Gregarius » European Movement UK

Feeds

Tech Semantic Web and Linked Data (590 unread)

• OpenLink Community Blog (88 unread)
• Z-Blog (242 unread)
• Nodalities (47 unread)
• EN - Flux RSS - R & D (11 unread)
• The Semantic Puzzle (68 unread)
• OpenCalais - Official Blog (6 unread)
• Chief Marketing Technologist (124 unread)
• Semai (1 unread)
• Reactive, autonomous (3 unread)

Tech Coding the Web and Software (156 unread)

• Software Cooperative News (69 unread)
• Talance Friendly Web Tools Blog (87 unread)

Tech General News (14447 unread)

• Tech Eye - Latest technology headlines (4200 unread)
• BBC News - Technology (4590 unread)
• NYT > Technology (5657 unread)

Knowledge Man and Eng (310 unread)

• ISKO UK (56 unread)
• KOnnect (10 unread)
• CELSTEC Publications (216 unread)
• Knowledge Engineering (19 unread)
• Open Intelligence (9 unread)

Friends (311 unread)

• VISION AFORETHOUGHT (82 unread)
• Snell-Pym (229 unread)

Newspapers (27293 unread)

• The Guardian World News (10891 unread)
• The Independent - Frontpage RSS Feed (16402 unread)

Politics UK and Ireland (1186 unread)

• Liberal Democrats RSS (481 unread)
• Green Liberal Democrats News Stories (100 unread)
• Liberal Democrat Christian Forum (5 unread)
• Liberal Youth - Latest News
• The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland News Stories (528 unread)
• Home (72 unread)

Politics EU and International (825 unread)

• European Movement UK (38 unread)
• European Movement Ireland (89 unread)
• OSCE press releases and media advisories (376 unread)
• ALDE News (39 unread)
• ELDR News (283 unread)
• IFLRY News and Updates

Religion Christian (2234 unread)

• Church of England News (259 unread)
• Latest News (725 unread)
• Open Path (19 unread)
• Affirming Liberalism (11 unread)
• Greenbelt Blog (464 unread)
• Fresh Expressions RSS feed (442 unread)
• Emergent Village (56 unread)
• Taizé (258 unread)

Religion Interfaith and Universalism (496 unread)

• Interfaith (230 unread)
• IDC Interfaith Dialog Center (139 unread)
• Inter-Religious Dialogue (127 unread)

European Movement UK

• January 19, 2012
• 16:01

  Not a bigger Switzerland

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Daniel Hannan’s argument that Britain should leave the European Union and seek to emulate Switzerland in its relations with the EU (read it here) relies on two assumptions, neither of which I think is true. The first assumption is about the EU, the second is about Britain.

  The EU assumption is that it would be willing to see Britain emulate the position of Switzerland. The Swiss advantage, as Daniel Hannan sees it, is that it has access to the European single market, the largest and richest consumer market in the world, without having to comply with all the regulations that apply there. The British economy is being harmed by the excessive scope of EU regulation, say the eurosceptics, and the Swiss option is a way to reduce it.

  But this strategy relies on the EU agreeing, and there are good reasons to doubt that it will.

  Switzerland has a much smaller economy than Britain, and is highly integrated with the EU. As much as 70 per cent of its foreign trade is with the European Union – when you look at a map, you can see why. (What happens to the other 30 per cent – is there a tunnel?)

  It also follows much of the EU approach to regulation of its own volition: it does not seek to evade EU regulations in order to obtain a competitive advantage over the EU. It is not a low wage economy undercutting EU manufacturers. But this is what Daniel Hannan would have Britain do. If this was the British intention, why should the rest of the EU facilitate it? An economic deal of some sort would be struck, certainly, as there would be a strong mutual interest in doing so, but the British cannot assume that the EU would offer them the same deal that is offered to the Swiss.

  Could we force the EU to offer better terms? Britain currently imports more from the rest of the EU than it exports to it: Daniel Hannan supposes that this economic weakness could turn into a political strength. Simply phrasing the position like this shows how hollow it is as a hope. What gives an economic negotiating position strength is not the balance of trade – it is out-dated mercantilist economic thinking to treat exports as “good” and imports as “bad” – but how important that trade is to the economy. Trade between Britain and the EU represents half of Britain’s trade and 30 per cent of its GDP, whereas that same trade represents one tenth of the EU’s trade and only 3 per cent of its GDP. Making that trade relationship weaker would harm the UK much more than it would the EU: Britain is in no position to dictate terms.

  But not only does Daniel Hannan make a false assumption about the EU – that it would offer the UK the same terms as it offers Switzerland, when it probably wouldn’t – he also makes a false assumption that the UK would welcome those terms. Look at them closely, and see how unacceptable they would be.

  Swiss companies have access to the European single market, as long as they comply with its rules. But who makes the rules? The European Commission – representing EU members only – makes the proposals, which are then approved by the Council of Ministers – representing EU member states only – and the European Parliament, elected by citizens of the EU only. Switzerland and the Swiss people have no say in the matter. Their only involvement is to be bound by the rules.

  Now maybe this is acceptable to Switzerland because it has a small population – less than 2 per cent of that of the EU – and expects little influence on the world around us. It has grown used to bobbing up and down on the surface of world affairs: it only joined the United Nations as recently as 2002, for example, and its banks collaborated with the Nazis during world war two while the rest of the world was fighting them.

  Britain, on the other hand, is one of the largest member states in the European Union and, when it comes to the regulation of the single market, is one of the most influential. While the Swiss might think that their ability to shape the rules would be small, this is not at all the case for the British, for whom influence over rules changes is paramount.

  And those rules will continue to change. Developments in technology and in society will affect the balance to be struck between the role of the market and the role of the state, and when it comes to the role of the state, the balance between the role of the member states and the role of the European Union as a whole. The Swiss might be content to be spectators in this process, standing outside with their noses pressed against the glass, but that isn’t necessarily in the British interest.

  Not only does Daniel Hannan misjudge the European Union, he also misjudges Britain. The British can and expect to have influence in the world in a manner that the Swiss deliberately avoid.

  No matter how lovely the lakes and how splendid the mountains, Switzerland is not a model for Britain in its relationship with the European Union. Britain is a proud and, when it chooses to be, influential member of the EU, and should stay that way.

• December 12, 2011
• 9:18

  The European summit outcome: Here’s what you could have had

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Amid all the argument and misinformation flying round about the agreement and disagreement at the European summit, here is a summary of what was actually at stake.

  The member states of the eurozone wanted a new treaty to establish closer integration among them, particular regarding fiscal matters, as part of a programme to save the euro.  There are short term measures also needed, but the treaty is intended to play a medium-term role of putting the euro on a new institutional footing.

  Assuming that there was no possibility of the UK agreeing to be subject to the provisions of this new treaty, there were two options on the table: (1) a treaty agreed by all 27 but applying to fewer than that number (i.e. not the UK and possibly not others); or (2) a treaty agreed only by those countries that will be subject to it.

  From the perspective of the eurozone countries, the advantages of option (1) were:

  (a) being able to use the existing EU institutions rather than having to create new ones – the risk is that the unwieldy pillar structure introduced in the Maastricht treaty and finally abolished by Lisbon will have to be brought back; do they want to have a second and separate set of elections for a second and separate Eurozone Parliament?

  (b) the involvement, even a small way, of the UK – yes, they don’t always hate us; different countries in different ways for different reasons welcome British influence on the EU

  The disadvantage of option (1) is that the UK would be obliged to ratify the treaty in order for it to come into force, even though it would not apply in the UK.  The advantage of option (2), therefore, is that British ratification would not be needed, which, given the fervent and ridiculous state of British politics, might well be a blessing.

  The reason why option (2) has been chosen despite the disadvantages that it brings with it is that David Cameron wanted it that way.  The arguments about financial services regulation are irrelevant: they relate to the existing Lisbon treaty which applies to all 27 and will continue to apply to all 27, regardless of what might have been agreed about the legal form of the successor treaty.  By the way, if there was a serious and credible case for any of the changes proposed, it could have been raised by the British representative in the coming negotiations of the new treaty.  Given that Britain has decided not to send a representative to those negotiations, it has also decided not to seek those changes that it claimed, on Thursday evening, were necessary to protect the City of London.

  The overall result of the British insistence that the treaty is among 26 and not 27 is not that Britain is unaffected by the new treaty – neither option would have implicated the UK – but that Britain has no say in the new treaty.  Fifty years of British foreign policy has aimed for a role in the discussions about the future of Europe, learning the lessons from the 1950s when we were invited but refused to take part and quickly regretted our refusal.  Those fifty years now appear to be over.

  ¤ ¤ ¤

  A question is raised as to whether Britain will really be excluded from anything.  Will the new treaty actually be agreed?  This is of course the question with which the British comforted themselves in the 1950s – the Treaty of Rome will never amount to anything, they said – and there is an element of denial present in those people asking that question today.

  But only an element; there is also some truth.  The treaty might also fail because agreement cannot be reached among the 26, noting that the failure of the treaty would damage the European economy severely and thus damage the British economy as well.  This is not an outcome to be welcomed.  And, moreover, it can be said that the novel legal circumstances of creating a new treaty of 26 alongside the existing treaty of 27 actually makes failure more likely.  The familiar procedure of amending the treaty of 27 would be much easier: working out how the new 26-strong institutions are going to mesh with the existing 27-strong set is going to be fraught with difficulty.

  If the British government was sincere in its call for the countries of the eurozone to agree some form of fiscal union and sort out their problems, a strategy that makes it noticeably harder for those eurozone countries to agree that union and fix those problems is a mighty strange way of showing it.

• November 29, 2011
• 12:08

  Can the press tell the truth about Europe?

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  At the risk of being accused of jumping on the Leveson enquiry bandwagon (to which I would have to plead guilty), the European Movement has had its own skirmish with press regulation, with rather unsatisfactory results.

  The cause of the complaint was an article about Europol on page 1 of the Daily Express on 26 March 2010, bearing the headline “New EU Gestapo spies on Britons”.  The article proceeded to denounce Europol as having “frightening powers to pry into our lives”, with an editorial in the middle of the paper repeating the allegations.  We referred this to the Press Complaints Commission.

  While it is morally despicable to compare the European Union with Nazi Germany (don’t anti-Semitism and genocide count for anything any more?), our complaint was based on Clause 1 of the Code of Practice, Accuracy, which reads:

  (i) “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”

  and

  (iii) “The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.”

  The complaint explained that Europol and the Gestapo were very different organisations, in that the establishment and the actions of Europol are restricted by law, accountable in parliament, and subject to the considerations of human rights, while the Gestapo was not.  The use of the word “Gestapo” invokes the spectre of an organisation that acted, and was authorised to act, outside the law, and that used brutality and terror as a means of pursuing totalitarian goals.

  We pointed out that, had a simple shorthand for the concept of an intelligence service been required, alternative comparisons such as MI5 or Special Branch could have been used.  However, the choice was made to use the comparison of an organisation with a notorious and distinctive place in European history.

  The complaint was about the front page story and not the editorial.  Sub-clause (iii) permits a partisan press, as long as comment is distinguished from fact.  In an editorial, this is clearly the case: in a front page story, it is not.

  The complaint was rejected.  The Press Complaints Commission was of the view that the front page story was clearly comment and not fact, comment which a newspaper is permitted to make.  I asked specifically what it was about the story that would “distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact” and received the following, priceless answer:

  “This part of the Code does not mean there has to be an explicit reference in the article or headline to the fact that something is a comment rather than a fact (although sometimes this does occur).  In this case, the nature of the term itself was sufficiently suggestive of the fact that it must [author’s emphasis] be a comment:”

  This means that, despite what the Code says, a newspaper need not in fact “distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”: if its claims are outrageous enough, the PCC will assume that everyone knows not to believe them.  Judging by the way in which Fourth Reich terminology is being thrown around at the moment (here, for example), I don’t think that assumption is correct.

  The truth is that Europol is a police organisation with Germans in it, and as far as the PCC is concerned – it is a self-regulatory body for the press, so newspapers are judged by the standards of other newspapers – that is enough.  Think of the case of the case of Max Mosley and the News of the World, when the latter’s allegation that the former had engaged in Nazi role play was comprehensively dismissed.  One of the reasons advanced by the newspaper to think what was enacted was a Nazi scene was that Mr Mosley spoke in German, but the judge, Mr Justice Eady, noted in his judgment that:

  “Although Mr Thurlbeck thought the use of German highly significant as one of the Nazi indicia, it is noteworthy that neither he nor anyone else thought it appropriate to obtain a translation before evaluating the material for publication.”

  In the words of the judge,

  it rather suggests that “German” may have simply been glossed into “Nazi”.

  So it is not only the Daily Express.  Large parts of Fleet Street are still mentally fighting the last war, with combat taking place in acres of newsprint every day.  The Leveson enquiry reveals that there have been some serious ethical failures among some of the people who run our media, and until those failures are addressed, the national discussion of important and controversial issues will continue to be polluted.

  It is ironic, is it not, that those people who are most fervently demanding a referendum on British membership of the EU are at the same time doing their best to make it impossible for a fair one to be held.

• November 21, 2011
• 12:28

  Anatomy of a euromyth

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  A Daily Express headline claimed last week that “EU says water is not healthy” on the front page in letters 42 mm high.  This is a perfect example of a euromyth.  Perfect, because it is not true; perfect, because it damns the European Union; and perfect, because everything we need to know to debunk it is available on the public record.

  The origin of the story is the rejection by the European Commission of a proposal that the register of approved disease risk claims for food and drink should include the claim that “Regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance.”  At first sight, that decision is barmy and deserves the worst that headlines can throw at it.  But a look at the facts reveals a rather different story.

  The register of approved disease risk claims was created by a European regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods (1924/2006), which requires prior approval before food and drink manufacturers can make such claims about their products.  No longer will the claim that eating X is good for you be permitted on the say-so of scientists employed by the manufacturers of X.  In future, all such claims have to be approved by an independent panel of scientists convened by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and then confirmed by the European Commission.  This system is intended to protect consumers from false or misleading claims, and will also ensure a level playing field for companies in the X industry.  It may be bureaucracy, but isn’t that what bureaucracy is for?

  In the case of the dehydration claim, the proposal was rejected by the EFSA scientific panel not because dehydration cannot be prevented by drinking water but because it is not a disease risk claim.  A disease risk claim “states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease” (article 2(6)); the proposal sent to EFSA asserted not that dehydration was a risk factor but that it was the disease itself.

  There is in fact a separate register of “Health claims describing or referring to the role of a nutrient or other substance in growth, development and the functions of the body” (article 13(1)), which is where a claim about water and dehydration belongs.  The application to EFSA was rejected not because it was unfounded scientifically but because it was submitted under the wrong regulatory heading.

  So, this Commission decision is not at all a “scarcely believable ruling”, not at all “new madness from Brussels”, not at all “at odds with both science and common sense”.  It is following correctly the rules that have been laid down to prevent consumers from being misled.  What if the Commission were to bend the rules, or not follow the correct procedures in the law?  What would the newspapers say then?

  But we can go further.  This euromyth has not arisen from a misunderstanding.   The facts, when inconvenient, are simply ignored.

  And the fact is that the EFSA panel has approved other claims about the beneficial effects of drinking water.  Two health claims regarding the “maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions” and the “maintenance of normal thermoregulation” have been approved, with an EFSA scientific opinion reading:

  “The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions.”

  and

  “The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal thermoregulation.”

  In each case, “The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day.”

  The support for these health claims by EFSA directly refutes the headline that “EU says water is not healthy”.  The Daily Express knew about these other claims before going to print, but printed the inaccurate headline anyway.  That is where euromyths come from.

• October 06, 2011
• 14:59

  British public opinion on Europe

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  What is the state of British public opinion on Europe?  A recent survey by YouGov for Vote UK out of the EU gave us the headline that a majority of people would vote in a referendum against membership of the EU, but looking behind the headline provides a rather more interesting picture.

  Positive about membership?

  The question “do you think EU membership has been positive or negative for the United Kingdom?” produced 50 per cent negative as opposed to 29 per cent positive (net -21).  This overall negative sentiment is widely but not universally shared.

  Political party: Conservative voters are more Eurosceptic (-29) than Labour (-2), with Lib Dem voters actually +21 in favour.

  Gender: men were less negative than women: -13 as opposed to -28.  Interestingly, throughout the survey, women were twice as likely as men to say “don’t know” (16 per cent, on average, compared with 9 per cent), for reasons I will not speculate on but which everyone reading this will recognise.

  Age: voters over the age of 40 are negative about the EU (-36), while those under that age are actually in favour (+6).  Is this because younger people have had different experiences and education than the previous generation, or it is simply because they have not become Eurosceptic yet?

  Social grade: negative feelings are less prevalent among ABC1s (-10) than among C2DE voters (-26).

  Geography: every region of the country is negative, but London (-6) is less negative than elsewhere.  Recall that six of the 10 districts that voted Yes in the referendum on electoral reform were also in the capital: London is different.

  Economically prosperous

  A separate question asked whether Britain is economically stronger in the EU or would be more prosperous outside it.  The overall finding was 22 per cent in favour of the EU and 48 per cent against (net -26), with a much higher don’t know score of 15 per cent (as against 6 per cent for overall benefits).  Every single breakdown of the voters was negative – political party, gender, age, social grade and geography – with the sole exception of Liberal Democrat voters.

  Not even Liberal Democrats could find a majority in favour of further UK participation of bailouts of eurozone countries (-29, compared with -52 for the country as a whole).  The notion that, as a non-member of the eurozone, Britain can stay out of its troubles seems to be widely shared.

  Should there be a referendum?

  Lastly, the survey asked a series of questions about referendums, both on EU membership and on any future treaty, asking whether they should be held and which way one might vote.  The headline figures are that, on EU membership, 62 per cent think that their political party should commit to holding such a referendum (27 per cent against) and 51 per cent would vote against membership (27 per cent in favour) were one held.  On a new treaty, 59 per cent think there should be a referendum (26 per cent against) and 49 per cent would vote No (13 per cent would vote Yes, 32 per cent don’t know).

  The figures show that there is strong support for a public vote on the future of Britain in Europe.  Examining the numbers more closely, however, shows that there is a very strong correlation between support for holding a referendum (on EU membership or on a new treaty) and voting No in that referendum.  What this suggests is not simply dissatisfaction with the way in which decisions about Britain and Europe have been taken, but rather dissatisfaction with the result of those decisions.  A referendum on Europe is the means to reverse the decision of parliament rather than an end in itself.

  What this means is that if pro-Europeans wish to win the argument, they have to put the case for Europe and not merely against referendums.  If confidence in Britain’s EU membership returns, demands for a referendum against it will diminish.

• September 22, 2011
• 12:39

  The Swiss example – not what it seems

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  At a debate on EU membership organised by the Spectator on 20 September (read a report here), leading eurosceptic Daniel Hannan MEP compared the UK unfavourably with Switzerland.  The Swiss experience of non-membership of the EU, he said, has been more beneficial than the UK experience of membership.  We are poorer, both in economic terms and in the health of our democratic life.

  That is what the MEP says: what about the facts?

  Switzerland is undeniably richer than the UK (GDP per capita currently around $63,000 as opposed to $35,000) but is that because of the EU?  The chart below shows the ratio of Swiss per capita GDP to that of the UK, since 1960 (the blue line) (data from the World Bank).

  

  Ratios of GDP per capita (data from the World Bank)

  Switzerland is richer now, but it was richer then, too.  The gap between the two has widened, notably in the mid-1970s, which was a particularly bad time for the British economy, and since the economic crisis started in 2008.  There have been periods of time when it has narrowed, too, during the late 1980s during the completion of the single market and during the long boom of the last decade.  The ratio is now about where it was when Britain first joined the EEC in 1973.

  Compare also the experience of Germany (the pink line).  Again, Switzerland is richer than Germany, but consistently so.  If it was membership of the EU that was dragging a country down, we would see the gap between Swiss and German wealth grow.  In fact, that gap does not grow, which implies that membership of the EU is perfectly compatible with a successful economy.  The fact that Britain has, relatively speaking, declined is due to failings in British economic policy and not due to membership of the EU.

  So, if the contention that the EU is harming the British economy is proven to be false, what about the harm allegedly done to British democracy?

  The chart below depicts election turnouts since 1979, showing Switzerland, the UK and the European Parliament (percentages from International IDEA).

  

  Election turnouts (data from International IDEA)

  The lowest turnouts are the Swiss.  So much for the contention of a nation of politically engaged independent citizens, as opposed to the democracy-denied British.  Swiss turnouts are even generally lower than those of the European Parliament!  Daniel Hannan doesn’t like to tell us that.

  Of course, Switzerland is a federal country, so there are elections at other levels of government to take into account.  The latest elections in the canton of Bern saw a turnout of 43.48 per cent, in Luzern it was 43.5 per cent, and in Zürich, it was only 35 per cent, i.e. lower than the federal turnout.

  There is also the culture of direct democracy, in which issues of public controversy can be put to referendums, but turnout in these referendums is normally less than 50 per cent.  A study of Swiss democracy by the University of Zurich and the Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB) reported that:

  “A large part of the Swiss population does not engage in politics and those who do are primarily educated, well-off, older and disproportionately male.”

  Looking out at the audience at the Spectator debate, we can see why the Swiss model might be attractive to them.  But to the rest of us, maybe not so much.

  Swiss democracy and the Swiss economy have many admirable features, but membership of the European Union does not prevent Britain from emulating them.  If there are failings in our own political system, giving us bad decisions and mistaken policies, we should recognise them for what they are and not be content simply to blame them on others.

  To leave the EU in the hope that this would make us more like Switzerland is a fantasy.  If we want to be more like the Swiss, we can, and we don’t have to give up the benefits of EU membership in order to do so.

• September 01, 2011
• 13:58

  The truth about light bulbs

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  The sale of 60 watt incandescent light bulbs is banned in the UK from today, as part of an EU-wide strategy.  A report on the BBC website was accompanied by a comment from a shopkeeper:

  “This is not a democracy, it’s becoming like a dictatorship, ordering you to do this, do that. You should have a choice.”

  To which the only answer can be, no it’s not like a dictatorship.  Here’s why not.

  The intention to ban incandescent light bulbs was agreed, unanimously, by the European Council (composed of the heads of the national governments of the member states) in March 2007, as part of a strategic plan to reduce the environmental impact of lighting.  The new light bulbs are much more efficient users of energy and so will lead to a reduction in the emissions of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to climate change.

  That strategic decision was enacted in a regulation drafted by the European Commission with the formal involvement of stakeholders such as consumer and environmental NGOs, approved by a committee of experts nominated by the member states, and then approved by the European Parliament.  It is hard to think of a process less like that of a dictatorship.

  As to the issue of choice, let us remember what the regulation will do.  Carbon dioxide is in effect a pollutant, and this regulation will reduce the amount that is emitted.  The primacy of “choice” here would mean that people have the choice whether to cause more pollution.  It would undermine democracy if a majority against pollution was unable to take effective action against it because a minority was free to carry on polluting.

  Incidentally, let us imagine that the wishes of the anti-Europeans were granted.  The EU institutions are reduced to a forum for cooperation among the national governments and nothing more.  How would this issue be dealt with?

  There would be an agreement among the national governments to phase out these polluting light bulbs (this is a single market matter to be dealt with at European level because otherwise a company in one country could sell them to consumers in another country undermining that second country’s own ban), followed by a meeting of the national government technical experts to sort out the detail.  At which point, that would be it.  The possible role of the directly-elected European Parliament in scrutinising the new law would be eliminated, because all political power rests in the hands of the national governments and none in the hands of the European institutions.  Is that a better system?

  Ah, but there are national parliaments: they would have a role instead.  But what kind of role could that be?  If a national parliament is entitled to reject the European decision, then the single market falls apart.  And if a national parliament is not entitled to reject the European decision, then it is reduced merely to a rubber stamp.  Neither of those outcomes is acceptable.

  The pro-European case is that the parliamentary debates on European decisions should take place at European level.  The role for national parliaments on these issues is to scrutinise and hold to account the actions of their respective national governments, in the European Council and in those committees of national experts.  It is on the work of those latter committees that more light needs to be shed.

• August 19, 2011
• 13:43

  No case for a referendum on EU membership

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  The People’s Pledge campaign claims to be in favour of a referendum on EU membership.  The European Movement does not support this campaign: while it is not necessarily against a referendum on further developments in the EU – should Britain join the euro, for example – the European Movement does not believe that a referendum is required to confirm British membership of the EU. However, that isn’t really what the campaign is about.

  It is motivated not by a belief that constitutional questions should be settled by referendums, but because such a referendum is the means by which Britain might leave the EU.  By all means campaign against EU membership if you wish, but don’t dress your campaign up as something it isn’t.

  Five reasons are put forward in favour of a referendum on EU membership (full text here): they are the usual eurosceptic arguments and here are our replies:

  1. “No one under the age of 54 has had the chance to vote on our relationship with Brussels”

  There are many constitutional issues that have not been put to a referendum even as recently as 1975.  The retention of the monarchy, for example, or independence for Scotland.  Do the supporters of the People’s Pledge also want referendums on those questions, too?

  Kelvin Hopkins MP, a leading supporter of the People’s Pledge, opposed his own government’s proposal to hold a referendum on electoral reform in February 2010, so he has zero credibility in arguing that constitutional questions should be put to referendums.

  It is true that the EU has changed considerably since the referendum in 1975, but every one of those changes has been approved by parliament.  They have the same “democratic, moral legitimacy” as anything else parliament has done.  Strange that people who claim that the House of Commons is losing its powers also deny the right of the House of Commons to use the powers that it has.

  2. “The EU now makes a majority of the laws we must obey”

  It is simply untrue that a majority of British laws originate in the EU.  Each year, the EU agrees only around 490 laws, whereas Westminster produces around 3,500 annually.

  And it is also untrue that the EU is obliging Britain to privatise industries such as the railway system and the postal service.  The decision whether or not to do this is entirely national.  After all, in France, there are no moves to privatise SNCF or La Poste.

  3. “The UK has less than 10% of the votes in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament”

  To be part of a political community is to accept that other people also have a say in shared decisions.  If the UK has about 10 per cent of the population of the EU, what ought its percentage of the votes to be?

  As far as referendums are concerned, there have in fact been 32 referendums in 19 of the current EU member states on membership of the EU or on new treaties: the results were 27 in favour and 5 against.

  4. “The EU is costing Britain more and more money”

  Fraud in the EU budget, while too high, is no higher than in the UK budget.  The accounts for government departments such as Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence are regularly qualified by the National Audit Office.

  The UK was not forced to contribute to the loan to Greece: it chose to.  And since then, has chosen not to do so again.  Because the UK is not in the eurozone, it is not part of the eurozone’s financial provisions; however, it is a member of the IMF and thus contributes to the IMF’s activities.  If people think that the UK should withdraw from the IMF, they should say so.

  5. “The EU wants to give itself new powers of ‘economic governance’”

  Every European treaty has to be agreed unanimously by all the member states.  The UK is not a member of the eurozone and can protect that status in any future treaty; it can also ensure if it wishes that it is not subject to any new obligations.  If other European countries wish to agree a new treaty among themselves without involving the UK, they should be free to do so, but that does not mean that they will apply to Britain.

  Not only do these five reasons not stand up to scrutiny, there are two further reasons why a referendum on the status quo would not be a good idea.

  First, let us think about a Yes vote in favour of membership (this would be the outcome for which party leaders David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Alex Salmond, Ieuan Wyn Jones, and Caroline Lucas would be working; against them would be Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin).

  It would settle no argument.  The eurosceptics would surely carry on campaigning against the EU.  After the referendum in 1975, the campaign against membership was relaunched as soon as 1976.

  Secondly, any debate needs to be honest.  If a candidate knowingly makes false allegations about his opponent in a general election, there is redress available afterwards, as Phil Woolas discovered.  But we saw that, in the behaviour of the campaigns for and against the Alternative Vote, a referendum campaign makes adherence to the facts much harder to enforce.  A referendum on Europe conducted under a cloud of lies and misinformation would not serve its ostensible purpose of empowering the British people, and we can see from the false claims made by the eurosceptics already how they would intend to fight such a campaign.

  The European Movement supports British membership of the European Union and argues the case for more democracy, effectiveness and accountability.  A substantial set of reforms to the existing EU treaties might well merit a referendum.  But until then, we should work to make the European Union work better, rather than setting a course for the exit door.

• August 08, 2011
• 14:10

  Bringing back the death penalty?

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  The government has launched a new website where people can post petitions for signature.  If a petition gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will may be debated in the House of Commons.  The petitions website is here [epetitions.direct.gov.uk] .

  One of the first campaigns to be launched is the so-called Restore Justice campaign, arguing for the restoration of the death penalty for murderers of police officers and children.  (There is also a rival petition, defending the status quo.)  If the restoration petition gets its 100,000 signatures, which is not impossible, the issues that it raises are more complex than just those of law and order.  The petition itself asks:

  “the government to review all treaties and international commitments which may inhibit the ability of Parliament to restore capital punishment.”

  Those treaties include the Lisbon treaty, which gave legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in which Article 2, “Right to life”, reads:

  1. Everyone has the right to life.

  2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

  To reintroduce the death penalty in the UK would require withdrawal from this part of the Charter.  How that could be done, nobody knows.  The Lisbon treaty does not make provision for a member state to pick and choose some bits of the treaty and not others, but rather for a member state to withdraw altogether.

  The proponents of the petition are themselves aware of the complications.  Paul Staines, a well-known blogger, who launched the idea, tweeted that “restoring the death penalty has profoundly eurosceptic implications”.  Perhaps this is what they want.

  The European Movement itself does not have a formal view of whether or not the death penalty should be brought back, but its members and supporters may well have views of their own.  Here are the rival petitions, if you wish to sign one or other of them:

  In favour of death penalty  [epetitions.direct.gov.uk]

  Against  [epetitions.direct.gov.uk]

• 11:23

  The British government’s ostrich strategy towards the eurozone

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  By Petros Fassoulas

  Perhaps the flightless African bird does not deserve the reputation it has acquired but in terms of symbolism at least the British government’s reaction to the eurozone crisis resembles a lot the ostrich’s alleged tendency to bury its head in the ground when confronted with danger.

  Because there is no other way one can describe how Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne have reacted as financial and stock markets seem to implode around them. Even though they have acknowledged the severity of the situation, even though they have admitted that what happens in the eurozone has a direct impact on the UK economy, even though they have gone as far as encouraging their EU partners to adopt the measures necessary to contain the crisis, they have declared, with immense but ill-founded pride, that they are keeping themselves, and the country, away from the decision-making process that aims to resolve the present crisis and put in place the mechanisms that will strengthen the eurozone and safeguard the European economy.

  This is where the truly dangerous surrender of national sovereignty lies. When the growth of the British economy depends to such a big degree to the well-being of the eurozone, when billions are wiped off the value of British assets in the London Stock Exchange because of the uncertainty the debt crisis has caused in the financial markets, the British government cannot afford to just stand by idly, inviting others to make decisions that affect the country so profoundly. Whether Mr Cameron and his eurosceptic backbenchers like it or not, the UK is by default part of the eurozone. The British economy is integrated with those of our European partners through the Single Market. The ability of our export sector to generate growth at home depends on the ability of our European partners to purchase our goods and services. The European financial services sector, with London at its heart, is interconnected through a complex web that links the banks and other financial institutions with something that resembles a stranglehold. Even the cost of our holidays depends on economic conditions in the rest of Europe. Sticking our heads in the ground, like senior Conservatives – in and outside the government – are calling for, pretending that it is up to ‘those Europeans’ to sort this one out, like we have nothing to do with it, is frankly a clear case of biting one’s nose to spite one’s face.

  But there is a pattern in their madness. Their intention is to present the process of European integration as a speeding train, one that charges towards a certain direction, a train that the UK cannot and should not board. They in fact prefer to encourage members of the eurozone to move forward towards closer economic and fiscal union in the belief that the British electorate will be put off once and for all by the prospect of the European project. Then the government will pursue some kind of marginal role at the periphery of the EU, limited on trade and a couple of other things but staying clear of anything as big as economic, monetary and fiscal union. In effect create a two-speed Europe and relegate Britain to the second tier.

  Those two Europes that the Conservatives envision are the Eurozone on one side and the non-Eurozone EU member states on the other. But of the 10 remaining EU countries that have not joined the single currency yet only the UK and Denmark have an opt-out. All the other member states have declared their wish to eventually join (once they are ready). Even Denmark is in a process of revisiting its opt outs, including euro membership. So sooner than later the UK will find itself all alone, at the outer rim of the EU, a small island, adrift in the Atlantic, squeezed between two global currencies, the dollar and the euro (not to mention the renminbi). Alienated, without a seat around the table, unable to influence the decisions that affect its economy.

  There were two Europes before, during the days when the European Economic Community (that eventually became the European Union) co-existed with the European Free Trade Association. What happened then is what will happen with this two-speed Europe. EFTA states, including the UK, quickly realised which was the organisation worth belonging to and eventually drifted into it, in many cases too late to have any influence in the formation of its fundamental structures. What is left of EFTA these days is a tiny grouping, made up of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and in some way and form Switzerland. These remaining EFTA states, reluctant to join the EU but keen to participate in the Single Market, Schengen and other EU policies have to abide to the rules decided by EU member states without having a say in the way those rules are agreed and adopted (while at the same time contributing to the EU budget). Is this the fate the UK would like to reserve for itself? Is this the future the current government is happy to relegate the UK to? One of marginalised insignificance on the sidelines, having to accept the consequences of decisions that affect us but are taken without us?

  The eurozone will survive and will continue its successful course through history. Its leaders have demonstrated their commitment and they will do whatever it takes, albeit at a pace different to that the markets, the press and many ambitious integrationists (like yours truly) might desire. It will survive because it possesses the necessary strength, its collective economic fundamentals are solid, it enjoys the confidence of world powers like the US and China and it has at its heart some of the most dynamic and global economies in the world. The question is whether the UK will be part of it or not.

  Historians will one day look at what took place at this particular moment of European history. Whether they will acknowledge the UK as a strong and confident nation, at the heart of decisions that formed the future of our continent (and the world) or as a nation that turned inwards, closed itself up and resigned itself to a life of irrelevance in the sidelines will depend on what role Cameron and Co will decide to play from now on. Will they put their chips down, sit around the table and have a say in the hand the EU will play? Or will they leave through the back door while the rest of Europe moves forward?

  I guess we will know soon.

   

• June 29, 2011
• 9:19

  The Greeks’ salto mortale

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  As the sun rises over central Athens those that have engulfed the Parliament building ponder their situation. They have been driven here by disappointment, desperation, even anger and the stark realisation that this is truly as bad as it gets. Their disenchantment has made them think the unthinkable and all of the sudden

  While their elected representatives prepare to make one of the most important decisions of their lives, those gathering around Syntagma Square argue that they are the victims, they have been robbed by a corrupt political elite, an inefficient bureaucracy, a clientalistc system which dictates that it’s who you know, not what you know, that really matters. They are the working and the middle classes, the pensioners and the unemployed graduates that are asked to shoulder the burden of the austerity measures necessary to put in order Greece ‘s finances. But as far as they are concerned they are not the ones that caused the crisis. They accept the notion of collective responsibility, they are aware that they are complicit to the crimes committed over the past 30 years but they are not the ones who engaged in vast corruption in the public and private sector, they are not the ones that evaded taxes massively and they are not the ones that spent investors’ capital to buy risky sovereign bonds. So they do not understand why they have to stand by and watch their taxes rise, their wages shrink and their public services disappear when those that brought the country to the brink of collapse escape prosecution or avoid having to accept the consequences of their own actions.

  Whatever one thinks of these arguments it probably matters little to those that are charged with helping Greece out of its current predicament. The IMF, the EU governments, the financial markets and above all taxpayers across the eurozone want to see the Greeks earn their bail-out. They do not care much about who in the country carries the bigger share of responsibility. As far as they are concerned the austerity measures imposed by the IMF-EC-ECB programme are the bare minimum the country needs to do if it is to put its finances in order (and redeem itself in the process). They want to make sure that the Greeks will pay them back but the way they go about will likely produce the opposite result.

  The loans that form the bail-out, especially the EU part, are offered at an interest rate above 5%, which is substantially higher than the average rate eurozone and EU states borrow at. So when Greeks pay back those loans its EU partners stand to make a hefty profit. But the kind of conditions attached put that prospect in grave risk. Because asking an economy that is going through a devastating contraction to adopt punitive austerity measures, at the same time as it is trying to adopt and apply structural reforms, compromises its chances of growth. Economic development cannot be achieved by cutting public spending, while imposing crippling tax rises, which take money out of the economy, and cutting – already low by EU average standards – wages, reducing the population’s purchasing power. Such policies undermine the country’s ability to generate income and pay back its dues, hurting at the same time indirectly and unintentionally its own partners. If that’s not shooting ones self on the foot, what is?

  Many argue that there is a way out of this unpleasant situation. Greece should default and leave the eurozone. Devalue the drachma and run its own monetary policy. But that is a narrow minded and myopic view. Going back to the drachma, not a simple procedure by any stretch of the imagination, will have devastating effects on the economy, the banking sector and the wider population. It will condemn the country to poverty, cut it off capital markets (and EU assistance) and make it even more dependant on IMF assistance, and the austerity conditions that come with it. At the same time a devaluation, no matter how steep, is unlikely to bare any fruit, considering that, unless massively restructured, the Greek economy is unable to produce competitive internationally products and services. No matter how cheap they are. As for running an independent monetary policy, how independent can it be when conducted from a small corner of Europe , with sadly a history of incompetent handling of monetary affairs?

  Not to mention the effect a Greek default will have on the markets. The problem does not lie exclusively on the level of exposure some European banks have to Greek sovereign debt. It also resides in the level of exposure they have to each other and the limited amount of confidence they have on their own health. Most European banks still carry the scars of the credit crunch, one of them manifested in the lack of trust they have in their peers, and this fragility makes them panicky and likely to over-react. So even though Greece is no Lehman Brothers in terms of size and exposure, a fragile, paranoid and over-sensitive financial services sector is bound to over-react, run for the heals and in the process cause a huge stumpy, crashing on its way countries like Portugal, Ireland, even Spain, which, especially in the case of the latter two, are objectively nowhere near the precarious state of their Greek partner. But they might find themselves in the Greeks’ shows just because of the degree of mistrust and the lack of confidence the European financial services sector has in itself.

  So what is the solution? First of all we have to acknowledge that we are devoting far too much attention to the bush, ignoring completely the forest. For whatever reason Greece has become the focus of attention, maybe to take the spotlight away from other bigger and equally indebted EU member states. But the future of the eurozone will not be fought and lost on the streets of Athens . Here is a country equivalent to less than 2% of EU GDP, in the periphery of the eurozone, literally and metaphorically. If enough (but not comparatively much) political and financial capital is invested the Greek debt crisis can be (and should have already been) resolved.

  Secondly, we need to take a step back and remind ourselves of the state of the eurozone as a whole, which is full of successful, dynamic economies. These economies could certainly be in a better state if the process of economic integration was more complete but we should not discount the way the eurozone as a whole has weathered the crisis just because of debt and structural problems in a couple of its member states. The single currency itself is holding, albeit with some, understandable, fluctuations, its value – a significant vote of confidence from the markets and its partners. Furthermore, international actors, not least the Chinese, are happy to continue purchasing European paper, recognizing the long term positive prospects of the eurozone. Many others, including oil-rich states in the Middle East , have been, for a while now, diverging their foreign currency holdings in favour of the euro, a further sign of support for the single currency.

  But above all we need to allow the Greeks enough time to put their economy in order. That means first and foremost reconsidering the kind of remedy (or punishment) we ask the Greeks (as well as the Irish and the Portuguese) to take for the mistakes they committed. The IMF inspired bail-out terms are full of neo-liberal ideology and are running the risk of causing more trouble than offer solutions. Greece needs time to restructure its economy. While it is undertaking the necessary, and painful, reforms it must be allowed to extend the repayment of its current debts. Private investors have a role to play and a voluntary roll-over of debt repayments is in their long term interest as well. Also privatization should not be rushed, a fire sale won’t help the Greeks much. Giving up now on state assets that have the potential to generate better returns when sold at a more benign environment is counter productive, to put it mildly.

  Furthermore, the terms of the EU-EC-ECB bail-out should be revisited, there is no reason for interest rates to be so high and repayment to be demanded so soon. As argued above these terms limit, not enhance, Greece ’s ability to pay back its partners. In addition it is imperative that the notion of Eurobonds is reconsidered. Such a move might implicitly mean that Eurozone taxpayers underwrite Greek debt but it is cheaper than the bail-outs currently considered and will allow Greece to return, indirectly at least, to the markets. Going down that route will of course set the process of fiscal integration in motion and while the EU’s political leaders need to have an honest discussion with their electorate of what that will entail there is no other alternative than allowing our economic and monetary union to grow into a fiscal and political union. Because without adding those two pillars the architecture of the euro will never be complete.

  At the same time a bad assets bank should be set up, aimed to rid the banks of the bad loans that are hiding beneath the surface. For that to happen light must be shed to some dark corners of the financial sector, not a particularly pleasant process, but the eurozone will not secure itself a healthy future unless its banking sector is cleansed once and for all from past sins.

  Last but not least, a serious and proper development plan must be set up for Greece . Call it Marshal, or even better, Merkel Plan, but for the country to generate growth it requires investment that can only be provided at a scale similar to the one Americans offered to Europe after the 2nd World War.

  So, as the whole of Europe (and perhaps the world) is holding its breath in anticipation of the vote inside the Greek Parliament later today, the leaders of the EU should spare a thought for those gathering outside the building. Irrespective of the outcome of the vote, this is a time for hard choices, not just for the Greeks but the eurozone as a whole. Political bravery and economic long term thinking is needed. Otherwise the people of Greece might start believing that a salto mortale is the only option they have left.

  Petros Fassoulas, European Movement

• May 12, 2011
• 14:58

  Schengen readjustment and border controls – alarmism or necessity?

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  In early May 2011, borth France and Italy requested the European Commission to adapt the Schengen rules, abolishing border checks within the EU and proving crucial for the free movement principle, cornerstone of the EU’s economic and legal system.

  A few days later, the European Commission tabled a proposal to revise the Schengen system and to allow for temporary border checks to be re-installed between Member States. Barroso, the Commission’s president, held that “Reintroducing border controls is not a desirable development for Europe, neither in the current circumstances, nor for the future challenges that we will face sooner or later. It should be an absolute last resort.” The proposal was warmly welcomed by the Green party in the European Parliament and by the European People’s party, although it was strongly critisized by the European Socialist and Liberals.
  Further, Denmark decided on 11 may to rebuild its border checks in its ports and airports, and to re-open its border control points with Germany and with Sweden (to which Denmark united by a bridge).

  On the one hand,a possible re-establishment of border controls within the Union, even if temporary and applied as a measure of last resort, clearly goes against the aim of Schengen to provide a free circulation area within the EU and the Schengen Members. Such measures would severely hinder free trade and free movement provisions, which are amongst the EU’s key principles. Further, the adoption of such measures implictly shows a lack of trust between Member States, especially regarding the way some of them protect the Union’s external borders.

  On the other hand, some argue that national authorities should protect themselves against cross-border crime and against massive fluxes of illegal immigration (as under the current Schengen system, once these have gained initial access to the EU’s territory, they are entitled to free movement and can go to other EU Member States), and the only and most effective way to achieve such protection is with the installment of border check points and border controls.

  What do you think? Is the Commission’s proposal a step backwards or a step forward? Do you prefer a free Europe or a highly securitized Europe

• April 07, 2011
• 15:18

  How far should the PNR (passanger name ...

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  How far should the PNR (passanger name record) directive go?

  In the past few years, terrorist routes have become more complex. As an Euractiv article points out (which can be found here), “analyses made by counter-terrorism agencies demonstrate that terrorists often use EU hubs  instead of direct international flights and the complexity of their journeys has increased.”

  As a response to this, various EU Member States are rallying behind a British led campaign proposing the extension of the PNR directive and its provisions not only to flights in and out the EU but also to intra-EU flights.  They claim that controlling only the air travel outside of the Union would leave a considerable security gap, as for instance a terrorist could fly to Rotterdam and then fly anywhere inside the EU, the official authorities thereby loosing track of him/her.

  The inclusion of intra-EU flights under the PNR rules is currying favour amongst several Member States. However, not everyone is convinced with this proposal. Germany, being backed up by Slovenia and Austria, holds that the inclusion of “domestic” EU flights into the PNR directive is in clear breach of free movement of persons, which is one of the fundamental values of the EU. They argue for a limited collection of PNR data only for flights to and from third-countries and for a strenghening of data protection rules.

  On 11 April 2011, the Justice and Home Affairs ministers will be meeting in Luxembourg to hear the presentation on the PNR directive given by the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmstrom.

  Should the EU go the extra  mile and include internal EU flights under the PNR directive in the name of security and to fight terrorism or should the PNR directive only concern flights to and from third-countries, keeping its intrusion to a minimum?

• February 17, 2011
• 11:36

  BARROSO DEFENDS THE COMMUNITY METHOD. After ...

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  BARROSO DEFENDS THE COMMUNITY METHOD.

  After winning a unanimous backing from the heads of EU member states in June 2009, Barroso was re-elected President of the European Commission for another five-year mandate. Barroso has always been an eager defendant of the so-called “community method” involving EU institutions and in his second mandate he will fight back any attempts of member states to deal with issues on an intergovernmental basis.

  We do not need to make an effort to remember the last time the intergovernmental basis was used, France and Germany, two of the most powerful members of the EU, decided to “do their own thing” and presented their Pact for Competitiveness at the last EU summit on the 4^th of February 2011.

  Barroso holds that the best way to “preserve the coherence” at EU level is to use the community method, where all the EU players and institutions are involved in the decision-making progress, from the first day until the last. Countries are tempted to use the intergovernmental methods because the community method is slow and some would say not efficient enough (this however, is probably a matter of time. Once the EU member states start trusting the EU institutions for their abilities to act as a political body, the procedures will become much more effiecient with time and practice). It cannot be denied that the European Commission is becoming much more political and much more powerful than some EU member states’ national governments. Further, there is no doubt that under the leadership of Barroso, the Commission’s strength will develop faster, but for this to happen member states need to let go of their fears (especially regarding sovereignty) and make the EU institutions count.

  If the member states of the Union would sit down and let the EU institutions tackle the issues the way they are supposed to, the outcome would be much more accountable, much more democratic and much more European.

• February 02, 2011
• 9:54

  Solvency ‘not an issue’ if Governments deliver on reform

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  It was not surprising that Herman Van Rompuy’s first UK speech as President of the European Council dealt primarily with the EU response to the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone and its chances of success.

  In the following Q&A, Phillip Stephens of the Financial Times sounded sceptical. He suggested that the injection of loans may well solve the liquidity problems in Ireland and Greece, but took no note of the solvency question surrounding these and some other EU member states. This issue also formed the leader in the Economist on the following day, the magazine advocating an early “restructuring” of debt with bond-holders taking a hit on the value of their holdings.

  But unlike the caricature of UKIP’s least favourite Belgian, President Van Rompuy responded robustly. He pointed out that the loans were conditional on both structural reform and cuts to budget deficits. He added that both Ireland and Greece, along with other countries at risk of contagion, were taking reform seriously and quickly getting on with the job. China’s move into Euro bonds was a sign of market confidence that the measures would work. He was bullish about the prospects of troubled member states cutting debt as a proportion of GDP, pointing to his own record as Belgian Finance Minister.

  Mr Van Rompuy had already given a clear sign of his position on the bail-out package in his speech (see box, right), but also paid attention to further development of the Single Market and supply-side reforms to make the EU economy more competitive.

  His linking of past failures in this respect to the current crisis indicated a determination to resurrect the aspirations of the Lisbon Agenda to turn the EU into the world’s most competitive economy (see next page). This process was let down by a lack of enthusiasm for reform among member states rather than failings at European level.

  Opportunity

  My own view is that the crisis has decisively brought home the need for reform, so Mr Van Rompuy will find it easier to make progress than Commissioners in the last decade. Also, as Council President, he will be better placed to address the main failure points; the member states. I also suspect that he has spotted this opportunity.

  In a wide-ranging speech, the Council President also covered the new stress tests for banks to reduce the risks of future banking crises having such catastrophic effects. He concluded with an overview of the EU as a player on the global scene, in which he, Mr Barroso and High Representative Baroness Ashton co-operate. He mentioned in particular, relations with India and Pakistan, maintaining a very strong neighbourhood agreement with Turkey and bringing Iran back to the negotiating table on its nuclear capability.

  I talked to fellow LDEG members Jonathan Fryer, Hugh Dykes, Graham Bishop and Dinti Batstone at the end of the event and there was a consensus that this was a very strong performance.

  I agree. Mr Van Rompuy has a clear agenda, largely consistent with liberal thinking, and may well have the determination to push it through. He deserves our support.

  By Phil Bennion, LDEG Chair, first published in Europhile, Jan/Feb 2011

• September 17, 2010
• 14:55

  The EU Referendum Campaign – fisked

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  The EU Referendum Campaign has called for a referendum on British membership of the EU.  Here is their statement about EU membership, fisked.

   

  1.  Can we really afford to send £45 million a day to Brussels?  ** this is the gross figure not the net figure, which implies that the referendum campaign wants to shut down the things that EU funds pay for in Britain, such as regional spending, support for Britain’s small farmers, research and development, etc **  Britain is Broke….That’s what the government told us…Isn’t that why our public services are being cut, our taxes are being increased and our pensions are crashing?

   

  2. A torrent of EU laws are transforming our economy and public sector and there is nothing we can do about it.  ** the EU agrees only around 490 laws a year, whereas Westminster produces around 3,500 annually – which one is the torrent? **  EU laws are imposed without us, or our MPs, having any say whatsoever.  ** our MEPs have a say, as do our ministers, who are accountable to our MPs, and both MPs and MEPs are elected by the people **  Whether it’s the imposition of directives forcing us to privatise and break up our railway system, the Royal Mail and other key public services,  ** there are no directives forcing privatisation – in France, both SNCF and La Poste remain in public ownership – the decision to privatise is national, not European **  new laws relating to the City of London  ** do you not think that the financial markets need some new rules – has everything really gone perfectly recently? **  and small businesses, the voters of Britain should ultimately decide what policies they want – and do not want – through their elected representatives in parliament.  ** our elected representatives in parliament do decide, that’s what the European Parliament is for **  Once EU laws are passed into law, they cannot be reversed.  ** yes they can.  A proposal from the Commission and majority in the Council and the EP can change any EU directive **  This is not democracy.  ** Would it be democratic if one single member state could force the other 26 do something they did not want to do? **

   

  3. Due to the crisis the Euro is now facing, the Brussels elite is demanding total control over the tax and spend policies of its member countries.  ** the level of tax and spending is a matter for each member state to decide for itself – expenditure levels vary from 41%  (Bulgaria) to 59% (Denmark) – there is no European control of this **  The unelected European Commission  ** the president of the European Commission is elected by the European Parliament, and the other members of the Commission are confirmed in office by the EP **  is demanding the right to vet national budgets before elected parliaments are even allowed to see and debate them.  ** no, it proposes that, given that the budgetary decisions that each EU member state takes have an impact on all the others, there should be analysis of those impacts as part of the budgetary process **  It also wants to the right to tax us individually: that is to say an EU level of tax we must all pay, additional to the money we already hand over to our government and local councils.  ** the idea is that the money currently contributed to the EU budget by national governments be replaced by a European tax – it would make the level of EU expenditure more visible to the citizen and enable national governments to reduce the amount of tax they themselves raise.  In order to be implemented, it would need the unanimous agreement of every member state.  By the way, this idea that each level of government should be responsible for raising its own revenue is featured in The Plan, the book by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. **

   

  4. What is the point of a meaningless referendum on Electoral Reform next May that will cost us £80 million and achieve nothing.  ** the referendum might change the voting system to Westminster  -that is surely not meaningless **  Why even consider changing the way we vote for our politicians when 75% of our laws are made in Brussels  ** only about 10 per cent of laws originate in the EU **  and our MPs have no powers to influence those laws  ** they can hold to account British government ministers for the way they vote in the Council of Ministers **  The real referendum has to be whether we want to be in or out of the European Union.

   

  It’s a sad fact that Britain is sleepwalking into the European Super-State  ** how can it be a super-state when its budget is only 1 per cent of GDP, its central administration has fewer employees than most city councils and it has no army **  and Britain must wake up to the nightmares hiding under the sheets of Brussels. EU laws and directives made without our knowledge or consent,  ** the proposals are published by the European Commission, and become law with the consent of the Council (national governments) and the European Parliament (elected MEPs) – perhaps the newspapers should base permanent correspondents in Brussels rather than shutting down their offices there **  behind locked doors  ** the Lisbon Treaty requires that the  Council of Ministers should meet and vote on legislation in public **  or the most complicated clauses and sub-clauses imaginable.  ** legally watertight documents have to be written in a particular way – this is true in Westminster too – but simplified explanations are also published **

• 14:55

  The EU Referendum Campaign - fisked

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  The EU Referendum Campaign has called for a referendum on British membership of the EU.  Here is their statement about EU membership, fisked.

   

  1.  Can we really afford to send £45 million a day to Brussels?  ** this is the gross figure not the net figure, which implies that the referendum campaign wants to shut down the things that EU funds pay for in Britain, such as regional spending, support for Britain’s small farmers, research and development, etc **  Britain is Broke….That’s what the government told us…Isn’t that why our public services are being cut, our taxes are being increased and our pensions are crashing?

   

  2. A torrent of EU laws are transforming our economy and public sector and there is nothing we can do about it.  ** the EU agrees only around 490 laws a year, whereas Westminster produces around 3,500 annually – which one is the torrent? **  EU laws are imposed without us, or our MPs, having any say whatsoever.  ** our MEPs have a say, as do our ministers, who are accountable to our MPs, and both MPs and MEPs are elected by the people **  Whether it’s the imposition of directives forcing us to privatise and break up our railway system, the Royal Mail and other key public services,  ** there are no directives forcing privatisation – in France, both SNCF and La Poste remain in public ownership – the decision to privatise is national, not European **  new laws relating to the City of London  ** do you not think that the financial markets need some new rules – has everything really gone perfectly recently? **  and small businesses, the voters of Britain should ultimately decide what policies they want - and do not want - through their elected representatives in parliament.  ** our elected representatives in parliament do decide, that’s what the European Parliament is for **  Once EU laws are passed into law, they cannot be reversed.  ** yes they can.  A proposal from the Commission and majority in the Council and the EP can change any EU directive **  This is not democracy.  ** Would it be democratic if one single member state could force the other 26 do something they did not want to do? **

   

  3. Due to the crisis the Euro is now facing, the Brussels elite is demanding total control over the tax and spend policies of its member countries.  ** the level of tax and spending is a matter for each member state to decide for itself – expenditure levels vary from 41%  (Bulgaria) to 59% (Denmark) – there is no European control of this **  The unelected European Commission  ** the president of the European Commission is elected by the European Parliament, and the other members of the Commission are confirmed in office by the EP **  is demanding the right to vet national budgets before elected parliaments are even allowed to see and debate them.  ** no, it proposes that, given that the budgetary decisions that each EU member state takes have an impact on all the others, there should be analysis of those impacts as part of the budgetary process **  It also wants to the right to tax us individually: that is to say an EU level of tax we must all pay, additional to the money we already hand over to our government and local councils.  ** the idea is that the money currently contributed to the EU budget by national governments be replaced by a European tax – it would make the level of EU expenditure more visible to the citizen and enable national governments to reduce the amount of tax they themselves raise.  In order to be implemented, it would need the unanimous agreement of every member state.  By the way, this idea that each level of government should be responsible for raising its own revenue is featured in The Plan, the book by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. **

   

  4. What is the point of a meaningless referendum on Electoral Reform next May that will cost us £80 million and achieve nothing.  ** the referendum might change the voting system to Westminster  -that is surely not meaningless **  Why even consider changing the way we vote for our politicians when 75% of our laws are made in Brussels  ** only about 10 per cent of laws originate in the EU **  and our MPs have no powers to influence those laws  ** they can hold to account British government ministers for the way they vote in the Council of Ministers **  The real referendum has to be whether we want to be in or out of the European Union.

   

  It’s a sad fact that Britain is sleepwalking into the European Super-State  ** how can it be a super-state when its budget is only 1 per cent of GDP, its central administration has fewer employees than most city councils and it has no army **  and Britain must wake up to the nightmares hiding under the sheets of Brussels. EU laws and directives made without our knowledge or consent,  ** the proposals are published by the European Commission, and become law with the consent of the Council (national governments) and the European Parliament (elected MEPs) – perhaps the newspapers should base permanent correspondents in Brussels rather than shutting down their offices there **  behind locked doors  ** the Lisbon Treaty requires that the  Council of Ministers should meet and vote on legislation in public **  or the most complicated clauses and sub-clauses imaginable.  ** legally watertight documents have to be written in a particular way – this is true in Westminster too – but simplified explanations are also published **

• September 03, 2010
• 9:32

  The truth about road-pricing

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Certain anti-European groups have been getting agitated lately about an experiment in road-pricing that is underway.  They complain that the EU is forcing another tax on motorists, in order to pay for road-building in other parts of Europe.  The truth is rather different.

   

  First of all, there is no compulsion on any member state to introduce road-pricing.  It is up to each country to decide whether or not to do it.

   

  But secondly, and importantly, the European Commission’s initiative makes a lot of sense.  At present, there are often complaints from British lorry drivers that their continental colleagues have a competitive advantage because lorry taxes are lower there.  Foreign lorries can drive on British roads paying taxes where they are registered rather than where they drive.

   

  To deal with this anomaly, the EU is experimenting with road toll systems so that lorries pay towards the costs of the roads they drive on, in whichever country they happen to be.  Because lorries cross borders often – they are one of the main means of transporting goods from one country to another within the single market – it makes sense to have a common system for monitoring and collecting tolls rather than requiring each lorry to carry up to 27 different bits of electronic equipment, one for each country it might enter.

   

  A road toll system of this sort will align the costs paid by lorry transport much more closely with the environmental and other costs that lorry transport causes, and will do so with the minimum of bureaucracy and red tape.  Of course this is the right thing to do: it is exactly what the EU was invented for.

   

  Think about the options:

   

  (1)   continue with the current system that puts UK lorry drivers at a competitive disadvantage

  (2)   ban foreign lorry drivers from British roads or tax them heavily, in which case British lorry drivers can expect the equivalent treatment in other countries, and the cost of importing and exporting goods will go up a lot

  (3)   replace national road toll schemes with a European scheme, raising and spending the money at EU rather than national level

  (4)   enabling the member states to cooperate together using technology to reduce costs and regulatory burdens on business

   

  Why, given the alternatives, are the eurosceptics objecting to option 4?

• 9:32

  The truth about road-pricing

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Certain anti-European groups have been getting agitated lately about an experiment in road-pricing that is underway.  They complain that the EU is forcing another tax on motorists, in order to pay for road-building in other parts of Europe.  The truth is rather different.

   

  First of all, there is no compulsion on any member state to introduce road-pricing.  It is up to each country to decide whether or not to do it.

   

  But secondly, and importantly, the European Commission’s initiative makes a lot of sense.  At present, there are often complaints from British lorry drivers that their continental colleagues have a competitive advantage because lorry taxes are lower there.  Foreign lorries can drive on British roads paying taxes where they are registered rather than where they drive.

   

  To deal with this anomaly, the EU is experimenting with road toll systems so that lorries pay towards the costs of the roads they drive on, in whichever country they happen to be.  Because lorries cross borders often – they are one of the main means of transporting goods from one country to another within the single market – it makes sense to have a common system for monitoring and collecting tolls rather than requiring each lorry to carry up to 27 different bits of electronic equipment, one for each country it might enter.

   

  A road toll system of this sort will align the costs paid by lorry transport much more closely with the environmental and other costs that lorry transport causes, and will do so with the minimum of bureaucracy and red tape.  Of course this is the right thing to do: it is exactly what the EU was invented for.

   

  Think about the options:

   

  (1)   continue with the current system that puts UK lorry drivers at a competitive disadvantage

  (2)   ban foreign lorry drivers from British roads or tax them heavily, in which case British lorry drivers can expect the equivalent treatment in other countries, and the cost of importing and exporting goods will go up a lot

  (3)   replace national road toll schemes with a European scheme, raising and spending the money at EU rather than national level

  (4)   enabling the member states to cooperate together using technology to reduce costs and regulatory burdens on business

   

  Why, given the alternatives, are the eurosceptics objecting to option 4?

• August 19, 2010
• 11:42

  Put out more flags

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  The eurosceptic criticism of the report that some EU-funded projects in the UK are to have to return £150 million because they have not provided enough publicity for the sources of funding is both predictable and surprising.

  Predictable, in that it offers yet another opportunity to bash Brussels for its apparent bureaucratic pettiness and rapacious demands for British money.  It suits the narrative that the EU is a plot against Britain.

  But surprising, in that the eurosceptics appear to be acquiescing in a failure to enforce the EU’s rules.  Normally, they are the ones who complain that other countries flout the financial regulations and controls; now, they are encouraging it.  Imagine if a pro-European politician had written on his blog, as John Redwood has done [www.johnredwoodsdiary.com] , that this money should not be paid back because it was a “technical infringement”.

  The obligation to acknowledge the EU as a source of funding is a contractual requirement.  No organisation has to accept the money in the first place, so if they do, they should follow the rules.

  But let me note two further points.

  First, John Redwood is indeed correct to describe these infringements as “technical”.  They are not fraud.  And it is the accumulation of such technical infringements that leads the Court of Auditors to qualify the accounts of the EU: the eurosceptic picture of the EU as riddled with fraud is a false one.

  In fact, as the news about British repayments shows, the UK is just as responsible for this state of affairs as any other member state.  And the fact that UK government bodies such as the Department of Work & Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Defence have had their accounts qualified too shows that this is not a problem of the EU but a problem of government as such.

  Secondly, it is not wrong that organisations in receipt of EU funding should acknowledge the fact.  These are not “excessive EU propaganda demands” at all.  What if the European Union were to make grants in secret?  What would the eurosceptics say about that?

  (Full disclosure: the European Movement does not receive funds from the European Commission.)

  Richard Laming

• 11:42

  Put out more flags

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  The eurosceptic criticism of the report that some EU-funded projects in the UK are to have to return £150 million because they have not provided enough publicity for the sources of funding is both predictable and surprising.

  Predictable, in that it offers yet another opportunity to bash Brussels for its apparent bureaucratic pettiness and rapacious demands for British money.  It suits the narrative that the EU is a plot against Britain.

  But surprising, in that the eurosceptics appear to be acquiescing in a failure to enforce the EU’s rules.  Normally, they are the ones who complain that other countries flout the financial regulations and controls; now, they are encouraging it.  Imagine if a pro-European politician had written on his blog, as John Redwood has done [www.johnredwoodsdiary.com] , that this money should not be paid back because it was a “technical infringement”.

  The obligation to acknowledge the EU as a source of funding is a contractual requirement.  No organisation has to accept the money in the first place, so if they do, they should follow the rules.

  But let me note two further points.

  First, John Redwood is indeed correct to describe these infringements as “technical”.  They are not fraud.  And it is the accumulation of such technical infringements that leads the Court of Auditors to qualify the accounts of the EU: the eurosceptic picture of the EU as riddled with fraud is a false one.

  In fact, as the news about British repayments shows, the UK is just as responsible for this state of affairs as any other member state.  And the fact that UK government bodies such as the Department of Work & Pensions, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Defence have had their accounts qualified too shows that this is not a problem of the EU but a problem of government as such.

  Secondly, it is not wrong that organisations in receipt of EU funding should acknowledge the fact.  These are not “excessive EU propaganda demands” at all.  What if the European Union were to make grants in secret?  What would the eurosceptics say about that?

  (Full disclosure: the European Movement does not receive funds from the European Commission.)

  Richard Laming

• August 08, 2010
• 17:22

  Time to kill two birds with one stone.

   » ‎ European Movement UK
  The debate between the Treasury and the MOD over the cost of the defence budget is raging and the contest is fascinating commentators. It is a fact that the UK spends far too much per year on defence, around £40 billion last time I checked (Budget 2010 p.11). That is a hugely expensive price tag, especially at a time when the government is keen to reduce expenditure and the budget deficit. But we can significantly reduce this price tag. All we have to do is look across the Chanel where lies the European Union and the solution to the national defence vs. age of austerity dilemma faced by most of European nations.
   
  Most of the security challenges that will face the UK in the short, medium and long term future are very similar to those of our European partners. Religious extremism, international terrorism, energy security, competition for diminishing resources like water and food, population displacement due to climate change are threats that come top of most security reviews in almost every EU Member State. These common challenges render pointless the argument that a common European defence strategy is impossible because of distinct security priorities.
   
  But despite this convergence in security priorities European nations still run overlapping defence budgets. A report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies in 2008 found that EU states collectively spend over €200 billion per year but most of that is wasted in duplicated projects. We have 2 million active military personnel but only 2.7 per cent of them are fit for purpose for oversees deployment. Europe has 10.000 main battle tanks, an unnecessarily big number when one considers the nature of future security threats.
   
  It is time we stop wasting valuable resources, which can be used far better in areas like, education, research and healthcare. By using the EU as the framework within which we can pull our military resources together and streamline our defence budgets we will be able to cut the size of our individual national military expenditure and provide better solutions for common security challenges. It is time we kill two birds with one stone. Petros Fassoulas    

• 17:22

  Time to kill two birds with one stone.

   » ‎ European Movement UK
  The debate between the Treasury and the MOD over the cost of the defence budget is raging and the contest is fascinating commentators. It is a fact that the UK spends far too much per year on defence, around £40 billion last time I checked (Budget 2010 p.11). That is a hugely expensive price tag, especially at a time when the government is keen to reduce expenditure and the budget deficit. But we can significantly reduce this price tag. All we have to do is look across the Chanel where lies the European Union and the solution to the national defence vs. age of austerity dilemma faced by most of European nations.
   
  Most of the security challenges that will face the UK in the short, medium and long term future are very similar to those of our European partners. Religious extremism, international terrorism, energy security, competition for diminishing resources like water and food, population displacement due to climate change are threats that come top of most security reviews in almost every EU Member State. These common challenges render pointless the argument that a common European defence strategy is impossible because of distinct security priorities.
   
  But despite this convergence in security priorities European nations still run overlapping defence budgets. A report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies in 2008 found that EU states collectively spend over €200 billion per year but most of that is wasted in duplicated projects. We have 2 million active military personnel but only 2.7 per cent of them are fit for purpose for oversees deployment. Europe has 10.000 main battle tanks, an unnecessarily big number when one considers the nature of future security threats.
   
  It is time we stop wasting valuable resources, which can be used far better in areas like, education, research and healthcare. By using the EU as the framework within which we can pull our military resources together and streamline our defence budgets we will be able to cut the size of our individual national military expenditure and provide better solutions for common security challenges. It is time we kill two birds with one stone. Petros Fassoulas    

• August 05, 2010
• 18:36

  The Coalition and its European Policy

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Commentators speculating about the likely course of the Coalition government’s European policy fall from the point of view of the European Movement into two main categories, the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists point to the careful and moderate tone which until now has characterised the new government’s utterances on European issues and hope that the Liberal Democrats will act as a brake on the more outlandish excesses of Conservative euroscepticism. The pessimists point to the negative and defensive tone of the Coalition agreement on European issues and wonder how effective the Liberal Democrats, as a junior coalition partner in a supposedly special relationship with the Conservative Party, will be in restraining over time the basic instincts of Mr Cameron and his colleagues, on European or on any other issues. Both sides in this argument have good points to make. Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the European policy of the Coalition will be less radically eurosceptic than it might have been under an exclusively Conservative administration. But that will not necessarily prevent it from being a British government which is more viscerally hostile to the European Union and to any deepening of Britain’s role within it than any of its predecessors in the past 50 years.
  The text of the Coalition agreement on European policy repays detailed study. It begins in its summary paragraph with apparently positive words about Britain’s ‘leading role’ in the European Union. But even this lip-service to pro-European feeling is succeeded in the same paragraph by the aggressive insistence that no further powers should be ‘transferred to Brussels’ without a referendum and by a revealing description of the Coalition’s proposed European policy as a balance between ‘constructive engagement with the EU’ and ‘protecting our national sovereignty’. ‘Constructive engagement’ is a phrase more appropriate to Britain’s dealings with rogue states than with our closest partners; and the concept of ‘protecting our national sovereignty’ carries with it the clear and depressing implication that the Coalition regards ‘our’ national sovereignty as being under perpetual threat from the European Union, a threat which it behoves all patriotic Britons to join in repelling.

  The remaining paragraphs of the agreement on European policy maintain this sour and grudging initial approach. There is talk of working to ‘limit the application of the Working Time Directive’, of a ‘referendum lock’, of a ‘Sovereignty Bill’, of defending the ‘UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations’, of not joining in the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor. Above all, Britain will not join the euro in this parliament or make any preparations to do so, a prescription which ensures that it will be at least seven years and almost certainly longer before Britain can realistically consider again the question of membership of the European single currency. If the Coalition agreement is a fair guide to the next five years, the predominant tone of the Coalition’s European policy will be one of negation, refusal and standing aside from the European Union.

  Those who have a more favourable view of the text of the Coalition agreement on European issues rightly point out that the purest milk of Conservative European policy would have demanded a commitment to the ‘repatriation’ of powers on social and employment issues from the European Union to the British government; that the agreement’s text on the proposed ‘Sovereignty Bill’ foreshadowed in the Conservative manifesto is vague enough to be an excuse for jettisoning it; and that the agreement seems to go some way towards meeting the Liberal Democrat view that European legislation in the area of criminal justice can contribute to ‘maximising our country’s security’. Given the manifest impracticality of the first two of these proposals from the Conservative Party before the General Election, Mr Cameron can regard himself as being well shot of them. As to the third, it will be extremely interesting to see how far this limited but genuine concession to Liberal Democrat sensitivities will lead to greater British participation in this developing area of European integration. But even if the area of criminal justice does not prove to be quite the stumbling block some had expected, the significance of this possible positive development pales in comparison with the self-willed isolation of the Coalition from what is undoubtedly the most important current vector of European integration, namely the single European currency.

  Over the coming months and years, the institutional structures of the single European currency will be reformed in a way at least as important as was their original design. There is no reason, other than xenophobic prejudice, to believe that our partners will not make a success of these reforms. Already the worst moments of this year’s crisis seem to have passed. If Britain had been a country unsure about whether and in what circumstances it would join the euro, as it was under successive New Labour governments, its influence on this process of reform would have been limited. Now that the Coalition government has declared its hand on this matter so clearly, with the Conservatives being against British membership in any circumstances and the Liberal Democrats prepared to accept a delay of at least seven years, British influence on this question has become non-existent. Nor is this marginalisation of Britain within the European Union likely to be confined to simply monetary matters. Whatever the arguments for or against Turkish membership of the European Union, Turkish membership of the Union will hardly have been brought closer by Mr Cameron’s self-righteous advocacy of the Turkish case last week. A semi-detached member of the European club is hardly well placed to shape its future membership, particularly in as controversial a case as that of Turkey. Britain joined the European Community in 1973 not least to exert appropriate influence within its decision-making fora on matters likely to be of vital concern to the United Kingdom. The political culture of ‘opt-outs’, of ‘red lines’ and of special arrangements for the United Kingdom, pursued with increasing vigour by New Labour over the past 13 years, did much to reduce British influence within the European Union. The Coalition government seems set fair (or rather ill) to continue that baleful process.

  For many years, the European Movement could reasonably see itself as one voice among mainstream political and public opinion warning against the dangers of hostility to the European Union. Now the situation in which the European Movement finds itself is very different. The political and public debate seems to revolve only around the degree of suspicion or hostility towards the European Union which is most advisable for our national interest, essentially whether semi-detachment or final estrangement from the European Union is the best course for our country. The European Movement may well wish to participate in that debate, arguing that semi-detachment, perhaps temporary, is less damaging than withdrawal. But the European Movement should not forget that there is another approach to these questions, one which believes that Britain would be better served by a fuller participation in the European Union, rather than agonising about its favoured degree of self-marginalisation. Those who share that view are no doubt a minority within the United Kingdom at the moment. But a European Movement which vigorously made the case for whole-hearted (rather than merely ‘constructive’) engagement in (and not ‘with’) the European Union might well find it had more potential supporters than it expected. There are advantages to being comfortably in the political mainstream. There are advantages to being excitingly outside the mainstream. Those who stand in the middle of the road get hit by the traffic coming from both directions.

  Brendan Donnelly

• 18:36

  The Coalition and its European Policy

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Commentators speculating about the likely course of the Coalition government’s European policy fall from the point of view of the European Movement into two main categories, the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists point to the careful and moderate tone which until now has characterised the new government’s utterances on European issues and hope that the Liberal Democrats will act as a brake on the more outlandish excesses of Conservative euroscepticism. The pessimists point to the negative and defensive tone of the Coalition agreement on European issues and wonder how effective the Liberal Democrats, as a junior coalition partner in a supposedly special relationship with the Conservative Party, will be in restraining over time the basic instincts of Mr Cameron and his colleagues, on European or on any other issues. Both sides in this argument have good points to make. Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the European policy of the Coalition will be less radically eurosceptic than it might have been under an exclusively Conservative administration. But that will not necessarily prevent it from being a British government which is more viscerally hostile to the European Union and to any deepening of Britain’s role within it than any of its predecessors in the past 50 years.
  The text of the Coalition agreement on European policy repays detailed study. It begins in its summary paragraph with apparently positive words about Britain’s ‘leading role’ in the European Union. But even this lip-service to pro-European feeling is succeeded in the same paragraph by the aggressive insistence that no further powers should be ‘transferred to Brussels’ without a referendum and by a revealing description of the Coalition’s proposed European policy as a balance between ‘constructive engagement with the EU’ and ‘protecting our national sovereignty’. ‘Constructive engagement’ is a phrase more appropriate to Britain’s dealings with rogue states than with our closest partners; and the concept of ‘protecting our national sovereignty’ carries with it the clear and depressing implication that the Coalition regards ‘our’ national sovereignty as being under perpetual threat from the European Union, a threat which it behoves all patriotic Britons to join in repelling.

  The remaining paragraphs of the agreement on European policy maintain this sour and grudging initial approach. There is talk of working to ‘limit the application of the Working Time Directive’, of a ‘referendum lock’, of a ‘Sovereignty Bill’, of defending the ‘UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations’, of not joining in the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor. Above all, Britain will not join the euro in this parliament or make any preparations to do so, a prescription which ensures that it will be at least seven years and almost certainly longer before Britain can realistically consider again the question of membership of the European single currency. If the Coalition agreement is a fair guide to the next five years, the predominant tone of the Coalition’s European policy will be one of negation, refusal and standing aside from the European Union.

  Those who have a more favourable view of the text of the Coalition agreement on European issues rightly point out that the purest milk of Conservative European policy would have demanded a commitment to the ‘repatriation’ of powers on social and employment issues from the European Union to the British government; that the agreement’s text on the proposed ‘Sovereignty Bill’ foreshadowed in the Conservative manifesto is vague enough to be an excuse for jettisoning it; and that the agreement seems to go some way towards meeting the Liberal Democrat view that European legislation in the area of criminal justice can contribute to ‘maximising our country’s security’. Given the manifest impracticality of the first two of these proposals from the Conservative Party before the General Election, Mr Cameron can regard himself as being well shot of them. As to the third, it will be extremely interesting to see how far this limited but genuine concession to Liberal Democrat sensitivities will lead to greater British participation in this developing area of European integration. But even if the area of criminal justice does not prove to be quite the stumbling block some had expected, the significance of this possible positive development pales in comparison with the self-willed isolation of the Coalition from what is undoubtedly the most important current vector of European integration, namely the single European currency.

  Over the coming months and years, the institutional structures of the single European currency will be reformed in a way at least as important as was their original design. There is no reason, other than xenophobic prejudice, to believe that our partners will not make a success of these reforms. Already the worst moments of this year’s crisis seem to have passed. If Britain had been a country unsure about whether and in what circumstances it would join the euro, as it was under successive New Labour governments, its influence on this process of reform would have been limited. Now that the Coalition government has declared its hand on this matter so clearly, with the Conservatives being against British membership in any circumstances and the Liberal Democrats prepared to accept a delay of at least seven years, British influence on this question has become non-existent. Nor is this marginalisation of Britain within the European Union likely to be confined to simply monetary matters. Whatever the arguments for or against Turkish membership of the European Union, Turkish membership of the Union will hardly have been brought closer by Mr Cameron’s self-righteous advocacy of the Turkish case last week. A semi-detached member of the European club is hardly well placed to shape its future membership, particularly in as controversial a case as that of Turkey. Britain joined the European Community in 1973 not least to exert appropriate influence within its decision-making fora on matters likely to be of vital concern to the United Kingdom. The political culture of ‘opt-outs’, of ‘red lines’ and of special arrangements for the United Kingdom, pursued with increasing vigour by New Labour over the past 13 years, did much to reduce British influence within the European Union. The Coalition government seems set fair (or rather ill) to continue that baleful process.

  For many years, the European Movement could reasonably see itself as one voice among mainstream political and public opinion warning against the dangers of hostility to the European Union. Now the situation in which the European Movement finds itself is very different. The political and public debate seems to revolve only around the degree of suspicion or hostility towards the European Union which is most advisable for our national interest, essentially whether semi-detachment or final estrangement from the European Union is the best course for our country. The European Movement may well wish to participate in that debate, arguing that semi-detachment, perhaps temporary, is less damaging than withdrawal. But the European Movement should not forget that there is another approach to these questions, one which believes that Britain would be better served by a fuller participation in the European Union, rather than agonising about its favoured degree of self-marginalisation. Those who share that view are no doubt a minority within the United Kingdom at the moment. But a European Movement which vigorously made the case for whole-hearted (rather than merely ‘constructive’) engagement in (and not ‘with’) the European Union might well find it had more potential supporters than it expected. There are advantages to being comfortably in the political mainstream. There are advantages to being excitingly outside the mainstream. Those who stand in the middle of the road get hit by the traffic coming from both directions.

  Brendan Donnelly

• July 23, 2010
• 11:30

  TaxPayers Alliance slips up again

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  A recent posting on the Your Freedom website shows that self-styled public spending watchdog TaxPayers’ Alliance is in fact less interested in getting value for money from the public purse than it is in opposing the EU.

   

  The Your Freedom website was launched by the government on 1 July and invites suggestions for laws to be repealed in order to increase the scope of liberty in this country.  The TPA has suggested repealing the European Communities (Finance) Act 2008

   

  This act is the vehicle that gives legal effect to Britain’s contributions to the EU budget.  The TPA complains that the UK’s EU budget contribution is too large, and pretends that this can unilaterally be reduced.  But repeal of the European Communities (Finance) Act 2008 would not automatically force Britain out of the EU, they say.

   

  However, this proposal reveals how little the TPA really knows about the EU.  The idea that UK legislation can be repealed without consequences in the rest of Europe is false.  The EU budget is founded on an agreement amongst the 27 member states.  For the UK now to withdraw from this agreement unilaterally would precipitate an enormous crisis – which is what the TPA really wants – but on the basis that the UK’s word can no longer be trusted.

   

  The course of action recommended by the TPA could not be followed at no cost to our membership of the EU.  It would destroy that membership, and also harm Britain’s reputation in other international organisations.

   

  It is right that the EU budget should be subject to the same scrutiny and demands for efficiency as the UK budget.  It is public money, after all.  But, just as decisions regarding UK public spending, whether to reduce or increase it, should be considered carefully as to what that spending will deliver, the same approach should be taken towards the EU.  European spending programmes that deliver value for money should be defended and not attacked merely because they are European.  The careless attitude taken towards the EU budget, assuming that it is automatically a bad thing, shows where the TPA’s priorities really lie.

   

  You can read the TPA’s proposal and post your own comments on the Your Freedom website here: [yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk]

• 11:30

  TaxPayers Alliance slips up again

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  A recent posting on the Your Freedom website shows that self-styled public spending watchdog TaxPayers’ Alliance is in fact less interested in getting value for money from the public purse than it is in opposing the EU.

   

  The Your Freedom website was launched by the government on 1 July and invites suggestions for laws to be repealed in order to increase the scope of liberty in this country.  The TPA has suggested repealing the European Communities (Finance) Act 2008

   

  This act is the vehicle that gives legal effect to Britain’s contributions to the EU budget.  The TPA complains that the UK’s EU budget contribution is too large, and pretends that this can unilaterally be reduced.  But repeal of the European Communities (Finance) Act 2008 would not automatically force Britain out of the EU, they say.

   

  However, this proposal reveals how little the TPA really knows about the EU.  The idea that UK legislation can be repealed without consequences in the rest of Europe is false.  The EU budget is founded on an agreement amongst the 27 member states.  For the UK now to withdraw from this agreement unilaterally would precipitate an enormous crisis – which is what the TPA really wants – but on the basis that the UK’s word can no longer be trusted.

   

  The course of action recommended by the TPA could not be followed at no cost to our membership of the EU.  It would destroy that membership, and also harm Britain’s reputation in other international organisations.

   

  It is right that the EU budget should be subject to the same scrutiny and demands for efficiency as the UK budget.  It is public money, after all.  But, just as decisions regarding UK public spending, whether to reduce or increase it, should be considered carefully as to what that spending will deliver, the same approach should be taken towards the EU.  European spending programmes that deliver value for money should be defended and not attacked merely because they are European.  The careless attitude taken towards the EU budget, assuming that it is automatically a bad thing, shows where the TPA’s priorities really lie.

   

  You can read the TPA’s proposal and post your own comments on the Your Freedom website here: [yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk]

• July 10, 2010
• 11:31

  The unbearable lightness of being… a British tabloid paper

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  It is of course no secret that the tabloid press in the UK applies a very relaxed definition of the word truth. But that fact is taken to another level when it comes to their reporting of the EU and one of the free London morning papers offered me a stark reminder the other day. That particular publication, which focuses on financial services and is usually distributed to City and Canary Wharf workers on their way to the office, dedicated its front page on 7 July to a story on a European Parliament vote on proposals for the setting up of the new European Supervisory Authorities. I’ll spare you the details on the draft legislation and what it means for the supervision of financial markets in the EU. Instead I’ll focus on the fact that the ‘paper’ made it sound like the EP had sneaked in at the last minute amendments to the document, amendments that suggest that all 3 new entities will have to be based in Frankfurt (currently one is based in London, one in Paris and one in Frankfurt). I do not expect objective reporting from that paper so their omission of the arguments behind the EP’s proposal is no surprise. But to call the EP’s position a surprise move is pure fiction since the EP proposals have been public for a while.

  It is very possible that its reporters do not know the facts, very likely actually since this newspaper is, by it’s own admission, not worth the paper it is printed on (which is why it is given for free). But I fear that the reason behind this misreporting (and the whole article for that matter) is to portray this particular EU institution as a back-stabbing and power-grabbing monster.

  That is consistent with attitudes vis-a-vis the EU across the yellow press (and in some cases even beyond). There is a persistent campaign of misinformation, most of these papers have taken it upon themselves to misreport pretty much everything that comes out of Brussels. They are responsible for most of the euromyths that for years now have been distorting the facts on what the EU does. I am fully aware that the process of European integration is not everybody’s cup of tea, I accept well argued and substantiated points of view and I am happy to debate with anyone that disagrees with me. But I take issue with this well co-ordinated campaign aimed at lying to the British people, taking their right to know the facts away from them in the most cowardice way.

  The situation is of course made worse by the fact that the rest of the UK press (with some rare exceptions) mostly ignores the EU; their excuse is that it just does not sell newspapers, it is too far away and too complicated. So in most cases they tend to stay clear, leaving plenty of free space for the tabloid press to spread their lies. This inability (or unwillingness) to provide the public with objective information on the EU constitutes a market failure, in the sence that the market is failing in comprehensively providing an essential service to its customers, a service that in this case is of paramount significance because the EU is hugely important for the UK’s economic prosperity and success in the international scene. So, like in the case of other market failures, especially when it comes to the provision of a public good (which objective information obviously is), the state needs to step in and provide the British people with the necessary education that will shift the debate not in favour of a particular point of view but towards a more balanced understanding of what the EU is, how it benefits the UK and how it can help us deal with challenges like climate change, economic development, research, energy security, international crime and terrorism, to name just a few.

  The European Movement has for years been in the forefront of objectively informing the debate on European integration. We invite the government to join us in inaugurating a new era of understanding and debate on the EU. An era free of the Dark Ages type of ignorance and misunderstanding that the tabloid press mythology has imposed on the British people.

  Petros Fassoulas

• 11:31

  The unbearable lightness of being… a British tabloid paper

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  It is of course no secret that the tabloid press in the UK applies a very relaxed definition of the word truth. But that fact is taken to another level when it comes to their reporting of the EU and one of the free London morning papers offered me a stark reminder the other day. That particular publication, which focuses on financial services and is usually distributed to City and Canary Wharf workers on their way to the office, dedicated its front page on 7 July to a story on a European Parliament vote on proposals for the setting up of the new European Supervisory Authorities. I’ll spare you the details on the draft legislation and what it means for the supervision of financial markets in the EU. Instead I’ll focus on the fact that the ‘paper’ made it sound like the EP had sneaked in at the last minute amendments to the document, amendments that suggest that all 3 new entities will have to be based in Frankfurt (currently one is based in London, one in Paris and one in Frankfurt). I do not expect objective reporting from that paper so their omission of the arguments behind the EP’s proposal is no surprise. But to call the EP’s position a surprise move is pure fiction since the EP proposals have been public for a while.

  It is very possible that its reporters do not know the facts, very likely actually since this newspaper is, by it’s own admission, not worth the paper it is printed on (which is why it is given for free). But I fear that the reason behind this misreporting (and the whole article for that matter) is to portray this particular EU institution as a back-stabbing and power-grabbing monster.

  That is consistent with attitudes vis-a-vis the EU across the yellow press (and in some cases even beyond). There is a persistent campaign of misinformation, most of these papers have taken it upon themselves to misreport pretty much everything that comes out of Brussels. They are responsible for most of the euromyths that for years now have been distorting the facts on what the EU does. I am fully aware that the process of European integration is not everybody’s cup of tea, I accept well argued and substantiated points of view and I am happy to debate with anyone that disagrees with me. But I take issue with this well co-ordinated campaign aimed at lying to the British people, taking their right to know the facts away from them in the most cowardice way.

  The situation is of course made worse by the fact that the rest of the UK press (with some rare exceptions) mostly ignores the EU; their excuse is that it just does not sell newspapers, it is too far away and too complicated. So in most cases they tend to stay clear, leaving plenty of free space for the tabloid press to spread their lies. This inability (or unwillingness) to provide the public with objective information on the EU constitutes a market failure, in the sence that the market is failing in comprehensively providing an essential service to its customers, a service that in this case is of paramount significance because the EU is hugely important for the UK’s economic prosperity and success in the international scene. So, like in the case of other market failures, especially when it comes to the provision of a public good (which objective information obviously is), the state needs to step in and provide the British people with the necessary education that will shift the debate not in favour of a particular point of view but towards a more balanced understanding of what the EU is, how it benefits the UK and how it can help us deal with challenges like climate change, economic development, research, energy security, international crime and terrorism, to name just a few.

  The European Movement has for years been in the forefront of objectively informing the debate on European integration. We invite the government to join us in inaugurating a new era of understanding and debate on the EU. An era free of the Dark Ages type of ignorance and misunderstanding that the tabloid press mythology has imposed on the British people.

  Petros Fassoulas

• July 01, 2010
• 11:12

  Mr Hague wants to put Britain at the heart of the EU. He must also put the EU at the heart of Britain.

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Foreign Secretary William Heague says he is keen to ensure that Britain is more active in the EU. He wants more British officials to occupy Director level positions in the European Commission and more staff at entry-level positions at the Commission to be British.

  The question is what he intends to do with his new army of British Directors and functionnaires in the Commission? Is he aware that Commission officials are there to protect the interests of the EU as a whole rather than promote the agenda of a certain member state? The Commission is the EU’s engine, the guardian of the Treaties and the expression of the community way. I am aware of certain examples of very prominent and highly respected British Commission officials that have, in the not so distant past, been denied promotion for being too Communitarian. It is hypocritical to complain about the decrease in the number of British officials at Director level when he has something to do with that.

  But there is a bigger issue here. The UK is indeed under-represented in the EU institutions. The question is why. Traditionally British officials are not encouraged to pursue careers in Brussels. It is not said explicitly but if one compares the support and tutoring offered to officials in other Member States when preparing for the EU institutions’ entry exams to that offered to British officials one gets the idea. A lot has to do with the atmosphere of eurosceptisism in British society, an atmosphere that Mr Hague has so greatly contributed to. When the EU and its institutions are constantly portrayed as evil, power-grabbing monsters, and at the same time as politically irrelevant, a young official, setting his or her career path will think twice of making the move in to the land of the damned.

  It all boils down to what the Government attitude and public perception of the EU really is in the UK. If Mr Hague wants Britain to be more active in the EU he has to be more constructive, not just sound constructive. It is not enough to put your people in place, set them up in a defensive formation and simply resist anything ‘communitarian’ or ‘supranational’ that comes out of the Commission. Active engagement in the EU means producing ideas on how to promote and protect the collective interests of EU member states. Active engagement means contributing to the debate with more than red lines and opts outs. Above all active engagement with the EU starts at home. If Mr Hague is serious about putting Britain at the heart of the EU he must also put the EU at the heart of Britain. Until the British people have the benefits of EU membership clearly, honestly and objectively explained to them they will not be able to embrace the project of European integration. Mr Hague needs to work hard to change the negative image the EU has in the UK, a negative image he has worked so hard to cultivate. Once he has done that more Brits will want to work in the EU. To protect and promote both British and EU interests.

  Petros Fassoulas

• 11:12

  Mr Hague wants to put Britain at the heart of the EU. He must also put the EU at the heart of Britain.

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Foreign Secretary William Heague says he is keen to ensure that Britain is more active in the EU. He wants more British officials to occupy Director level positions in the European Commission and more staff at entry-level positions at the Commission to be British.

  The question is what he intends to do with his new army of British Directors and functionnaires in the Commission? Is he aware that Commission officials are there to protect the interests of the EU as a whole rather than promote the agenda of a certain member state? The Commission is the EU’s engine, the guardian of the Treaties and the expression of the community way. I am aware of certain examples of very prominent and highly respected British Commission officials that have, in the not so distant past, been denied promotion for being too Communitarian. It is hypocritical to complain about the decrease in the number of British officials at Director level when he has something to do with that.

  But there is a bigger issue here. The UK is indeed under-represented in the EU institutions. The question is why. Traditionally British officials are not encouraged to pursue careers in Brussels. It is not said explicitly but if one compares the support and tutoring offered to officials in other Member States when preparing for the EU institutions’ entry exams to that offered to British officials one gets the idea. A lot has to do with the atmosphere of eurosceptisism in British society, an atmosphere that Mr Hague has so greatly contributed to. When the EU and its institutions are constantly portrayed as evil, power-grabbing monsters, and at the same time as politically irrelevant, a young official, setting his or her career path will think twice of making the move in to the land of the damned.

  It all boils down to what the Government attitude and public perception of the EU really is in the UK. If Mr Hague wants Britain to be more active in the EU he has to be more constructive, not just sound constructive. It is not enough to put your people in place, set them up in a defensive formation and simply resist anything ‘communitarian’ or ‘supranational’ that comes out of the Commission. Active engagement in the EU means producing ideas on how to promote and protect the collective interests of EU member states. Active engagement means contributing to the debate with more than red lines and opts outs. Above all active engagement with the EU starts at home. If Mr Hague is serious about putting Britain at the heart of the EU he must also put the EU at the heart of Britain. Until the British people have the benefits of EU membership clearly, honestly and objectively explained to them they will not be able to embrace the project of European integration. Mr Hague needs to work hard to change the negative image the EU has in the UK, a negative image he has worked so hard to cultivate. Once he has done that more Brits will want to work in the EU. To protect and promote both British and EU interests.

  Petros Fassoulas

• June 21, 2010
• 15:32

  The real threat to democracy?

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Eurosceptics like to pretend that the EU is a threat to British democracy.  For example, the idea that national governments should discuss their budget plans with each other is denounced as an attack on parliament.  Britain’s budget should always be presented to parliament first, apparently.

   

  But then one looks in today’s newspapers, and finds extracts from the budget laid out within their pages.  Will the Eurosceptics denounce this attack on parliament by the media?

• 15:32

  The real threat to democracy?

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Eurosceptics like to pretend that the EU is a threat to British democracy.  For example, the idea that national governments should discuss their budget plans with each other is denounced as an attack on parliament.  Britain’s budget should always be presented to parliament first, apparently.

   

  But then one looks in today’s newspapers, and finds extracts from the budget laid out within their pages.  Will the Eurosceptics denounce this attack on parliament by the media?

• June 17, 2010
• 14:17

  How to set the national budget

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  I was on the radio this morning discussing with eurosceptic Tory MP Bill Cash the proposal that there should be some kind of common discussion among the member state governments and the European Commission about the national budgets of the member states.

   

  The European budget is of course agreed by the member states, but it would be new to introduce some kind of pre-clearance of national budgets in the same way.  Under the principle of subsidiarity, where issues are dealt with at the lowest possible level, one might say that a national budget should be just that, national.

   

  But the principle of subsidiarity also proposes that issues should be centralised if necessary, and the experience of Greece shows how the way in which one country sets its national budget can have implications for the others.  The coalition government here in the UK insists that the need to cut public spending as far and as fast as it intends is a result of the Greek experience: it cannot now turn round and tell us that what happened in Greece is nothing to do with us.  Macroeconomic strategies have become a cross-border issue.

   

  But acknowledging the cross-border implications of macroeconomics does not imply transferring all decision-making on this issue to Brussels.  Bill Cash’s assertions to the contrary are simply false.  After all, it is not up to “Brussels” to decide what powers should be exercised at the EU level: it is up to the national governments of the member states to decide, and which of them wishes to surrender the powers that are hard-won in general elections?

   

  No, there is a desire to strengthen cooperation between national governments but not to emasculate them.  This is how it should be.

   

  There is a specific point with regard to the British budgetary procedure.  In most countries, the annual budget goes through a series of drafts which are discussed and examined in public.  Including the European Commission and the other national governments in this discussion is no difficulty.  In the House of Commons, on the other hand, the Chancellor presents the budget as a piece of theatre, springing surprises on the assembled MPs who can then be whipped through in their support.  Perhaps this is not the most rational way to devise a budget – and recent practice has been to leak certain portions of the budget to the media in advance – but it is the way in which we do it.  It will be possible to devise a way to include the British budget-setting method within the overall European objective of exchanging information between national governments and coordinating their approach.

   

  For that is what is proposed, the exchange of information.  People should be talking to each other.  It takes a certain kind of eurosceptic to think that this is wrong.

   

  Richard Laming

• May 19, 2010
• 11:50

  The dilemma for UKIP

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  Strange to relate but the UK Independence Party did both well and badly in the recent general election.  They did well, in that their total vote went up by 51% and their overall vote share rose to 3.1%.  UKIP’s vote has grown consistently over the last decade.

  They do much less well than in European elections, admittedly, where last year they scored 16.5% of the votes, but a lot of that difference can be attributed to the electoral system.  Parties that are contenders for victory in the First Past The Post electoral system do much better than parties that are not.

  But as well as doing well, UKIP also did badly.  Unlike the larger parties, UKIP not only had a lower vote share in the general election than in the Europeans, but actually won fewer votes (917,832, compared with nearly 2.5 million).  People who voted UKIP in the European elections did not care enough about the UKIP arguments to support them in the more important elections for the House of Commons.  Ironically, it is the House of Commons and not the European Parliament that actually has the power to enact UKIP policies: UKIP is winning its votes in the wrong elections.

  And the UKIP experience even gets worse.  In 21 seats, the UKIP vote was greater than the majority by which either Labour or the Liberal Democrats defeated the Conservatives.  Those extra 21 seats would have given the Conservatives a majority in the House of Commons and not forced them into coalition with the Liberal Democrats.  The UKIP fear must be that their intervention in the election, far from advancing euroscepticism in British politics, actually put Britain’s pro-Europeans into government.

  What can UKIP do?  They could stand down in favour of the Conservatives at the next election in seats where the result might be close, but it is only in those seats where there is real excitement about politics.  They would condemn themselves to the quiet backwaters.  Furthermore, they cannot be sure that all their voters would switch to the Conservatives in the absence of a UKIP candidate, and lastly, the Tories have no electoral interest in returning the compliment by moving in the UKIP direction: there are more than 6 million Liberal Democrat voters out there to be won over but fewer than 1 million people voted for UKIP.  The very reason why UKIP exists is because the Conservatives are not eurosceptic enough, so there are limits to how much UKIP can defer to them.

  The alternative is to continue to plough their own, lonely furrow.  But should their vote continue to rise as it has done, they are likely to see more Conservative eurosceptics defeated and Labour or Liberal Democrat pro-Europeans elected instead.

  Should they fight, or should they cooperate?  Not an easy decision for UKIP to make, but I can’t think of a group of people I would prefer to have to make it.

  Richard Laming

  P.S. You can read the full European Movement analysis of the general election results here: [bit.ly]

• May 10, 2010
• 13:02

  European Council landmark for Gaelic

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  For all those people who say that European integration is suppressing our national identities, here is proof of the exact opposite.  Scottish education minister Mike Russell will speak in Gaelic at a meeting of the Council of Ministers on Tuesday, the first time that Gaelic has been used on such an occasion.

  While Gaelic is not a full official language of the EU, an agreement has been reached so that it can be used in meetings.  It means that the European Union now looks even more like the people of Europe that it represents, speaking their languages, and speaking their language.

  One might note that the House of Lords, which as the second chamber in the legislature is effectively the Westminster counterpart of the Council of Ministers, does not permit the use of Gaelic.  This shows that the EU provides recognition for linguistic diversity greater than that of some of the member states.

• May 05, 2010
• 18:09

  Opponents of the CFP should eat their words

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  The latest developments in the science of fish stocks are a further blow for opponents of the EU’s powers over fishing policy. (Read about them here.)The Common Fisheries Policy quite rightly gets a lot of criticism for the way it has been implemented, but its nationalist critics want to abolish it altogether.

  Their claim is that national management of fish stocks will be more effective than EU management. This is of course evident nonsense – fish do not carry passports and cannot be kept in one set of national waters or another – but opponents of the EU do not care. They will cling to anything they think will support their case, and one such argument has been the decline in fish stocks.

  The maximum amount of fish that can be caught without imperilling the future existence of fish stocks altogether is falling because of over-fishing. This over-fishing is blamed on the EU. National rules would be tougher, so we are told.

  But researchers from the University of York and the Marine Conservation Society have found that catches before the second world war were much higher than they are today. In fact, fish catches were at their peak in 1937, when they were 14 times what they are today. It is the application of modern technology that has done for the fish stocks, not regulation by the EU.

  Stocks of halibut and haddock are now as little as 1 per cent of their former levels, hake and ling are done to 5 per cent and cod has fallen to 13 per cent. These are catastrophic falls and need to be recovered, but national regulation is not the way to do it.

  Think about it. The demand for the repatriation of fishing policy from Brussels is driven by a desire to increase the number of people employed in the UK fishing industry. While it might be possible to negotiate some sort of opt-out for Britain from this EU policy, there would have to be substantial concessions in return. And then, when British government ministers are triumphantly taking these decisions rather than the EU Council of Ministers, are we really to think that the decisions on the future quota sizes will be tougher? Remember, the demand for repatriation is from people who want more jobs in fishing, which can only mean catching more fish.

  The Common Fisheries Policy is not perfect – far from it – but both the logic of politics and the logic of the seas suggest that a national fisheries policy would make matters worse and not better.

• April 28, 2010
• 17:51

  The modern world summed up

   » ‎ European Movement UK

  A gift arrives for my baby daughter that sums up the modern world. Cousins in Australia have sent her a koala, not a real one of course, but a stuffed one. The label proudly states “This is another Australian souvenir designed by an Australian company handcrafted in China.” China is where things are made these days, even koalas.

  And also on the label there is the guarantee that the koala has been made according to the highest standards of consumer safety, namely the “CE” mark. All around the world, it is European standards that set the pace and that manufacturing has to follow. Even if Britain were to leave the EU, we would still want to follow European rules, only we would have no voice on what those rules should say.

  Richard Laming