If the Irish say no

No Comments »

Over the past couple of weeks a whiff of No has been drifting across from Ireland. The only Lisbon referendum on offer will be happening there in less than a month, and the “Yes” campaign is looking shakier than it was a month ago. By contrast the “No” campaign has caught the scent of blood.

I’ll declare an interest. I’d be happy to see them vote “No”, because the EU is big enough to survive another constitutional upset. I’d even encourage it, because the whole process, starting from the constitutional congress back in 2001, has been a fraud.

Why the Irish might vote no

Lots of Irish won’t be voting on the efficacy, justice, and beauty of the Treaty signed in Lisbon. How could they? Why should they? It’s three hundred pages long, and is incomprehensible to anyone but an expert. Only three men in Europe have read it; one went mad, another’s dead.

Instead, they’ll not bother voting. Or, they’ll vote on immediate issues. Some might vote for their dissatisfaction on the economy, which is heading for a hard landing. Others might vote for the property crash. And some will even vote about immigration, which is partly seen as “caused” by the EU. And of course if hospital services get much worse, that’ll be no to Lisbon.

But some Irish are arguing about the Treaty in a well-informed way too, better than we’ve seen in the UK. Tax harmonisation is seen as a particular threat, as is the lack of clarity about extension of QMV and the current shenanigans about having an EU President. They’re actually going to the text and talking about what it means.

The Irish have voted No before and the sky didn’t fall on their heads. It takes a bit of nerve for a country to reject something with so much political weight behind it, but the Irish have experience and they’ll be sceptical if Cassandra-like politicians prophesy a new dark age, recession and expulsion from the EU (as Cowen is already doing).

What would happen then, then?

It’s hard to say! Technically it could be highly problematic, because parts of the Treaty are already half way to implementation. Other countries have ratified it on the understanding that everybody was coming along for the ride. They’ll be disappointed.

But in practice these things are never as disastrous as they look from the outside. The TEU would continue to exist, and the business of everyday Brussels would continue.

In an ideal world, the sneaky, politicking, dishonest and ambitious fools who are lying the Treaty into existence would be shown the door. The Treaty would be re-written on no more than four sheets of A4 paper, and the Commission would be fired.

But this would still leave the extension of competences - the real reason for having the Treaty - hanging in the air. The areas of justice, criminal law, public health, space exploration and so on would still be on the table.

The EU could easily find a way to introduce them regardless, either in toto or partially, and I’ve no doubt they would. But the problem is that this would require a continuation of the dishonesty and concealment the politicians have practised during the past five years. Eventually, it’s not just the well-informed minority who will get fed up with this approach, the average voter will begin to see through it too.

Nevertheless what I believe would happen, if the Irish voted no, is that Lisbon would be abandoned but its grand measures would be brought into existence regardless. The politicians would realise that Lisbon was just a symbol of the thing, not the thing itself. Extra slipperiness would be deployed to achieve the same result over a longer timeframe and large buckets of deception poured into tanks full of red herrings. So to speak.

That result would hardly be satisfactory. But in any case at this stage it’s all a lot of speculation.

News of the World revelations… yawn

No Comments »

Several years ago, Paul van Buitenen filmed MEPs registering for work at the European Parliament so they could claim expenses, then leaving five minutes later.

The News of the World yesterday re-exposed the scam with a sting directed against British MEP Tom Wise.

Tom Wise MEP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s not much new here, only the hilarity of the language used in the report: “Porky Euro MEP Tom Wise … the podgy, bearded bon viveur… is not just living high on the hog—he IS the hog, stuffing his face and his wallet on Eurocash.”

kilroysilkwatch: German muckspreading

No Comments »

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/08
by Robert Kilroy-Silk (NI)
to the Commission

Subject: Smell of Germany in London

What steps is the Commission taking to prevent German muck-spreading being smelt in London?

Corporate restructuring in the EU

No Comments »

The news that Antonio Tajani has been nominated to replace Jacques Barrot as Commissioner for Transport highlights a problem of accountability in the EU.

Before he can take up his duties, he’ll have to appear before Parliament’s Transport Committee, but considering he’s an MEP already we can assume the business is in the bag. In any case, the committee has no power of veto.

So we have an elected MEP relinquishing his duties in favour of a more influential job. I wonder what the people who voted for him would make of that.

His appointment follows the recent resignation of MEP Alex Stubb, who was appointed Finland’s foreign minister.

Bah humbug

No Comments »

Bruno Waterfield’s excellent post hits the nail on the head:

The focus on “transparency” and lobbying entirely, spectacularly and, one suspects, deliberately misses the point about what is wrong with the EU. It shifts the focus from the EU’s lack of democracy and accountability to a priggish, childish obsession with money and the corporate world.

This is the point.

None (that’s N, O, N, E) of the executive bodies of the EU, European Council, Councils of ministers, Coreper, the Commission, all bodies that exercise power over us the people, keep a proper public record of their debates or decisions.

Most of the documents related to the exercise, of what are told is, public authority here in Brussels belong to the private, closed world of bureaucrats and diplomats. Requests for access are invariably countered with contemptuously smooth refusals in order “to protect the decision-making process”. From who? From us, the public.

At the moment, for example, there is an intense debate on the creation of an EU president and a euro-diplomatic corp. Every body is talking about it and there are plenty of (secret) documents. But where’s the public record?

At some point there some “Council Conclusions” will emerge recording the fact of a decision. But there will be no record of the debates, who said what or the alternatives that were on offer.

There’s more.

To be fair, the Greens have taken something of a stand on the narrower issue of lobbying Parliament. They abstained from voting on the resolution, says Caroline Lucas.

Commenting on the result of the vote, UK Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas: “The vote on new rules for lobbyists in the European Parliament today showed just how powerful and effective the lobbyists really are. Although the adopted proposal is a step in the right direction, requiring all lobbyists to register for the first time, it is far from guaranteeing full transparency.

Parliament voting on lobbying register

No Comments »

Today, the EU Parliament will be voting on a proposal to set up a register of lobbyists.

The text and amendments are here.

Commentary from EUractiv is here.

I’ll post more about this later today.

Jens-Peter Bonde’s farewell

No Comments »

You may be aware that the European Parliament’s longest-serving member is stepping down. He has been the most persistent and effective campaigner for transparency in the EU, and I would hope all sides recognise his great work.  

Jens-Peter Bonde was elected to the European Parliament in the first direct elections in June 1979 and is the longest serving MEP. There are five other MEPs from the first elections (Pöttering, Friedrich, von Wogau, Hänsch, Wurtz). They were elected on a Sunday. Bonde on the Thursday, so it is the longest serving MEP now leaving his place.

Bonde will be substituted by Hanne Dahl, 37, and thereby represent a change in generation and gender for the Danish June Movement.

In more than half of his life as an MEP, Mr Bonde has been leader of different groups in the European Parliament. No one else has attended so many meetings in the conference of Presidents.

Bonde has written 60 books on EU topics. Many of these are available for free download at his webpage: Bonde.eu

Jens-Peter Bonde has gained many victories for transparency, such as the publication of the secret telephone book, agendas and minutes of Commission meetings on the internet and 3,094 secret working groups from the Commission, available at Bonde.eu.

Soon the recipients of EU funding will also be on the Net together with the advisors in the many secret working groups. What is still missing is included in Bonde’s testament.

Mr Bonde was the architect behind the Danish No to the Maastricht treaty, 2 June 1992 and established the JuneMovement to fight for transparency, proximity and democracy in Europe.

EU Blotter for 2 May 2008

No Comments »

Only a couple of items today, as Belgium is on holiday.

Europe should have a Freedom of Information Act, says ECAS. ” This would send a powerful signal that the EU is committed to reform. It would make the system more useable for ordinary citizens not jus stakeholders. Freedom of information places a duty on the Institution to locate and provide the material requested.”

Beware the EU! “MPs have been told to be wary of emails apparently sent by the European Parliament - amid fears they could be used by Chinese hackers to breach Parliamentary security”, says National Cyber Security. My advice? Everyone should be wary of emails sent by all the EU institutions, regardless of whether they’re genuine or not.

The red herring of “risky transparency”

No Comments »

The European Voice notes that the Commission has published further proposals to improve access to documents in the EU, and summarises the state of play as regards transparency in the institutions.

Along the way, it presents the argument that if you force transparency onto an institution, the decision-makers will simply resort to horse-trading behind the scenes. This red herring has become received wisdom in Europe and needs to be squashed.

In law-making, as in clothing, too much transparency is risky. Over-exposure can impair efficiency and indiscretion can reduce the options for negotiation. If they feel that too much transparency is being forced on them by public sessions, legislators will conduct their real decision-making elsewhere, and present no more than a pre-cooked masquerade to the outside world.

The whole point about transparency is that “pre-cooked masquerades” are easier to spot. Furthermore, transparency has numerous elements and is not simply a matter of following an argument or a dialogue to see how two sides reached a decision. Important also are when individuals said whatever they said, who else is involved in addition to the official actors (think lobbyists), who stands to benefit from seeing policy steered in a particular direction. Demands for transparency in the EU aren’t simply demands for public sessions, they’re intended to give those interested the necessary clues to carry out the detective work needed to view all aspects of law and policy.

EU blotter for 29 April

No Comments »

Stern says allowing close relations between business and government was a German idea. Now the EU is having to deal with the same problem in Brussels (in German).

All About Alpha says the European Parliament is getting advice biased against hedge funds.

Graft is a tax on the poor, says Transparency International. Indeed, and it’s a tax on the middle-class and the rich too.