further developed under the Lisbon Treaty. There would be a major transfer of power in this area from the Member States to the Union. The Lisbon Treaty would further the Union’s defence integration. UK relations with the rest of the world and NATO would be undermined. The Lisbon Treaty also introduces a provision for “permanent structured cooperation” between a group of Member States, allowing greater cooperation in the area of capabilities. The aim is to move forward in military and defence integration. It is a step towards a Single European Army. As this would not be enough, the European Parliament has asked the Member States to examine the possibility of possessing (under the terms of permanent structured cooperation, and as foreseen in the Lisbon Treaty) existing multinational forces such as Eurocorps, Eurofor, Euromarfor, the European Gendarmerie Force, the European Air Group, the European Air Coordination cell in Eindhoven, the Athens Multinational Sealift Coordination Centre and all relevant forces and structures for ESDP operations. As regards civilian crisis management and civil protection, the European Parliament has called upon the Commission to look into the possibilities for setting up of a specialised unit within the European external action service aiming to ensure a more coherent approach to civilian crisis management based on better coordination of internal EU instruments. Moreover, the European Parliament has stressed the importance of strengthening the conflict resolution civil capacity and consequently urged the establishment of an EU Civil Peace Corps for crisis management and conflict prevention. Furthermore, the European Parliament has reiterated its opinion that its is unacceptable that although the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports hits its tenth year in 2008, it is not yet legally binding. The European Parliament has stressed the need for the EU to have a leading role on strengthening the international arms control regime.
Geoffrey Van Orden has spoken against arms trade being surrendered to EU control. He has said “Britain is fortunate to possess the largest and most successful defence industry in Europe. Strategic industries and British jobs would be put at risk if the EU was allowed to bind us with more of its bureaucratic red tape.” The European Parliament has also called on the Council to assess the Battle Group concept in order to create a more extensive catalogue of available capabilities and to be in a position to promptly generate a force adequate to a mission’s circumstances. It also wants to set up within the EU Operations Centre a permanent planning and operational capability to conduct ESDP military operations. The MEPs have also proposed “to place Eurocorps as a standing force under EU command and invite all Member States to contribute to it.” Keeping in mind the training of those European forces, the European Parliament has called for a military ‘Erasmus’ programme. The European Parliament has welcomed the Commission’s proposals for a directive on defence procurement and for a Directive on intra-Community defence equipment transfers. The MEPs have stressed that the European Parliament should adopt a recommendation or resolution before the launch of any ESDP operation and have asked the Council to include in a decision authorising an ESDP operation a reference to a recommendation or resolution adopted by Parliament.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
The European Parliament has stressed the necessity of improving EU political unity in order to strengthen the CFSP. Under the Lisbon Treaty, there is an overall transfer of further political power to EU level, through the new President of the European Council and the High Representative on Foreign and Security policy. All these changes would eliminate or diminish the ability of Member States to conduct their own foreign policy. The intergovernmental nature of the CFSP is maintained under the Lisbon Treaty however it increases the areas in which QMV would be applied to CFSP matters which includes decisions on proposals presented by the High Representative, all of which is unacceptable.
However, the European Parliament wants to scrap the veto on CFSP matters. According to the European Parliament, the Lisbon Treaty improves the existing CFSP arrangements but “further efforts are needed in order to streamline the decision-making process as regards foreign policy with a view to overcoming the veto power and introducing qualified majority voting.” The European Parliament has called for further transfer of power from the Member States to the Union. If the Lisbon Treaty goes through, the Union would not only have a “foreign affairs minister” but also a European external action service (EEAS), meaning a diplomatic service with delegations in several countries. The organisation and functioning of the EEAS will be established by a Council decision, acting by a QMV, on a proposal from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the consent of the Commission. The European Parliament has stressed its right to be consulted on the establishment of the EEAS. Obviously the creation of the European external action service will challenge the distinction of European and national foreign policy priorities and interests. The Member States would no longer represent themselves but the Union on the international stage.
The European Parliament also adopted Helmut Kuhne’s own initiative report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy (ESS) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) by a large majority (500 votes in favour). According to Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, Conservative Spokesman on Defence, “This report is a manifesto for an EU takeover of our armed forces – the greatest prize for the federalists and their ambition to create a state called Europe.”
The European Parliament has invited the High Representative to include in a White Paper major proposals endeavouring to improving and complementing the European Security Strategy (ESS), mainly “the definition of common European security interests and criteria for the launching of ESDP missions.” The European Parliament has also called on the High Representative “to define new targets for civilian and military capabilities (…) and to reflect on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty with regard to ESDP and proposals for a new EU-NATO partnership.”
The European Parliament has welcomed the Lisbon Treaty’s major innovations in the area of ESDP such as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a European External Action Service, a provision on mutual defence assistance, a solidarity clause, permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence and an extension of the “Petersberg tasks.” The Common Security and Defence Policy would be further developed under the Lisbon Treaty. There would be a major transfer of power in this area from the Member States to the Union. The Lisbon Treaty would further the Union’s defence integration. UK relations with the rest of the world and NATO would be undermined. The Lisbon Treaty also introduces a provision for “permanent structured cooperation” between a group of Member States, allowing greater cooperation in the area of capabilities. The aim is to move forward in military and defence integration. It is a step towards a Single European Army. As this would not be enough, the European Parliament has asked the Member States to examine the possibility of possessing (under the terms of permanent structured cooperation, and as foreseen in the Lisbon Treaty) existing multinational forces such as Eurocorps, Eurofor, Euromarfor, the European Gendarmerie Force, the European Air Group, the European Air Coordination cell in Eindhoven, the Athens Multinational Sealift Coordination Centre and all relevant forces and structures for ESDP operations. As regards civilian crisis management and civil protection, the European Parliament has called upon the Commission to look into the possibilities for setting up of a specialised unit within the European external action service aiming to ensure a more coherent approach to civilian crisis management based on better coordination of internal EU instruments. Moreover, the European Parliament has stressed the importance of strengthening the conflict resolution civil capacity and consequently urged the establishment of an EU Civil Peace Corps for crisis management and conflict prevention. Furthermore, the European Parliament has reiterated its opinion that its is unacceptable that although the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports hits its tenth year in 2008, it is not yet legally binding. The European Parliament has stressed the need for the EU to have a leading role on strengthening the international arms control regime.
Geoffrey Van Orden has spoken against arms trade being surrendered to EU control. He has said “Britain is fortunate to possess the largest and most successful defence industry in Europe. Strategic industries and British jobs would be put at risk if the EU was allowed to bind us with more of its bureaucratic red tape.” The European Parliament has also called on the Council to assess the Battle Group concept in order to create a more extensive catalogue of available capabilities and to be in a position to promptly generate a force adequate to a mission’s circumstances. It also wants to set up within the EU Operations Centre a permanent planning and operational capability to conduct ESDP military operations. The MEPs have also proposed “to place Eurocorps as a standing force under EU command and invite all Member States to contribute to it.” Keeping in mind the training of those European forces, the European Parliament has called for a military ‘Erasmus’ programme. The European Parliament has welcomed the Commission’s proposals for a directive on defence procurement and for a Directive on intra-Community defence equipment transfers. The MEPs have stressed that the European Parliament should adopt a recommendation or resolution before the launch of any ESDP operation and have asked the Council to include in a decision authorising an ESDP operation a reference to a recommendation or resolution adopted by Parliament.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
The Commission strikes again on UK budgetary control
News @ European Commission. On 11 June, the European Commission adopted a report according to Article 104 (3) of the EC Treaty, to initiate the excessive deficit procedure for the United Kingdom. The European Commission adopted the report following the UK notification, in March 2008, of a planned deficit of 3.2 per cent of GDP in financial year 2008-09, which is above 3 per cent of GDP – the Treaty reference value.
The Commission has stressed that the planned figure for 2008-09 provides evidence of the existence of an excessive deficit in the UK which was confirmed by the spring forecast. The Commission has accepted that the planned deficit is close to the reference value and has concluded that the UK’s planned excess over the deficit over the reference value cannot be qualified as exceptional within the terms of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact, or temporary. Therefore the Commission has suggested that the UK is not respecting the deficit criterion established in the Treaty. Hence, the Commission has issued a warning for the UK to keep the budget deficit under the 3 per cent GDP level.
The UK is therefore under EU pressure to improve its finances. The Commission has already warned that tax cuts would further sprain public finances. Consequently, Alistair Darling might raise taxes to reduce the deficit. The initiation of the excessive deficit procedure against the UK though would not lead to financial sanctions if the UK does not follow the recommendations but it raises doubts over Alistair Darling’s management of public finances. The report will be assessed by the Ecofin Council.
On 5 June, the European Commission has also lodged a formal complaint to the ECJ against the UK for alleged failure to comply with European employment legislation relating to road transport activities. According to the Commission, the UK has not informed it of its national measures transposing Directive 2006/22/EC which regulates the controls that Member States have to carry out in order to ensure compliance with rules on driving time and rest periods. Member States were required to adopt the necessary legislation before 1 April 2007. Moreover, the Commission has also sent a reasoned opinion against the UK for alleged failure to fully transpose Directive 2005/45/EC into national law on the mutual recognition of seafarers’ certificates issued by the Member States. Member States had until October 2007 to transpose the Directive. It is aimed at encouraging mobility of seafarers within the European Union. The UK will have to adapt its national legislation on maritime transport if it does not want to find itself before the ECJ.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
The Commission has stressed that the planned figure for 2008-09 provides evidence of the existence of an excessive deficit in the UK which was confirmed by the spring forecast. The Commission has accepted that the planned deficit is close to the reference value and has concluded that the UK’s planned excess over the deficit over the reference value cannot be qualified as exceptional within the terms of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact, or temporary. Therefore the Commission has suggested that the UK is not respecting the deficit criterion established in the Treaty. Hence, the Commission has issued a warning for the UK to keep the budget deficit under the 3 per cent GDP level.
The UK is therefore under EU pressure to improve its finances. The Commission has already warned that tax cuts would further sprain public finances. Consequently, Alistair Darling might raise taxes to reduce the deficit. The initiation of the excessive deficit procedure against the UK though would not lead to financial sanctions if the UK does not follow the recommendations but it raises doubts over Alistair Darling’s management of public finances. The report will be assessed by the Ecofin Council.
On 5 June, the European Commission has also lodged a formal complaint to the ECJ against the UK for alleged failure to comply with European employment legislation relating to road transport activities. According to the Commission, the UK has not informed it of its national measures transposing Directive 2006/22/EC which regulates the controls that Member States have to carry out in order to ensure compliance with rules on driving time and rest periods. Member States were required to adopt the necessary legislation before 1 April 2007. Moreover, the Commission has also sent a reasoned opinion against the UK for alleged failure to fully transpose Directive 2005/45/EC into national law on the mutual recognition of seafarers’ certificates issued by the Member States. Member States had until October 2007 to transpose the Directive. It is aimed at encouraging mobility of seafarers within the European Union. The UK will have to adapt its national legislation on maritime transport if it does not want to find itself before the ECJ.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
US frustrated as EU Commission remains defiant in lifting chicken ban
News @ European Commission. The credibility of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) is at stake as the Commission will not be able to honour its commitments. On 13 May, Gunther Verheugen, Vice President of the European Commission and TEC chairman had promised that the Commission would put forward a proposal to lift the 1997 EU ban on the US chlorinated chickens (see The European Journal, June issue). On 28 May, the European Commission has submitted the proposal to the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health. The Commission’s Draft Regulation establishes strict rules and criteria for the use of antimicrobial substances. Operators would be required to set up controls to check the potential effects of the use of such substances. Moreover, operators are required under the Commission proposal to affix the sign of “chemical decontamination” or “treated with antimicrobial substances” on the poultry packaging. The operators are also required to rinse the poultry carcasses with potable water after treatment.
The Commission’s proposal sets a temporary authorisation of two years for the import of chickens for human consumption treated with chlorinate. Mr Verheugen has made significant efforts to work with the United States however he may have provided false hopes, as it will be very difficult for Member States to approve the proposal. At the Agriculture Council which took place on 19 May, it became clearer that the majority of the EU agriculture ministers are against the idea of authorising US poultry in the EU market. The poultry issue is among the main priorities of the TEC.
The US has already criticised the Commission’s proposal. Daniel Price, the Co-Chairman of the TEC, has said, according to Europolitics, that the Commission’s proposal “is the functional equivalent of leaving the ban in place.” According to Price, the European Commission is already undermining the TEC, adding, “The message being sent out is that if an issue is politically difficult or affects the commercial interests of local domestic constituents, it may not be appropriate for the TEC. This really is not about the poultry trade – it is about the TEC’s integrity.”
The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health voted on 2 June to keep the ban on US poultry imports, rejecting the European Commission proposal. All the EU Member States, with the exception of the UK which has abstained, have voted to keep in place the ban on imports of poultry rinsed in chlorine. According to the comitology rules, the Commission’s proposal will go to the Agriculture Council which is very likely to reject the proposal as the EU agriculture ministers have recently shown their opposition to such measure. This is effectively a blow to the EU and US trade relations. Günter Verheugen has promised that it would work with the Member States in order to find an agreement on lifting the ban on US chickens but up until now, it has achieved the opposite. The TEC’s credibility is already at stake in achieving little in the way of removing barriers to transatlantic trade. The EU-US Summit took place on 10 June and trade tensions are set to stay rather than be sorted. The summit unsurprisingly has not brought any major developments. According to a Joint Declaration, the EU and US have welcomed the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council yet it was stressed that that in order “To fulfill the TEC's mandate of creating a barrier-free transatlantic market, it is essential that both sides follow through on their commitments ….” The US is already considering taking the issue to the World Trade Organisation. In order for the TEC to start producing results, Gunter Verheugen needs support from the EU presidency which does not seem likely during the French presidency as it is obvious that France is not willing to remove regulatory trade barriers.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
The Commission’s proposal sets a temporary authorisation of two years for the import of chickens for human consumption treated with chlorinate. Mr Verheugen has made significant efforts to work with the United States however he may have provided false hopes, as it will be very difficult for Member States to approve the proposal. At the Agriculture Council which took place on 19 May, it became clearer that the majority of the EU agriculture ministers are against the idea of authorising US poultry in the EU market. The poultry issue is among the main priorities of the TEC.
The US has already criticised the Commission’s proposal. Daniel Price, the Co-Chairman of the TEC, has said, according to Europolitics, that the Commission’s proposal “is the functional equivalent of leaving the ban in place.” According to Price, the European Commission is already undermining the TEC, adding, “The message being sent out is that if an issue is politically difficult or affects the commercial interests of local domestic constituents, it may not be appropriate for the TEC. This really is not about the poultry trade – it is about the TEC’s integrity.”
The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health voted on 2 June to keep the ban on US poultry imports, rejecting the European Commission proposal. All the EU Member States, with the exception of the UK which has abstained, have voted to keep in place the ban on imports of poultry rinsed in chlorine. According to the comitology rules, the Commission’s proposal will go to the Agriculture Council which is very likely to reject the proposal as the EU agriculture ministers have recently shown their opposition to such measure. This is effectively a blow to the EU and US trade relations. Günter Verheugen has promised that it would work with the Member States in order to find an agreement on lifting the ban on US chickens but up until now, it has achieved the opposite. The TEC’s credibility is already at stake in achieving little in the way of removing barriers to transatlantic trade. The EU-US Summit took place on 10 June and trade tensions are set to stay rather than be sorted. The summit unsurprisingly has not brought any major developments. According to a Joint Declaration, the EU and US have welcomed the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council yet it was stressed that that in order “To fulfill the TEC's mandate of creating a barrier-free transatlantic market, it is essential that both sides follow through on their commitments ….” The US is already considering taking the issue to the World Trade Organisation. In order for the TEC to start producing results, Gunter Verheugen needs support from the EU presidency which does not seem likely during the French presidency as it is obvious that France is not willing to remove regulatory trade barriers.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Franco-German united front against CAP reform
News @ European Commission. Mariann Fischer-Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, has recently unveiled the Commission’s proposals for the so-called CAP Health Check. The Commission’s proposal does very little to boost farm competitiveness, to phase out all the price support measures and to cut bureaucracy. The situation is likely to get even worse through the negotiations as several Member States such as France and Germany believe that the Commission’s proposals are too ambitious since they both want to keep the coupled payment system and market instruments. It is very likely the UK will have few or none of its demands met through the negotiation process.
CAP has been through recent reforms but it continues to be one of the most expensive EU common policies, it imposes substantial costs on developing countries as well as on EU consumers and taxpayers. Tony Blair not only gave up part of the UK rebate but there appears to be no serious CAP reform on the way. The Government has stressed, on its longer term vision for the CAP, published in 2005, that “the CAP has been estimated to be equivalent to a value added tax on food of around 15 per cent” and that “removing market price support would bring a one-off reduction in inflation of 0.9 per cent.” The European Commission has proposed to increase decoupling, strengthen rules on cross compliance, reduce market intervention mechanisms and increasing modulation. However, the Commission’s proposal to reform CAP is far from satisfactory.
The Commission has proposed further decoupling, meaning reducing the link between how much farmers produce and how much financial support they receive from the CAP with the exceptions of suckler cows, goat and sheep premia where Member States would be allowed to maintain the coupled support. Whereas the UK favour direct aid to be completely decoupled from production, several EU Member States such as France, Portugal, Germany and Romania, are not convinced by the Commission’s proposals on decoupling as they believe it will not promote production.
The Commission has pointed out that in order to strengthen the EU efforts in the field of climate change, renewable energy, water management and biodiversity, additional funding is needed. The Commission believes that “the best way of meeting them is through Rural Development policy.” Therefore, it has proposed to increase the transfer of direct payments to the Rural Development budget by 8 per cent. Modulation provides a mean to ensure the transfer of subsidy funds from Pillar 1 of the CAP (guarantee expenditure and single farm payments) to Pillar 2 (rural development and agri-environmental schemes). Some Member States are concerned that the rural development support will come at expense of market supports and subsidies.
Presently, all direct aid payments of more than €5,000 are reduced by 5 per cent and the money is transferred into the Rural Development budget. The Commission wants to make further cuts for bigger farms. It has proposed that any amount of direct payments to be granted to a farmer that exceeds EUR 5,000 shall be reduced for each year until 2012 by the following way “2009: 7%, 2010: 9%, 2011: 11%, 2012: 13%.” However, several Member States such as Germany are concerned that reducing subsidies to big farmers might lead to splits into smaller farms in order to qualify for subsidies. The Commission has also proposed to replace the present intervention systems under which farmers are able to sell stock into EU reserves if they cannot get a decent price for their produce on the market into a “genuine safety net.” It has proposed to abolish the existing intervention mechanisms for durum wheat, rice and pig meat. Intervention will be set at zero for feed grains and tendering will be introduced for bread wheat, butter and skimmed milk powder. The UK has been demanding the end of all market instruments whereas France does not want to give up market interventions. The Commission has also proposed to abolish existing rules on keeping 10 per cent of farmers’ arable land untouched.
Unsurprisingly, the Commission’s proposed reform has not pleased France and Germany which united forces to defend the present CAP. France and Germany have been arguing that CAP is needed to keep food price stability in the EU as well as to protect farmers through the import tariff system. On the other hand, the UK has been demanding serious CAP reform. France and Germany are completely against the idea of cutting farm subsidies. Mr. Darling has called for a “phasing out all elements of the CAP that are designed to keep EU prices above world market levels (such measures cost EU consumers 43 billion euros in 2006), an end to direct payments for EU farmers (which cost EU taxpayers 34 billion euros in 2006).”
Mr Seehofer, Germany’s Agriculture Minister, has said “we have to make sure that we can provide this continent with food sustainability. This cannot be done by taking away subsidies from European farmers.” Yet, Alistair Darling believes that is “unacceptable that, at a time of significant food price inflation, the EU continues to apply very high import tariffs to many agricultural commodities.” According to Michel Barnier, French agriculture minister, “The solution to the crisis is not, first of all, through free trade (…).” Mariann Fischer Boel has dismissed the French claims, saying “I am not interested in a protectionistic approach to the agricultural production in Europe (…).” Nevertheless, she has also dismissed the UK position, while saying “The market has a very important role to play, but left to itself, it will not care for our landscapes or respond to other public demands.” Moreover, she said, “This is not the time to scrap the CAP, as some have proposed.”
The EU Agriculture Minister will further discuss the Commission’s CAP health check at the Agriculture Council in June which will face opposition from several Member States. On the one hand, France and Germany defend farm subsidies while on the other hand, the UK wants to scrap them. France will be wearing the EU helmet in July and ironically the CAP reform will be debated during its presidency. France being the biggest beneficiary of CAP does not want to see a reduction on farm subsidies. The Commission’s proposals are expected to be adopted by the Council by the end of the year and come into force in 2009.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
CAP has been through recent reforms but it continues to be one of the most expensive EU common policies, it imposes substantial costs on developing countries as well as on EU consumers and taxpayers. Tony Blair not only gave up part of the UK rebate but there appears to be no serious CAP reform on the way. The Government has stressed, on its longer term vision for the CAP, published in 2005, that “the CAP has been estimated to be equivalent to a value added tax on food of around 15 per cent” and that “removing market price support would bring a one-off reduction in inflation of 0.9 per cent.” The European Commission has proposed to increase decoupling, strengthen rules on cross compliance, reduce market intervention mechanisms and increasing modulation. However, the Commission’s proposal to reform CAP is far from satisfactory.
The Commission has proposed further decoupling, meaning reducing the link between how much farmers produce and how much financial support they receive from the CAP with the exceptions of suckler cows, goat and sheep premia where Member States would be allowed to maintain the coupled support. Whereas the UK favour direct aid to be completely decoupled from production, several EU Member States such as France, Portugal, Germany and Romania, are not convinced by the Commission’s proposals on decoupling as they believe it will not promote production.
The Commission has pointed out that in order to strengthen the EU efforts in the field of climate change, renewable energy, water management and biodiversity, additional funding is needed. The Commission believes that “the best way of meeting them is through Rural Development policy.” Therefore, it has proposed to increase the transfer of direct payments to the Rural Development budget by 8 per cent. Modulation provides a mean to ensure the transfer of subsidy funds from Pillar 1 of the CAP (guarantee expenditure and single farm payments) to Pillar 2 (rural development and agri-environmental schemes). Some Member States are concerned that the rural development support will come at expense of market supports and subsidies.
Presently, all direct aid payments of more than €5,000 are reduced by 5 per cent and the money is transferred into the Rural Development budget. The Commission wants to make further cuts for bigger farms. It has proposed that any amount of direct payments to be granted to a farmer that exceeds EUR 5,000 shall be reduced for each year until 2012 by the following way “2009: 7%, 2010: 9%, 2011: 11%, 2012: 13%.” However, several Member States such as Germany are concerned that reducing subsidies to big farmers might lead to splits into smaller farms in order to qualify for subsidies. The Commission has also proposed to replace the present intervention systems under which farmers are able to sell stock into EU reserves if they cannot get a decent price for their produce on the market into a “genuine safety net.” It has proposed to abolish the existing intervention mechanisms for durum wheat, rice and pig meat. Intervention will be set at zero for feed grains and tendering will be introduced for bread wheat, butter and skimmed milk powder. The UK has been demanding the end of all market instruments whereas France does not want to give up market interventions. The Commission has also proposed to abolish existing rules on keeping 10 per cent of farmers’ arable land untouched.
Unsurprisingly, the Commission’s proposed reform has not pleased France and Germany which united forces to defend the present CAP. France and Germany have been arguing that CAP is needed to keep food price stability in the EU as well as to protect farmers through the import tariff system. On the other hand, the UK has been demanding serious CAP reform. France and Germany are completely against the idea of cutting farm subsidies. Mr. Darling has called for a “phasing out all elements of the CAP that are designed to keep EU prices above world market levels (such measures cost EU consumers 43 billion euros in 2006), an end to direct payments for EU farmers (which cost EU taxpayers 34 billion euros in 2006).”
Mr Seehofer, Germany’s Agriculture Minister, has said “we have to make sure that we can provide this continent with food sustainability. This cannot be done by taking away subsidies from European farmers.” Yet, Alistair Darling believes that is “unacceptable that, at a time of significant food price inflation, the EU continues to apply very high import tariffs to many agricultural commodities.” According to Michel Barnier, French agriculture minister, “The solution to the crisis is not, first of all, through free trade (…).” Mariann Fischer Boel has dismissed the French claims, saying “I am not interested in a protectionistic approach to the agricultural production in Europe (…).” Nevertheless, she has also dismissed the UK position, while saying “The market has a very important role to play, but left to itself, it will not care for our landscapes or respond to other public demands.” Moreover, she said, “This is not the time to scrap the CAP, as some have proposed.”
The EU Agriculture Minister will further discuss the Commission’s CAP health check at the Agriculture Council in June which will face opposition from several Member States. On the one hand, France and Germany defend farm subsidies while on the other hand, the UK wants to scrap them. France will be wearing the EU helmet in July and ironically the CAP reform will be debated during its presidency. France being the biggest beneficiary of CAP does not want to see a reduction on farm subsidies. The Commission’s proposals are expected to be adopted by the Council by the end of the year and come into force in 2009.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Threat to US-EU relations by Transatlantic Economic Council
The Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) was created in April 2007 at the EU-US Summit in Washington to foster transatlantic economic integration. It aims to achieve better regulation, barrier-free and secure trade, protection of intellectual property rights, and integration of financial markets although it is doubtful that it will be able to achieve such objectives. On 13 May, the TEC met for the second time. According to the US Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope, if all the outstanding regulatory barriers could be resolved by the TEC, that could add €6.5 billion ($10bn) to the transatlantic economic relationship in saved costs and potential market growth. The transatlantic business community are hoping that the TEC will begin to manage the bilateral tensions between the US and EU. American businessmen are particularly concerned about regulatory barriers in the cosmetics and poultry sectors. The EU’s ban on the marketing of cosmetics ingredients that were tested on animals will enter into force in March 2009 and it is becoming quite difficult for the US to meet that deadline. Moreover, the US cosmetics firms have been objecting to the EU’s REACH chemicals regulation deadline on June 2008, for registering certain chemicals used in cosmetics made outside the EU. The US believes that the deadline is almost impossible to be meet which will lead to millions of dollars in lost sales as product formulas will be prevented from being sold within the EU. The main concern of this industry is that its products would be classified as new substances therefore they must be registered with the European Chemicals Agency by 1 June 2008 however they are not entitled to the extended registration deadlines that some European companies are. Furthermore, the EU has been also calling to recognise the US accounting system since it has became too expensive for one company to settle its accounts in accordance with the other system. US business has also called for a lifting of the EU’s 11 years ban on importing US chickens that are washed in chlorine. Under the EU rules, poultry meat must be washed in water of drinking quality. According to the European Food Safety Authority there are no risks from treating poultry meat with chlorinated water yet Mariann Fischer Boel, the Agriculture Commissioner, believes that such move will upset EU farmers as importers would be allowed to meet lower standards. In the meantime, according to the Financial Times, “European poultry producers are using a chlorine-washing process on exported chicken, while the same cleaning method in the US has led to a de facto ban on American sales in the EU.” On the other hand, the US is urged to scrap its low-voltage procedure approval for electrical products which requires products to be tested in independent laboratories which, according to BusinessEurope, leads to €77 million a year in lost sales opportunities. On poultry, the Commission has promised that it will work with the Member States and the European Parliament to find an agreement on this issue, before the next TEC meeting, scheduled to take place in the autumn 2008. The Commission has also guaranteed US officials that it will “take concrete action” to make sure that trade in cosmetics is not disrupted by the REACH regulation. The Commission has said that will propose “a positive decision” on the equivalence of US accounting standards to EU rules in the course of 2008. It seems that the progress made on the TEC agenda consists only of promises. According to the joint statement “Neither side, for example, is completely satisfied that its concerns are yet being fully addressed in the TEC process.” It remains to be seen if the European Commission will be able to honour its commitments. Nevertheless, it seems that the TECs credibility is already at stake. Soon transatlantic businesses will realise that TEC will achieve nothing in removing barriers to transatlantic trade.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Commission presents 2009 Budget
On 6 May, Dalia Grybauskaité, European Commissioner for Financial Programming and the Budget, presented the preliminary draft of the 2009 budget, launching the negotiations on the annual budget procedure between the Parliament and the Council. 2009 will be no exception to the predictable rule of thumb: that the EU budget wastes millions of euros and pounds of taxpayer’s money. The Commission has proposed €134.4 billion in commitment appropriations, which represents 1.04 per cent of the Union’s GNI and an increase of 3.1 per cent compared to 2008. The payment appropriations are €116.7 billion, representing 0.9 per cent of the EU’s GNI and a fall of 3.3 per cent compared to the 2008 budget. Grybauskaité has explained that this decrease was due to certain payment appropriations, mainly those funding structural actions, were finalised and paid in advance in 2008 and consequently will not be paid in 2009.
Last year, the European Commission proposed that economic growth and employment would be the largest part of the Union’s 2009 budget, representing 45 per cent of the budget. Although agricultural expenditure is not the main spending it still represents almost 43 per cent of the budget. Hence, €60 billion will be allocated for growth and employment. A total €11.7 billion will be channelled into areas such as research, innovation and lifelong learning which represents a 5.5 per cent rise from 2008. For the ‘Lifelong learning programmes’ a total appropriation of EUR 935,4 million was proposed by the Commission for operational expenditure for 2009. The organisations which receive funding are the ones which promote EU integration. As Chris Heaton-Harris MEP has said “… most ‘educational’ material emanating from the EU is more like pro-integration propaganda.” The Lifelong learning programmes are a significant waste of UK taxpayers’ money. Around €57 billion will be allocated to ‘Agricultural and Rural Development. With an increase of 2.5 per cent compared to last year, €48.4 billion will be allocated to programmes to support cohesion across Europe. In 2009, around €40 billion will be allocated to the structural funds and over €9 billion for the Cohesion Fund.
The 2009 budget has been called the “green budget” as around €17 billion will be allocated to energy and climate change packages. A massive €14 billion of funds will go toward environmental targets and funding for energy objectives such as the development of sustainable energy, which demands around €2.3 billion. The spending on ‘EU as a global partner’ will be allocated €7.4 billion which represents an increase of 1.8 per cent compared to 2008. There is an increase of 1.1 per cent in the freedom, security, justice and citizenship heading budget which amounts to 1.5 billion in commitment appropriations, an 8.6 per cent rise over 2008. €839 million will be allocated to fight crime, terrorism and manage migration flows. There is a significant increase concerning security and safeguarding liberties which will rise by 32 per cent, with €90 million being spent on combating crime. €52 million will go on citizens’ programmes focusing on European culture. The Commission also wishes to see an increase of 5 per cent in the budget for administrative expenditure across all EU institutions. The Commission has therefore proposed €7.6 billion for administration. It wants to create around 250 new posts taking into account the enlargement to Bulgaria and Romania.
There is no clear added value in spending such amounts at the EU level. The EU has been spending UK taxpayer’s money on policies that clearly do not benefit them. Taxpayers are forced to spend millions of pounds on the Commission’s projects such as Galileo and the European Institute of Technology which they do not want. The UK is contributing to EU programmes that are of no benefit to British people. The UK net contributions have been increasing. Under the financial perspectives agreement reached in December 2005, Tony Blair agreed to increase the UK contribution to the EU budget for 2007-13. The UK’s 2005 net contribution was £3.6 billion, £3.9 in 2006 and according to HM Treasury European Community Finances Statement on the 2007 EC Budget the UK’s 2007 net contribution is estimated to be £4.7 billion. According to several researches in this area, the UK’s 2008/09 net contribution is estimated to be around £6.1 billion and in 2009/10 around £6.4 billion.
The Commission has not taken into account expenditure related to the Lisbon Treaty, such as new provisions for the European external action service, because the Treaty has not been ratified yet. According to the Commission, that spending will not be significant as it will mainly be covered by national governments. Instead, there will be a budget correction in due time. The Commission does not want to touch these delicate issues in order not to upset the Lisbon Treaty’s ratification. Nevertheless, the EU Member States have already started discussions on the proposed new President of the EU such as possible salary and staff. Nobody knows yet precisely what will be the job of the EU President however according to the EUobserver, the EU Member States are already talking of providing the President with “a salary of around €270,000, a chauffeured car, a housing allowance and a personal staff of around 20” which will be almost equivalent to what the President of the European Commission is getting. Another innovation of the Lisbon Treaty which will have repercussions on the budget is the change to the European Council, which will become an EU institution and therefore it will have its own budget. There is also the expenditure for the post of the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy which also needs to be covered by the budget.
The European Commission presented the preliminary draft budget for 2009 to the Ecofin Council on 14 May. The Council is planning to present a draft budget at first reading on 17 July. The EU Member States will now analyze the draft budget and they will in all likelihood, attempt to cut spending in areas where the European Parliament would like to increase it. Several MEPs are not pleased with the tight margins of the draft budget in several areas, particularly that dedicated to the Union’s external actions. According to Europolitics, Jutta Haug said that the budget for “the EU as a global partner” does not take into account everything that needs to be funded. Nevertheless, several MEPs have already shown their satisfaction with the increase in funds for the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, the Trans-European Networks and Galileo. It should be mentioned that the Lisbon Treaty amends the budget procedure conferring further powers on the European Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty abolishes the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, hence the European Parliament will be on equal footing with the Council. The European Parliament will be able to influence the entire budget.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Last year, the European Commission proposed that economic growth and employment would be the largest part of the Union’s 2009 budget, representing 45 per cent of the budget. Although agricultural expenditure is not the main spending it still represents almost 43 per cent of the budget. Hence, €60 billion will be allocated for growth and employment. A total €11.7 billion will be channelled into areas such as research, innovation and lifelong learning which represents a 5.5 per cent rise from 2008. For the ‘Lifelong learning programmes’ a total appropriation of EUR 935,4 million was proposed by the Commission for operational expenditure for 2009. The organisations which receive funding are the ones which promote EU integration. As Chris Heaton-Harris MEP has said “… most ‘educational’ material emanating from the EU is more like pro-integration propaganda.” The Lifelong learning programmes are a significant waste of UK taxpayers’ money. Around €57 billion will be allocated to ‘Agricultural and Rural Development. With an increase of 2.5 per cent compared to last year, €48.4 billion will be allocated to programmes to support cohesion across Europe. In 2009, around €40 billion will be allocated to the structural funds and over €9 billion for the Cohesion Fund.
The 2009 budget has been called the “green budget” as around €17 billion will be allocated to energy and climate change packages. A massive €14 billion of funds will go toward environmental targets and funding for energy objectives such as the development of sustainable energy, which demands around €2.3 billion. The spending on ‘EU as a global partner’ will be allocated €7.4 billion which represents an increase of 1.8 per cent compared to 2008. There is an increase of 1.1 per cent in the freedom, security, justice and citizenship heading budget which amounts to 1.5 billion in commitment appropriations, an 8.6 per cent rise over 2008. €839 million will be allocated to fight crime, terrorism and manage migration flows. There is a significant increase concerning security and safeguarding liberties which will rise by 32 per cent, with €90 million being spent on combating crime. €52 million will go on citizens’ programmes focusing on European culture. The Commission also wishes to see an increase of 5 per cent in the budget for administrative expenditure across all EU institutions. The Commission has therefore proposed €7.6 billion for administration. It wants to create around 250 new posts taking into account the enlargement to Bulgaria and Romania.
There is no clear added value in spending such amounts at the EU level. The EU has been spending UK taxpayer’s money on policies that clearly do not benefit them. Taxpayers are forced to spend millions of pounds on the Commission’s projects such as Galileo and the European Institute of Technology which they do not want. The UK is contributing to EU programmes that are of no benefit to British people. The UK net contributions have been increasing. Under the financial perspectives agreement reached in December 2005, Tony Blair agreed to increase the UK contribution to the EU budget for 2007-13. The UK’s 2005 net contribution was £3.6 billion, £3.9 in 2006 and according to HM Treasury European Community Finances Statement on the 2007 EC Budget the UK’s 2007 net contribution is estimated to be £4.7 billion. According to several researches in this area, the UK’s 2008/09 net contribution is estimated to be around £6.1 billion and in 2009/10 around £6.4 billion.
The Commission has not taken into account expenditure related to the Lisbon Treaty, such as new provisions for the European external action service, because the Treaty has not been ratified yet. According to the Commission, that spending will not be significant as it will mainly be covered by national governments. Instead, there will be a budget correction in due time. The Commission does not want to touch these delicate issues in order not to upset the Lisbon Treaty’s ratification. Nevertheless, the EU Member States have already started discussions on the proposed new President of the EU such as possible salary and staff. Nobody knows yet precisely what will be the job of the EU President however according to the EUobserver, the EU Member States are already talking of providing the President with “a salary of around €270,000, a chauffeured car, a housing allowance and a personal staff of around 20” which will be almost equivalent to what the President of the European Commission is getting. Another innovation of the Lisbon Treaty which will have repercussions on the budget is the change to the European Council, which will become an EU institution and therefore it will have its own budget. There is also the expenditure for the post of the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy which also needs to be covered by the budget.
The European Commission presented the preliminary draft budget for 2009 to the Ecofin Council on 14 May. The Council is planning to present a draft budget at first reading on 17 July. The EU Member States will now analyze the draft budget and they will in all likelihood, attempt to cut spending in areas where the European Parliament would like to increase it. Several MEPs are not pleased with the tight margins of the draft budget in several areas, particularly that dedicated to the Union’s external actions. According to Europolitics, Jutta Haug said that the budget for “the EU as a global partner” does not take into account everything that needs to be funded. Nevertheless, several MEPs have already shown their satisfaction with the increase in funds for the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, the Trans-European Networks and Galileo. It should be mentioned that the Lisbon Treaty amends the budget procedure conferring further powers on the European Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty abolishes the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, hence the European Parliament will be on equal footing with the Council. The European Parliament will be able to influence the entire budget.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Planning the future of the euro
On the tenth anniversary of the euro, the European Commission has called for better coordination of economic policies, to strengthen co-ordination of structural reform in the euro area and for a single seat in international financial institutions. On 7 May, the European Commission adopted a communication “EMU@10: successes and challenges after 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union” which assesses the first ten years of EMU highlighting its achievements while identifying the goals and challenges facing the euro area. The Commission has described the euro as “a resounding success.” The Commission has referred to the main benefits of the euro such as price stability, job creation, low interest rates, reduced costs for travellers, lower costs for businesses and increased trade. The Commission has highlighted that the “euro area has become a pole of stability for Europe and the world economy.” However the euro has not fulfilled all expectations. There were not many changes concerning economic growth have stood at around 2 per cent per year since the inception of euro which is roughly the same rate as in the previous ten years. The Commission has pointed out that “the euro area’s per capita income has stalled at 70 per cent of that of the United States.” Nevertheless, the Commission believes that “the public image of the euro does not fully reflect EMU's successful economic performance.” According to the Commission the euro is “used as a scapegoat for poor economic performances” which it believes is the “result from inappropriate economic policies at the national level.” The Commission has denied the beliefs of citizens that the euro increased prices when it was introduced. The Commission has stressed that the next decade will be marked by new global challenges which will have an impact on the EMU weaknesses such as globalization, the rising of food and energy prices, climate change and an ageing population. The Commission has put forward a three pillar agenda to address the challenges facing the EMU. The Commission has stressed that the euro area’s governance and coordination of economic policies must be improved which involves deepening as well as broadening economic surveillance arrangements to guide fiscal policy over the cycle and in the long term and, at the same time, address divergences in growth, inflation and competitiveness. The Commission has called for a deeper budgetary surveillance. The Commission believes that public debt developments in the euro-area should be closely monitored whereas “medium term budgetary objectives should be strengthened to address implicit liabilities.”
The second element of the Commission domestic strategy intends to better integrate structural policies within the coordination process in EMU. The Commission has pointed out that low growth has been more marked in Member States where structural reforms have been lagging behind and so the Commission recommends strengthening the co-ordination of structural reform in the euro area. According to the Commission, “reforms should be a top priority for EMU members.” The Commission has stressed that such measures should be addressed to remove the remaining barriers to product market integration, enhancing competition, fully implementing the Services Directive and promoting better-functioning labour markets. According to Joaquín Almunia, Commissioner responsible for Economic and Monetary Affairs, in order to achieve stronger incentives for reforms the Eurogroup should closely monitor the implementation of the specific euro area recommendations of the Lisbon Strategy. Such a recommendation would have political and economic implications. Mr Almunia has already stressed that “the Eurogroup should take a more active role in monitoring and coordinating structural reforms.” There will be further policies at EU level. It would represent a further impetus for Member States to carry out economic policies as a matter of the EU’s common concern. Moreover, the Commission has stressed that the euro area “has to play a more active and assertive role both in multilateral fora and through its bilateral dialogues with strategic partners.” The Commission is calling for the euro area “to speak with a single voice on exchange rate policies.” The Commission believes that “the most effective way for the euro area to align its influence with its economic weight is by developing common positions and by consolidating its representation, ultimately obtaining a single seat in the relevant international financial institutions and fora.” Presently, Member States still represent themselves in front of financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the G7 group. Obviously, it would be quite difficult for several Member States to accept such a suggestion, whether that be Germany, France or Italy as they do not want to lose their influence in those institutions. The third pillar of the Commission policy agenda aims to improve the EMU’s system of governance. According to the Commission, “better coordination and surveillance of national economic and budgetary policies is needed within the ECOFIN Council and the Eurogroup … in order to address imbalances and promote structural reforms that foster adjustment, stability and growth.” Further coordination of Member States’ economic policies within the Union might harm the economic interests of several Member States. Presently, there are no binding instruments for the EMU’s economic coordination. The Commission believes that better use can be made of the institutions and instruments governing the EMU in order to tackle emerging policy challenges. The Commission has called for a closer coordination between the ECOFIN and the Eurogroup, especially taking into account the expansion of the euro area. According to the Commission, the “Eurogroup should continue to serve as a platform for the deepening and broadening of policy coordination and surveillance in EMU.” The Commission has recalled that the Lisbon Treaty formally recognises the Eurogroup strengthening its role on questions affecting the functioning of EMU. Unsurprisingly, the Commission wants to play a stronger role to ensure the effective functioning of EMU. The Commission wants to promote further economic and financial integration. Moreover, it wants to enhance its role in international dialogues. The Commission has pointed out that the Lisbon Treaty provides the necessary basis to “adopt measures specific to euro-area Member States” as well as “to strengthen the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline” and to set out economic policy guidelines for euro area Member States whilst ensuring that they are compatible with those adopted for the whole of the Union. The Commission is provided, under the Lisbon Treaty, with the power to issue direct warnings to a Member State, therefore it does not have to wait for the EU finance minister’s approval when Member States economic policies are not consistent with the broad guidelines or risk jeopardising the proper functioning of EMU. At the moment, the Commission wants to promote discussion on the several issues raised in this communication yet Almunia has already said “Then, in time, the Commission will come back with appropriate, concrete proposals.” The Commission suggestions will have far reaching implications for Member States’ structural, financial and economic policies and so the Commission might not achieve the level of consensus that it is hoping for between the EU institutions on further policies for the EMU.
The discussions will take place during the French EU Presidency. France has already announced that it wants to look at the eurozone governance during its presidency. In the meantime, according to the EUobserver, Dutch finance minister, Wouter Bos, has recently spoken at the Brussels Economic Forum pointing out that “high-debt states may undermine the stability of the whole monetary union.” According to Mr Bos, such Member States “will be forced by political pressure to borrow more and increase their budget deficit, with consequences for interest rates and inflation.” He believes, therefore that the “long-term chances of survival of the euro should be questioned.”
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
The second element of the Commission domestic strategy intends to better integrate structural policies within the coordination process in EMU. The Commission has pointed out that low growth has been more marked in Member States where structural reforms have been lagging behind and so the Commission recommends strengthening the co-ordination of structural reform in the euro area. According to the Commission, “reforms should be a top priority for EMU members.” The Commission has stressed that such measures should be addressed to remove the remaining barriers to product market integration, enhancing competition, fully implementing the Services Directive and promoting better-functioning labour markets. According to Joaquín Almunia, Commissioner responsible for Economic and Monetary Affairs, in order to achieve stronger incentives for reforms the Eurogroup should closely monitor the implementation of the specific euro area recommendations of the Lisbon Strategy. Such a recommendation would have political and economic implications. Mr Almunia has already stressed that “the Eurogroup should take a more active role in monitoring and coordinating structural reforms.” There will be further policies at EU level. It would represent a further impetus for Member States to carry out economic policies as a matter of the EU’s common concern. Moreover, the Commission has stressed that the euro area “has to play a more active and assertive role both in multilateral fora and through its bilateral dialogues with strategic partners.” The Commission is calling for the euro area “to speak with a single voice on exchange rate policies.” The Commission believes that “the most effective way for the euro area to align its influence with its economic weight is by developing common positions and by consolidating its representation, ultimately obtaining a single seat in the relevant international financial institutions and fora.” Presently, Member States still represent themselves in front of financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the G7 group. Obviously, it would be quite difficult for several Member States to accept such a suggestion, whether that be Germany, France or Italy as they do not want to lose their influence in those institutions. The third pillar of the Commission policy agenda aims to improve the EMU’s system of governance. According to the Commission, “better coordination and surveillance of national economic and budgetary policies is needed within the ECOFIN Council and the Eurogroup … in order to address imbalances and promote structural reforms that foster adjustment, stability and growth.” Further coordination of Member States’ economic policies within the Union might harm the economic interests of several Member States. Presently, there are no binding instruments for the EMU’s economic coordination. The Commission believes that better use can be made of the institutions and instruments governing the EMU in order to tackle emerging policy challenges. The Commission has called for a closer coordination between the ECOFIN and the Eurogroup, especially taking into account the expansion of the euro area. According to the Commission, the “Eurogroup should continue to serve as a platform for the deepening and broadening of policy coordination and surveillance in EMU.” The Commission has recalled that the Lisbon Treaty formally recognises the Eurogroup strengthening its role on questions affecting the functioning of EMU. Unsurprisingly, the Commission wants to play a stronger role to ensure the effective functioning of EMU. The Commission wants to promote further economic and financial integration. Moreover, it wants to enhance its role in international dialogues. The Commission has pointed out that the Lisbon Treaty provides the necessary basis to “adopt measures specific to euro-area Member States” as well as “to strengthen the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline” and to set out economic policy guidelines for euro area Member States whilst ensuring that they are compatible with those adopted for the whole of the Union. The Commission is provided, under the Lisbon Treaty, with the power to issue direct warnings to a Member State, therefore it does not have to wait for the EU finance minister’s approval when Member States economic policies are not consistent with the broad guidelines or risk jeopardising the proper functioning of EMU. At the moment, the Commission wants to promote discussion on the several issues raised in this communication yet Almunia has already said “Then, in time, the Commission will come back with appropriate, concrete proposals.” The Commission suggestions will have far reaching implications for Member States’ structural, financial and economic policies and so the Commission might not achieve the level of consensus that it is hoping for between the EU institutions on further policies for the EMU.
The discussions will take place during the French EU Presidency. France has already announced that it wants to look at the eurozone governance during its presidency. In the meantime, according to the EUobserver, Dutch finance minister, Wouter Bos, has recently spoken at the Brussels Economic Forum pointing out that “high-debt states may undermine the stability of the whole monetary union.” According to Mr Bos, such Member States “will be forced by political pressure to borrow more and increase their budget deficit, with consequences for interest rates and inflation.” He believes, therefore that the “long-term chances of survival of the euro should be questioned.”
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
UK to face European Commission sanctions for Government deficit?
The Commission is set to send a strong political message to the UK Government on its deficit: according to the Commission’s spring economic forecast, the UK is not setting a good example of budgetary discipline. Joaquin Almunia already announced on 11 June that the Commission will put forward a proposal to open an excessive deficit procedure against the UK for breaching the 3 per cent rule on deficits.
On 28 April, the European Commission presented its spring economic forecast 2008-2009 which is marked by high inflation and low growth. The EU’s growth is expected to come down from 2.8 per cent to 2 per cent this year and to 1.8 per cent in 2009 whereas the autumn forecast had foreseen growth of 2.4 per cent. The slowdown in the eurozone is even more marked as growth in the eurozone is foreseen to fall from 1.7 per cent in 2008 and 1.5 in 2009 from 2.6 per cent in 2007. The Commission had previously foreseen rates of 2.2 per cent this year and 2.1 per cent in 2009 in the eurozone. The turmoil in the financial markets, the United States market slowdown and soaring prices of oil and raw materials are the reasons given by the Commission for “the moderation in growth.” Employment growth is predicted to slow down to 0.8 per cent this year and 0.5 per cent next year in the EU (0.9 per cent and 0.5 per cent, respectively, in the euro area). The unemployment rate is estimated at 6.8 per cent in the EU this year and 7.2 per cent in the euro area.
Even with slow growth, the Commission believes that “the EU economy is holding up relatively well thanks to sound fundamentals and is expected to create 3 million new jobs in 2008-2009.” Consumer price inflation is expected to surge temporarily in 2008 to 3.6 per cent in the EU and 3.2 in the eurozone against 2.4 per cent and 2.1 per cent respectively in 2007 due to soaring energy and food prices. The inflation is expected to come down to 2.4 per cent in 2009 and 2.2 per cent in the euro area. The Commission has projected the public deficit to deteriorate in 2008 and 2009. The 2008 overall deficit is foreseen to increase to 1.2 per cent of the GDP in the EU and 1 per cent in the eurozone but in 2009 the deficit should broadly stabilise.
According to the Commission’s spring economic forecast, the foreseen economic slowdown will also have a negative impact on the public debt of Member States. Things do not look well, in particular for the UK. The Commission has pointed out that “the significant depreciation of the pound's nominal effective exchange rate (by over 11 per cent between August and March) is likely to improve the price competitiveness of UK exports” whereas “at the same time aggravating inflationary risks in the short term.”
Moreover, the Commission envisages “a marked slowing of private consumption in 2008, driven by more restrictive borrowing conditions and a downward correction in house prices, and only a limited recovery in 2009.” The Commission has stressed that “Whilst moderate earnings growth will support private consumption, employment growth will no longer do so as it slows to almost zero over the forecast horizon.” The Commission has stated that “growth in the UK economy is expected to slow to around 1¾ per cent in 2008.”
The Maastricht Treaty has set out the reference value for government deficit at 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Taking into account the Commission’s opinion the Council decides, by a qualified majority, whether an excessive deficit exists establishing a deadline for effective action to be taken. If no effective action is taken, the Council may give notice to the Member State in question to take measures to reduce the deficit. Then, if no effective action has been taken in compliance with a notice, the Council may decide to impose sanctions which take the form of a non-interest-bearing deposit with the Community.
According to the Commission’s spring economic forecast, the UK as well as France are not setting an example for budgetary discipline as the Commission foresees they will breach rules on public deficit. Outside the eurozone the Member States likely to perform worst are the UK, Hungary and Romania. The UK deficit is predicted to rise from 2.9 per cent of GDP in 2007/08 to 3.3 per cent in 2008 and 2009. It should be mentioned that in September 2005, the Commission initiated the procedure against the UK based on a general government deficit of 3.2 per cent of GDP in financial year 2004/05. In 2006/07 the deficit fell further to 2.7 per cent of GDP. Last September, the UK excessive deficit situation has been corrected and the Commission has recommended to the Council to abrogate its decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in the United Kingdom.
However, Joaquin Almunia has already announced that the Commission on 11 June will put forward a proposal opening an excessive deficit procedure against the UK for running a deficit on public expenditure over revenue, of over 3 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP). However, the Council’s formal notices and sanctions do not apply to Member States which do not participate in the euro. Therefore, the launch of an excessive deficit procedure against the UK would be seen as a political embarrassment to Alistair Darling. The Commission should not interfere in UK public finances, especially taking into account the credit crunch. If the excessive deficit procedure goes through Alistair Darling might be forced to raise taxes to reduce the deficit.
The eurozone finance ministers debated on 13 May the growing deficits in different Member States which may be jeopardised as the Eurogroup aims to balance the budget. According to the Eurogroup declaration from 13 May the commitment accepted by eurozone Member States, in April 2007 (Berlin Agreement), to achieve budgetary balance by 2010 was relaxed. France, whose public deficit is estimated to rise to 2.9 per cent in 2008 and 3 per cent in 2009, was able to negotiate a delay for all eurozone Member States to eradicate their deficits by 2010. Portugal and Italy are also raising concerns. According to Europolitics, a diplomat has said “nobody believes that we will all be in balance by 2010.” Nevertheless, the Commission will launch an excessive deficit procedure against France on 2 June, one month before it takes over the EU presidency.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
On 28 April, the European Commission presented its spring economic forecast 2008-2009 which is marked by high inflation and low growth. The EU’s growth is expected to come down from 2.8 per cent to 2 per cent this year and to 1.8 per cent in 2009 whereas the autumn forecast had foreseen growth of 2.4 per cent. The slowdown in the eurozone is even more marked as growth in the eurozone is foreseen to fall from 1.7 per cent in 2008 and 1.5 in 2009 from 2.6 per cent in 2007. The Commission had previously foreseen rates of 2.2 per cent this year and 2.1 per cent in 2009 in the eurozone. The turmoil in the financial markets, the United States market slowdown and soaring prices of oil and raw materials are the reasons given by the Commission for “the moderation in growth.” Employment growth is predicted to slow down to 0.8 per cent this year and 0.5 per cent next year in the EU (0.9 per cent and 0.5 per cent, respectively, in the euro area). The unemployment rate is estimated at 6.8 per cent in the EU this year and 7.2 per cent in the euro area.
Even with slow growth, the Commission believes that “the EU economy is holding up relatively well thanks to sound fundamentals and is expected to create 3 million new jobs in 2008-2009.” Consumer price inflation is expected to surge temporarily in 2008 to 3.6 per cent in the EU and 3.2 in the eurozone against 2.4 per cent and 2.1 per cent respectively in 2007 due to soaring energy and food prices. The inflation is expected to come down to 2.4 per cent in 2009 and 2.2 per cent in the euro area. The Commission has projected the public deficit to deteriorate in 2008 and 2009. The 2008 overall deficit is foreseen to increase to 1.2 per cent of the GDP in the EU and 1 per cent in the eurozone but in 2009 the deficit should broadly stabilise.
According to the Commission’s spring economic forecast, the foreseen economic slowdown will also have a negative impact on the public debt of Member States. Things do not look well, in particular for the UK. The Commission has pointed out that “the significant depreciation of the pound's nominal effective exchange rate (by over 11 per cent between August and March) is likely to improve the price competitiveness of UK exports” whereas “at the same time aggravating inflationary risks in the short term.”
Moreover, the Commission envisages “a marked slowing of private consumption in 2008, driven by more restrictive borrowing conditions and a downward correction in house prices, and only a limited recovery in 2009.” The Commission has stressed that “Whilst moderate earnings growth will support private consumption, employment growth will no longer do so as it slows to almost zero over the forecast horizon.” The Commission has stated that “growth in the UK economy is expected to slow to around 1¾ per cent in 2008.”
The Maastricht Treaty has set out the reference value for government deficit at 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Taking into account the Commission’s opinion the Council decides, by a qualified majority, whether an excessive deficit exists establishing a deadline for effective action to be taken. If no effective action is taken, the Council may give notice to the Member State in question to take measures to reduce the deficit. Then, if no effective action has been taken in compliance with a notice, the Council may decide to impose sanctions which take the form of a non-interest-bearing deposit with the Community.
According to the Commission’s spring economic forecast, the UK as well as France are not setting an example for budgetary discipline as the Commission foresees they will breach rules on public deficit. Outside the eurozone the Member States likely to perform worst are the UK, Hungary and Romania. The UK deficit is predicted to rise from 2.9 per cent of GDP in 2007/08 to 3.3 per cent in 2008 and 2009. It should be mentioned that in September 2005, the Commission initiated the procedure against the UK based on a general government deficit of 3.2 per cent of GDP in financial year 2004/05. In 2006/07 the deficit fell further to 2.7 per cent of GDP. Last September, the UK excessive deficit situation has been corrected and the Commission has recommended to the Council to abrogate its decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in the United Kingdom.
However, Joaquin Almunia has already announced that the Commission on 11 June will put forward a proposal opening an excessive deficit procedure against the UK for running a deficit on public expenditure over revenue, of over 3 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP). However, the Council’s formal notices and sanctions do not apply to Member States which do not participate in the euro. Therefore, the launch of an excessive deficit procedure against the UK would be seen as a political embarrassment to Alistair Darling. The Commission should not interfere in UK public finances, especially taking into account the credit crunch. If the excessive deficit procedure goes through Alistair Darling might be forced to raise taxes to reduce the deficit.
The eurozone finance ministers debated on 13 May the growing deficits in different Member States which may be jeopardised as the Eurogroup aims to balance the budget. According to the Eurogroup declaration from 13 May the commitment accepted by eurozone Member States, in April 2007 (Berlin Agreement), to achieve budgetary balance by 2010 was relaxed. France, whose public deficit is estimated to rise to 2.9 per cent in 2008 and 3 per cent in 2009, was able to negotiate a delay for all eurozone Member States to eradicate their deficits by 2010. Portugal and Italy are also raising concerns. According to Europolitics, a diplomat has said “nobody believes that we will all be in balance by 2010.” Nevertheless, the Commission will launch an excessive deficit procedure against France on 2 June, one month before it takes over the EU presidency.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
A new job for Europe? Responding to national disasters
The duty of civil protection is usually the responsibility of Member States yet the Commission now wants to go beyond its merely supportive role and interfere in national civil protection. The European Commission intends to interfere with Member State civil protection capabilities as well as coordinate their response to disaster. Last March, the European Commission adopted a communication with the purpose “to reinforce the EU’s disaster response capacity.” The Commission wants to put in place an integrated disaster response for the EU. It has presented an action plan with proposals for enhancing the EU’s response capacity and recommends the actions to be implemented by the end of 2008. The communication covers natural or man-made disasters as well as conflict-related emergencies which have taken place either inside or outside the EU.
Presently, there is no specific Treaty basis but the absence of legal basis on civil protection has not prevented the Union from taking action. The Community measures in this area have been adopted on the basis of Article 308 TEC (flexibility Clause) under which unanimity at the Council and consultation to the European Parliament is required. The Lisbon Treaty creates a new legal basis for civil protection which has been among the key areas where the Member States should have retained exclusive competence and the Union was only to provide a support or co-ordination role. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Cabinet Office, Tom Watson, has explained to the European Scrutiny Committee that “any such Commission proposals for action under existing instruments would be decided by the comitology procedure by qualified majority voting.” However, if the Commission puts forward proposals which alter current legislation, then unanimity is required. Under the Lisbon Treaty, it is required that the proposal pass through qualified majority voting in the Council and co-decision with the European Parliament.
The Commission believes that in order to achieve better inter-institutional cooperation itself the Council and Member States should define “multifaceted scenarios” for disaster relief operations, and deploy joint planning and operational teams to deal with particular disasters. The Commission has proposed to transform the Monitoring and Information Centre into an operational centre for European civil protection intervention.
Tom Watson believes “… that such a move would draw limited expertise away from Member States where it is most likely to be needed in an emergency, or if this led to duplication with other EU structures such as the Council’s SitCen.” Moreover, he has pointed out that “At present, the MIC does not have the skills or capacity to become itself a fully operational centre to manage disaster response activities whether within or outside the EU.”
The Commission has said in its communication that the European Parliament has urged it to put forward a proposal on a European rapid reaction force for emergencies based on the civil protection mechanisms of the Member States. The Commission wants to improve the European civil protection response capacity. It has made clear that it wishes to coordinate the Member State civil protection resources. The Commission has stressed that the response to disasters, such as floods and forest fires presently come solely from national sources. The Commission therefore wants to develop reserve resources available for European civil protection operations. It will present proposals for enhancing the European civil protection response capacity based on “a voluntary pool of key standby civil protection modules to be available for deployment at any time” and “additional reserve capacities designed to complement national responses to major disasters such as forest fires and flooding.” These proposals are likely to raise subsidiarity concerns. According to the minister, “The HMG views with caution the proposal for complementary reserve resources at EU-level” pointing out that “the Commission has neither the expert capability, nor the legal competence, nor the finance to hold such disaster response resources at present.”
It remains to be seen if the Council will back the Commission proposals. The Council is yet to deliver conclusions on the Commission’s communication.
Furthermore, on 11 March, the European Parliament adopted a report approving the mobilisation of the EU solidarity fund for an amount of €162.4 million (£110m) relating to the floods in the United Kingdom in June and July 2007. However, it has recently been exposed that the UK will receive only £31m. Timothy Kirkhope MEP has blamed it on Tony Blair, who in December 2005 renegotiated the UK rebate. Timothy Kirkhope said: “…They were very triumphant when the money was secured but they must have been well aware then that they would not be receiving anywhere close to all of it.”
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Presently, there is no specific Treaty basis but the absence of legal basis on civil protection has not prevented the Union from taking action. The Community measures in this area have been adopted on the basis of Article 308 TEC (flexibility Clause) under which unanimity at the Council and consultation to the European Parliament is required. The Lisbon Treaty creates a new legal basis for civil protection which has been among the key areas where the Member States should have retained exclusive competence and the Union was only to provide a support or co-ordination role. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Cabinet Office, Tom Watson, has explained to the European Scrutiny Committee that “any such Commission proposals for action under existing instruments would be decided by the comitology procedure by qualified majority voting.” However, if the Commission puts forward proposals which alter current legislation, then unanimity is required. Under the Lisbon Treaty, it is required that the proposal pass through qualified majority voting in the Council and co-decision with the European Parliament.
The Commission believes that in order to achieve better inter-institutional cooperation itself the Council and Member States should define “multifaceted scenarios” for disaster relief operations, and deploy joint planning and operational teams to deal with particular disasters. The Commission has proposed to transform the Monitoring and Information Centre into an operational centre for European civil protection intervention.
Tom Watson believes “… that such a move would draw limited expertise away from Member States where it is most likely to be needed in an emergency, or if this led to duplication with other EU structures such as the Council’s SitCen.” Moreover, he has pointed out that “At present, the MIC does not have the skills or capacity to become itself a fully operational centre to manage disaster response activities whether within or outside the EU.”
The Commission has said in its communication that the European Parliament has urged it to put forward a proposal on a European rapid reaction force for emergencies based on the civil protection mechanisms of the Member States. The Commission wants to improve the European civil protection response capacity. It has made clear that it wishes to coordinate the Member State civil protection resources. The Commission has stressed that the response to disasters, such as floods and forest fires presently come solely from national sources. The Commission therefore wants to develop reserve resources available for European civil protection operations. It will present proposals for enhancing the European civil protection response capacity based on “a voluntary pool of key standby civil protection modules to be available for deployment at any time” and “additional reserve capacities designed to complement national responses to major disasters such as forest fires and flooding.” These proposals are likely to raise subsidiarity concerns. According to the minister, “The HMG views with caution the proposal for complementary reserve resources at EU-level” pointing out that “the Commission has neither the expert capability, nor the legal competence, nor the finance to hold such disaster response resources at present.”
It remains to be seen if the Council will back the Commission proposals. The Council is yet to deliver conclusions on the Commission’s communication.
Furthermore, on 11 March, the European Parliament adopted a report approving the mobilisation of the EU solidarity fund for an amount of €162.4 million (£110m) relating to the floods in the United Kingdom in June and July 2007. However, it has recently been exposed that the UK will receive only £31m. Timothy Kirkhope MEP has blamed it on Tony Blair, who in December 2005 renegotiated the UK rebate. Timothy Kirkhope said: “…They were very triumphant when the money was secured but they must have been well aware then that they would not be receiving anywhere close to all of it.”
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Prime Minister of Bavaria on the Sudeten Germans
The Prime Minister of Bavaria has addressed a conference of the Sudeten Germans, saying that only dialogue with Prague will resolve the “problems” which still exist over the issue between Germany and the Czech Republic. Like other groups of ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe after 1945, the Sudeten Germans continue to campaign for restitution of their property. They specifically attack the so-called Beneš decrees, a series of over one hundred legislative acts which provided the legal structure for the mass expropriation and expulsion which we would nowadays call ethnic cleansing. They overlook the fact that these decrees were themselves signed as a result of the executive decision taken by the Allies at Potsdam to cleanse Central Europe of Germans. The Sudeten Germans, of course, were the cause of the Munich conference in 1938, when France and Britain agreed to carve up Czechoslovakia and hand the Sudetenland to Hitler.
The fact that the Bavarian Prime Minister addressed the conference, which some 8,000 people attended, shows how closely linked the Bavarian conservatives are with the expellees. The organisation also campaigns – together with support from the Bavarian government – for other issues related to Expellees, for instance for the inclusion of the Expellees president, Erika Steinbach, in the governing council of the new Museum of Expulsion to be set up in Berlin, and for the maintenance of German language tuition in German schools in Romania, where there was a community of 250,000 ethnic Germans until 1989. Their numbers are now greatly reduced to some 100,000. [Handelsblatt, 11 May 2008]
---- An excerpt from John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
The fact that the Bavarian Prime Minister addressed the conference, which some 8,000 people attended, shows how closely linked the Bavarian conservatives are with the expellees. The organisation also campaigns – together with support from the Bavarian government – for other issues related to Expellees, for instance for the inclusion of the Expellees president, Erika Steinbach, in the governing council of the new Museum of Expulsion to be set up in Berlin, and for the maintenance of German language tuition in German schools in Romania, where there was a community of 250,000 ethnic Germans until 1989. Their numbers are now greatly reduced to some 100,000. [Handelsblatt, 11 May 2008]
---- An excerpt from John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Monday, 19 May 2008
Most Germans want the D-Mark back again
Ten years after the decision to introduce the euro, the Germans still hanker after their beloved deutsche Mark. One German out of two continues to think in terms of D-Marks, while an online poll showed 65 per cent wanting the old national currency back again. As prices rise in Germany as elsewhere, nostalgia for the old stable German currency is stronger than ever.
A poll conducted by the Federal Association of German Banks, however, finds that only 34 per cent of Germans want the D-Mark back again. Many Germans blamed the euro for price rises when it was introduced in 2001. [Die Welt, 2 Mai 2008]
---- An excerpt from John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
A poll conducted by the Federal Association of German Banks, however, finds that only 34 per cent of Germans want the D-Mark back again. Many Germans blamed the euro for price rises when it was introduced in 2001. [Die Welt, 2 Mai 2008]
---- An excerpt from John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Friday, 16 May 2008
Germany: two foreign policies
According to one commentator, Germany currently has two foreign policies, one conducted by the conservative Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the other conducted by the Social Democrat Foreign Minister and Vice-Chancellor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. On her visit to Latin America, Chancellor Merkel visited only countries with pro-American governments, Steinmeier has been strengthening Germany’s links to Cuba; Steinmeier visits Moscow and refuses to meet the Dalai Lama while Merkel has aligned with George Bush and calls for the spread of democracy around the planet.
The Foreign Ministry under Steinmeier has become distinctly left wing (following the precedents set by the last Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, for whom Steinmeier worked at the Chancellery. (He was head of the Chancellor’s office under Schröder.) The Chancellor’s office, meanwhile, has become distinctly conservative. This is because the coalition agreement between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats did not require that each side recruit civil servants from the other’s political camp: as a result, they have recruited their own. (Senior civil servants in Germany have party political affiliation.) The competition between the two sides is made more acute by the possibility that Steinmeier might be Merkel’s opponent in the parliamentary election in 2009. [Andreas Rinke, Handelsblatt, 11 May 2008]
---- An excerpt from John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
The Foreign Ministry under Steinmeier has become distinctly left wing (following the precedents set by the last Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, for whom Steinmeier worked at the Chancellery. (He was head of the Chancellor’s office under Schröder.) The Chancellor’s office, meanwhile, has become distinctly conservative. This is because the coalition agreement between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats did not require that each side recruit civil servants from the other’s political camp: as a result, they have recruited their own. (Senior civil servants in Germany have party political affiliation.) The competition between the two sides is made more acute by the possibility that Steinmeier might be Merkel’s opponent in the parliamentary election in 2009. [Andreas Rinke, Handelsblatt, 11 May 2008]
---- An excerpt from John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Steinmeier calls for European army
At the very moment when Irish voters are being reassured that the Lisbon treaty will not threaten their country’s cherished constitutional neutrality, the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has spoken of the need for a European army. Addressing a conference of the Social Democratic Party’s parliamentary fraction in Berlin on 5 May 2008, Steinmeier started his speech with the old socialist greeting, “Dear Comrades” and immediately launched into the theme, saying that only a few years ago the title “Towards a European army” for a lecture would have seemed to be pure fantasy. “Today, after more than 20 civilian and military operations which we have run or are running from Macedonia to the Congo or in the Palestinian territories, it no longer sounds so distant or theoretical.” Steinmeier said that the EU could look back with pride over “15 years of common foreign and security policy” – i.e. since the ratification of the Maastricht treaty in 1993. He said that most of the operations conducted within the framework of the European Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) were civilian but added that the EU was always being reminded that military operations could not be excluded as a matter of last resort. “It is also a part of our European credibility,” he said. Steinmeier claimed that if opinion polls showed dissatisfaction with Brussels’ tendency to over-regulate the size of tomatoes or the length of bananas, Europeans wanted the EU to speak with one voice in foreign affairs.
Steinmeier said that Europe now had its famous “telephone number” – Javier Solana, the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy – but that the EU needed to go further still. He said that “a new era” would dawn with the ratification of the Lisbon treaty (recently ratified by the Bundestag). Saying that he was convinced that the treaty would enter into force punctually on 1st January 2009, Steinmeier said that it would give the Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy much more power than before, since the Representative would also be Vice-President of the European Commission and because he would have far greater resources than those currently at Solana’s disposal.
Steinmeier used the phrase “European Foreign Service” to characterise the new post, something which the British government energetically denied that Lisbon would create. “With the Lisbon treaty it will be possible for a group of states to go forward in security and foreign policy,” he said, referring to the fact that Lisbon allows subgroups of EU states to act in foreign policy as the EU without all states participating (or having a veto). Steinmeier said that France was shortly due to take over the EU presidency and that it had declared its intention to make security policy the cornerstone of its six-month stint.
Steinmeier said that France’s coming reintegration into the integrated military structures of NATO would strengthen the EU’s weight in NATO and NATO’s cooperation with the EU: the NATO summit at the end of 2009 in Kehl and Strasbourg would, he said, he a potent symbol for the Franco-German axis within the alliance. The creation of the Franco-German brigade was, he said, a nucleus for the new CFSP. He concluded his speech with a rallying cry. “We Social Democrats will definitely continue to struggle for a European army, for Europe to become a strong peace power, and against any backsliding into old thinking!” [www.auswaertiges-amt.de]
---- An excerpt from John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Steinmeier said that Europe now had its famous “telephone number” – Javier Solana, the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy – but that the EU needed to go further still. He said that “a new era” would dawn with the ratification of the Lisbon treaty (recently ratified by the Bundestag). Saying that he was convinced that the treaty would enter into force punctually on 1st January 2009, Steinmeier said that it would give the Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy much more power than before, since the Representative would also be Vice-President of the European Commission and because he would have far greater resources than those currently at Solana’s disposal.
Steinmeier used the phrase “European Foreign Service” to characterise the new post, something which the British government energetically denied that Lisbon would create. “With the Lisbon treaty it will be possible for a group of states to go forward in security and foreign policy,” he said, referring to the fact that Lisbon allows subgroups of EU states to act in foreign policy as the EU without all states participating (or having a veto). Steinmeier said that France was shortly due to take over the EU presidency and that it had declared its intention to make security policy the cornerstone of its six-month stint.
Steinmeier said that France’s coming reintegration into the integrated military structures of NATO would strengthen the EU’s weight in NATO and NATO’s cooperation with the EU: the NATO summit at the end of 2009 in Kehl and Strasbourg would, he said, he a potent symbol for the Franco-German axis within the alliance. The creation of the Franco-German brigade was, he said, a nucleus for the new CFSP. He concluded his speech with a rallying cry. “We Social Democrats will definitely continue to struggle for a European army, for Europe to become a strong peace power, and against any backsliding into old thinking!” [www.auswaertiges-amt.de]
---- An excerpt from John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Friday, 9 May 2008
European Commission wants to “debate” Europe
It is well known that the European Commission has been attempting to deal with the citizen’s lack of trust in the EU. It has responded to the European Council’s call for a period of reflection in June 2005 after the ‘No’ votes of the French and Dutch referenda, by adopting “Plan D for Dialogue, Democracy and Debate.” Under Plan D, the European Commission co-funded six trans-national projects aimed at connecting citizens with decision makers, for a total amount of €4.5 million. These projects organised debates across the EU which has amounted to nothing else but EU propaganda.
On 2 April, the European Commission adopted a communication, “Debate Europe, building on the experience of Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate.” The Commission’s approach, it claims, will be widened and deepened in 2008 and 2009 with the intention of showing that it has learned its lesson about listening and communicating with EU citizens. The European Commission has made clear that it wants to change the idea that EU affairs “are too abstract and disconnected from the national public debate to be of interest to the citizens” and “to overcome the divide between national and European issues.” The Commission communication refers to the European Parliament elections and to the ratification and entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and taking into account the events of 2009, there will be an increased importance in communicating with citizens in order to provide them with misleading information on the European Union.
The Commission will put forward several actions at both the national and EU level in order to promote a general and permanent debate on the future of the European Union among European citizens even though it continues to support only federal integrationist debate. ‘Debate Europe’ will hold citizens’ consultations organised by civil society in each Member State. The objective is to send the citizens’ conclusions to elected politicians, political parties and foundations. A debate between citizens and politicians will be organized to discuss the proposals contained in the citizens’ platforms. The Commission’s main aim is to increase the involvement of citizens in the EU decision making process and to provide citizens with access to information in order to enable them to contribute, it says, more actively to the debate about the European Union. The EU is seeking to involve citizens, social partners, civil society in the Union democratic life but this is misleading. Only organised citizens' groups can attain the expertise needed if they want to influence the EU in a specialised field and NGOs, citizens organizations who lobby the EU institutions are largely funded by the Commission and will therefore not be critical of the EU project. Obviously, the European Commission is not only concerned in getting citizens involved in decision making but also in making the EU more popular. According to the Commission, ‘Debate Europe’ will strengthen the Commission's endeavours to explain the added value of EU policies to citizens such as “internal market related success stories – roaming mobile charges, low cost flights, closing the gap in regional development, environmental protection and the fight against climate change.”
The Commission has also stressed that ‘Debate Europe’ will benefit from the EU regulation on political parties and foundations as “the development of European political foundations, will play an important role in involving citizens in a permanent, genuine and informed political dialogue.” However, it should be recalled that political foundations which do no support further European integration will not be able to get any EU funding.
The Commission has proposed to co-fund several civil society projects in 2008 and 2009 under ‘Debate Europe’ not only at the EU level but also at national level. ‘Debate Europe’ will have a budget of €7.2 million. Soon, the Commission will publish a call for proposal for new projects. However, the UK’s portion of the fund to be allocated under ‘Debate Europe’ will not reach those who are critical of European integration.
The European Commission has stressed that “Public support for the EU can only be built through lively and open debate and by getting citizens actively involved in European affairs.” According to Margot Wallström, the European Commission had learned a number of lessons from the no votes and from the period of reflection, it has “listening better, explaining better and going local.” It is ironic that despite this, according to a Global Vision/ICM poll 74% of those surveyed in the UK, the people still want their say on the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum yet are not being heard. A more democratic Europe has been promised. In order to achieve a democratic Union which is closer to its citizens, a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty should have been held in all Member States.
Nevertheless, despite the refusal of referendums in Europe, the Commission wants to spend €7.2 million of taxpayer’s money in engaging EU citizens in EU affairs. The European Commission is keen to promote debate on EU issues but delicate issues such as the budget reform would be left to be publicly debated after the Irish referendum. The debates are never informed and are constantly focusing on EU achievements but not on real problems. In order to not jeopardise the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, the so called open and informed debate would be simply focused on the EU’s popular measures so that debate of delicate issues would not be promoted. Important issues such as how the Lisbon Treaty would be implemented would not be debated in public.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
On 2 April, the European Commission adopted a communication, “Debate Europe, building on the experience of Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate.” The Commission’s approach, it claims, will be widened and deepened in 2008 and 2009 with the intention of showing that it has learned its lesson about listening and communicating with EU citizens. The European Commission has made clear that it wants to change the idea that EU affairs “are too abstract and disconnected from the national public debate to be of interest to the citizens” and “to overcome the divide between national and European issues.” The Commission communication refers to the European Parliament elections and to the ratification and entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and taking into account the events of 2009, there will be an increased importance in communicating with citizens in order to provide them with misleading information on the European Union.
The Commission will put forward several actions at both the national and EU level in order to promote a general and permanent debate on the future of the European Union among European citizens even though it continues to support only federal integrationist debate. ‘Debate Europe’ will hold citizens’ consultations organised by civil society in each Member State. The objective is to send the citizens’ conclusions to elected politicians, political parties and foundations. A debate between citizens and politicians will be organized to discuss the proposals contained in the citizens’ platforms. The Commission’s main aim is to increase the involvement of citizens in the EU decision making process and to provide citizens with access to information in order to enable them to contribute, it says, more actively to the debate about the European Union. The EU is seeking to involve citizens, social partners, civil society in the Union democratic life but this is misleading. Only organised citizens' groups can attain the expertise needed if they want to influence the EU in a specialised field and NGOs, citizens organizations who lobby the EU institutions are largely funded by the Commission and will therefore not be critical of the EU project. Obviously, the European Commission is not only concerned in getting citizens involved in decision making but also in making the EU more popular. According to the Commission, ‘Debate Europe’ will strengthen the Commission's endeavours to explain the added value of EU policies to citizens such as “internal market related success stories – roaming mobile charges, low cost flights, closing the gap in regional development, environmental protection and the fight against climate change.”
The Commission has also stressed that ‘Debate Europe’ will benefit from the EU regulation on political parties and foundations as “the development of European political foundations, will play an important role in involving citizens in a permanent, genuine and informed political dialogue.” However, it should be recalled that political foundations which do no support further European integration will not be able to get any EU funding.
The Commission has proposed to co-fund several civil society projects in 2008 and 2009 under ‘Debate Europe’ not only at the EU level but also at national level. ‘Debate Europe’ will have a budget of €7.2 million. Soon, the Commission will publish a call for proposal for new projects. However, the UK’s portion of the fund to be allocated under ‘Debate Europe’ will not reach those who are critical of European integration.
The European Commission has stressed that “Public support for the EU can only be built through lively and open debate and by getting citizens actively involved in European affairs.” According to Margot Wallström, the European Commission had learned a number of lessons from the no votes and from the period of reflection, it has “listening better, explaining better and going local.” It is ironic that despite this, according to a Global Vision/ICM poll 74% of those surveyed in the UK, the people still want their say on the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum yet are not being heard. A more democratic Europe has been promised. In order to achieve a democratic Union which is closer to its citizens, a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty should have been held in all Member States.
Nevertheless, despite the refusal of referendums in Europe, the Commission wants to spend €7.2 million of taxpayer’s money in engaging EU citizens in EU affairs. The European Commission is keen to promote debate on EU issues but delicate issues such as the budget reform would be left to be publicly debated after the Irish referendum. The debates are never informed and are constantly focusing on EU achievements but not on real problems. In order to not jeopardise the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, the so called open and informed debate would be simply focused on the EU’s popular measures so that debate of delicate issues would not be promoted. Important issues such as how the Lisbon Treaty would be implemented would not be debated in public.
-- Sign up for FREE to both Margarida Vasconcelos’ regular ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ and John Laughland's 'Intelligence Digest' to find out what’s really happening in Europe --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
