“Choose your battles carefully” would be Machiavelli’s advice to David Cameron. The British Prime Minister was in Brussels this week with a mission to freeze the EU budget for 2011. It is a battle he is set to lose.
The showdown over the budget was Mr Cameron’s first real foray as Prime Minister into hard-nosed European negotiations. His attack on the proposed budget increase at his week’s European Summit rallied the more Eurosceptic wing in his party. However, after failing to repatriate powers to the UK, as he had promised to do before the election, and now failing to prevent a rise to the EU budget, he will need to find another battle to win if he is to confirm his Euro-realist credentials.
He doesn’t need to wait long. After lying low on employment and social legislation, the European Commission has chosen a time of increasing unemployment across Europe to propose to extend maternity leave. The Council has already pushed back any major extension of paid leave for new mothers but the UK Government, more than most, will want to resist any new maternity leave rights. So far, David Cameron has kept quiet since his coalition partners will not want to take such a hard line. However, he will soon have to take a view and come out fighting if he is to please his own party which believes that the EU has no role to play at all in employment and social affairs.
Last week the European Parliament adopted the Estrela Report on the “improvement of the health and safety at work of workers who are pregnant or have recently given birth”.
MEPs want to increase paid maternal leave to 20 paid weeks and make a two-week paid paternal leave mandatory across the EU.
"Maternity cannot be regarded as a burden on social security systems, it is an investment in our future," argued the author of the Parliament’s Report, Portuguese Socialist MEP Edite Estrela.
The Estrela report proposes minimum maternity leave should be extended from 14 to 20 weeks, six weeks of which would be taken immediately after childbirth. The rules would apply to self-employed workers. Workers on maternity leave must be paid their full salary, which must be 100% of their last monthly salary or their average monthly salary. The report also says that member states must give fathers the right to fully paid paternity leave of at least two weeks within the period of maternity leave. Female workers cannot be fired from the beginning of a pregnancy to at least six months following the end of the maternity leave.
Sometimes an issue exposes cultural divisions as much as political ones. This is one such issue. The vote by and large followed national lines with a high cohesion ratio of 72,54% among MEP votes from the same state. Of the UK MEPs that voted, 54 voted against and only 3 in favour. The liberal group ALDE was divided right in the middle on the issue. UK Liberals were opposed to the report.
Liz Lynne a UK Lib Dem MEP on the social and employment committee said that at a time of economic recovery, it would not be acceptable to impose such a heavy burden on businesses. And in any case, it would only give employers further reason not to employ young women.
The report did not take into consideration who would be picking up the bill. Responsibilities for paying for maternity leave vary across Europe. France will oppose the Parliament’s position since it will be the Government that would be responsible for an additional €1.3 billion.
What is remarkable is that the report received most support from the southern states. The so-called PIGS plus Ireland, all without exception voted overwhelmingly for the legislative proposal. Bankrupt Greece voted 14 for the proposition and 0 against. Italy had 57 votes for and one vote against the proposition. Spain had 37 for and 1 against, Ireland voted 11 for and 0 against.
The European Small Business Association estimates the cost for these proposals from the Parliament would be in the region of €121bn between now and 2030. The proposed 2.9% increase in the EU budget would cost the UK a further €500m in contributions. The maternity rights proposals present a much bigger challenge to David Cameron. Certainly much more tax-payers money is at stake. Is he ready to go to battle, again?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Cathy Ashton gets her EU Foreign Service – with a little help from William Hague
The EU institutions have, despite some last-minute political wrangling, reached a settlement on a new European diplomacy service. The Lisbon Treaty allowed for an External Action Service with the objective of matching Europe’s economic status in the world with a similar diplomatic clout.
However Cathy Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, had to contend with competing demands from MEPs, national governments and the European Commission, all with different views on what the scale and scope of the new foreign service operations should look like.
In Strasbourg this week MEPs voted to adopt the European External Action Service Staff Regulation, the Financial Regulation and the EEAS 2010 budget. The EAS will now be operational on schedule - from 1st December.
EU foreign ministers in July already paved the way for the EAS to be operational from 1st December. Member State governments – including the UK Conservatives, who had been critical of the EAS plans before they came to office – were keen for the EAS to be a success.
However, rows broke out soon after over the budget and over appointments. Nevertheless, Cathy Ashton has defied her critics – and she has had many – by casting aside controversy over the budget and over national and georaphical quotas for the EAS staffing regulations. The vote this week means, the High Representative can now get on with the business of appointing around 80 senior diplomats. She will then, over the next two years, recruit officials from the Council General Secretariat and from national diplomatic services. Eventually, the EAS is expected to be staffed by around 6,000 officials.
The EAS is possibly the most significant of the innovations brought about by the Lisbon Treaty. And it was the unqualified support of the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague that helped make it happen
In a major speech on foreign policy on 1st July, William Hague set out his vision for a United Kingdom that is “highly active and activist in our approach to the European Union and the exercise of its collective weight in the world”. This was not the Euro-passive Conservative Government we had been led to expect
This represented a major shift in Hague’s view of the world. In opposition, he was particularly hostile to the EU external relations policy as conceived by Lisbon. As shadow foreign secretary, he was bitterly opposed to the appointment of Tony Blair as EU Council President, fearing that, as an international statesman, Mr Blair would give the EU too much legitimacy on the world stage.
And now, Mr Hague is making the case for a stronger British presence within the EU institutions. He says that the number of British “A” officials has fallen by 205 since 2007, he says; “As a new Government we are determined to put this right”.
Although there is no guarantee that nationality provides any support for any particular national policy, it is important for the UK that British diplomacy is ingrained in the new External Action Service.
William Hague understands the real-politik of a common European foreign and defence policy and the EAS is a practical way of demonstrating Europe’s power to the world – at a time when the UK, France and Germany are losing their individual impact on world events and when their bilateral relations with countries like India and China are becoming less relevant to world affairs.
Spending cuts at the UK Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, announced this week, was in part made possible because of the new powers and responsibilities of the External Action Service.
So the EU’s High Representative for foreign affairs – and former Labour peer, Cathy Ashton can thank William Hague for the success this week in securing a smooth transition to a powerful new global institution. Mr Hague has paved the way for a powerful international diplomatic service which will finally give the EU a single voice in the world. But Cathy Ashton must receive her fair share of praise for the success in setting up the EAS. She has confounded her critics – who have from the day she was appointed dismissed her as a light-weight - by keeping a cool head and single-handedly creating the momentum she needed to drive through her plans
However Cathy Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, had to contend with competing demands from MEPs, national governments and the European Commission, all with different views on what the scale and scope of the new foreign service operations should look like.
In Strasbourg this week MEPs voted to adopt the European External Action Service Staff Regulation, the Financial Regulation and the EEAS 2010 budget. The EAS will now be operational on schedule - from 1st December.
EU foreign ministers in July already paved the way for the EAS to be operational from 1st December. Member State governments – including the UK Conservatives, who had been critical of the EAS plans before they came to office – were keen for the EAS to be a success.
However, rows broke out soon after over the budget and over appointments. Nevertheless, Cathy Ashton has defied her critics – and she has had many – by casting aside controversy over the budget and over national and georaphical quotas for the EAS staffing regulations. The vote this week means, the High Representative can now get on with the business of appointing around 80 senior diplomats. She will then, over the next two years, recruit officials from the Council General Secretariat and from national diplomatic services. Eventually, the EAS is expected to be staffed by around 6,000 officials.
The EAS is possibly the most significant of the innovations brought about by the Lisbon Treaty. And it was the unqualified support of the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague that helped make it happen
In a major speech on foreign policy on 1st July, William Hague set out his vision for a United Kingdom that is “highly active and activist in our approach to the European Union and the exercise of its collective weight in the world”. This was not the Euro-passive Conservative Government we had been led to expect
This represented a major shift in Hague’s view of the world. In opposition, he was particularly hostile to the EU external relations policy as conceived by Lisbon. As shadow foreign secretary, he was bitterly opposed to the appointment of Tony Blair as EU Council President, fearing that, as an international statesman, Mr Blair would give the EU too much legitimacy on the world stage.
And now, Mr Hague is making the case for a stronger British presence within the EU institutions. He says that the number of British “A” officials has fallen by 205 since 2007, he says; “As a new Government we are determined to put this right”.
Although there is no guarantee that nationality provides any support for any particular national policy, it is important for the UK that British diplomacy is ingrained in the new External Action Service.
William Hague understands the real-politik of a common European foreign and defence policy and the EAS is a practical way of demonstrating Europe’s power to the world – at a time when the UK, France and Germany are losing their individual impact on world events and when their bilateral relations with countries like India and China are becoming less relevant to world affairs.
Spending cuts at the UK Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, announced this week, was in part made possible because of the new powers and responsibilities of the External Action Service.
So the EU’s High Representative for foreign affairs – and former Labour peer, Cathy Ashton can thank William Hague for the success this week in securing a smooth transition to a powerful new global institution. Mr Hague has paved the way for a powerful international diplomatic service which will finally give the EU a single voice in the world. But Cathy Ashton must receive her fair share of praise for the success in setting up the EAS. She has confounded her critics – who have from the day she was appointed dismissed her as a light-weight - by keeping a cool head and single-handedly creating the momentum she needed to drive through her plans
MEPs square up to National Governments over the EU Budget
The British public is bracing itself next week for deep spending cuts when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne unveils plans for unprecedented reductions to departmental budgets in the Comprehensive Spending Review on Wednesday.
Ireland and the Baltic states are already experiencing the pain that comes with their national austerity measures. Other European countries like Sweden, France and Germany are also scaling back public sector spending. Even the new left wing government in Greece is slashing the public sector – although it hardly has a choice in the matter after a humiliating European bail-out.
It is understandable then that EU member state governments were appalled at the European Commission’s proposal to increase the EU budget by nearly 6%. At a time, when difficult decisions on job cuts and wage freezes in the public sector are being made by national governments, the EU asks for more money.
It is, of course, the centre-right governments across Europe that are introducing the austerity measures they believe will stabilise their economies and help bring about a sustainable recovery. Some are more enthusiastic than others. Nevertheless, the European centre-right consensus is real cuts need to be made and need to made immediately.
It is strange then that the Centre-Right majority in the European Parliament has taken an entirely different view when it comes to the European Union budget. The European People’s Party believe that there should be more public spending – not less – for the
EU to invest in growth and jobs for the future.
Sidonia Jedzejewska – a Polish MEP in the Centre Right EPP Group, is drafting the European Parliament’s report on the 2011 budget. He believes that the EU should be able to properly fund cross-border education and training programmes if it is to add value.
When the European Council agreed to a lower budget increase than the 5.9% proposed by the Commission, the European Parliament, led by the EPP, responded by re-instating the 5.9% increase. This matters because after the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now has a say in the Budget. Previously it would just be asked to approve the over-all amount. Now it can negotiate on individual budgets for transport and fisheries and so on. MEPs have already threatened to block funding for ITER, the international nuclear fusion reactor project.
On October 5, after a bruising debate, the Budget Committee of the EU Parliament voted to reject the Council’s proposal to limit the increase to 2.91%. The Council said that a 5.9% increase on 2010 – giving an overall EU budget of €130.14billion – was “politically unrealistic”.
The UK government goes further. It sees the proposal increase as – at the very least – insensitive.
Earlier this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron told a joint press conference in London with Danish counterpart Lars Lokke Rasmussen that the figures should be progressively "reduced rather than increased." The UK's net transfer to EU institutions is set to rise from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12.
On 30th September, Vince Cable, the UK’s business minister spoke to MEPs in the European Parliament: He said; “At a time when national governments, including mine, are having to make very painful cuts in public spending, no one can understand why the European budget is not being subjected to the same discipline.” Clearly, this has fallen on deaf ears.
The most audacious part of the Commission’s budget plans is the four percent increase for administration costs. The Commission has even gone to the European Court of Justice to save planned pay increases for EC officials after Council threatened to impose a freeze.
The European Parliament – along with the Commission – believe that there is a need to increase EU funds to compensate for the short-falls that will come about in national public spending. MEPs are particularly concerned that infrastructure and regional development projects would suffer. However they go much further than ring-fencing investment projects – they have also rejected a Council proposal for a €820.71m cut to the hugely bloated agriculture and fisheries sectors.
While tax payers have been asked to indirectly or directly shoulder the costs of getting through the financial crisis, can the EU conceivably demand for more?
National governments are forced to take measures to cut national defence spending, reduce child benefits, postpone school building schemes, lay off thousands of workers. Is this the right time for MEPs to make the case for more money for cross-border student exchange schemes, bee-keeping research or the Palestinian Authority? MEPs are worried that if the EU does less, it would become less relevant. If the EU does less, but does it well, they should have nothing to fear. The EU budget should not be used as a substitute for another European stimulus package. It should be there to support growth, jobs and prosperity, for the long-term success of the single market.
The fight over the EU budget is set to rumble on. The European Parliament will vote on the Committee’s recommendation during the plenary session in Strasbourg next week.
Although the Parliament will continue to push the limits of its mandate and test the patience of the Council in doing so, ultimately it does not have the power to impose its will on the national governments. Perhaps, instead MEPs should reconcile itself to the political imperative across Europe. Rather than re-start a debate over stimulus versus austerity, it should accept the new reality, while securing as best it can its constituent interests.
Ireland and the Baltic states are already experiencing the pain that comes with their national austerity measures. Other European countries like Sweden, France and Germany are also scaling back public sector spending. Even the new left wing government in Greece is slashing the public sector – although it hardly has a choice in the matter after a humiliating European bail-out.
It is understandable then that EU member state governments were appalled at the European Commission’s proposal to increase the EU budget by nearly 6%. At a time, when difficult decisions on job cuts and wage freezes in the public sector are being made by national governments, the EU asks for more money.
It is, of course, the centre-right governments across Europe that are introducing the austerity measures they believe will stabilise their economies and help bring about a sustainable recovery. Some are more enthusiastic than others. Nevertheless, the European centre-right consensus is real cuts need to be made and need to made immediately.
It is strange then that the Centre-Right majority in the European Parliament has taken an entirely different view when it comes to the European Union budget. The European People’s Party believe that there should be more public spending – not less – for the
EU to invest in growth and jobs for the future.
Sidonia Jedzejewska – a Polish MEP in the Centre Right EPP Group, is drafting the European Parliament’s report on the 2011 budget. He believes that the EU should be able to properly fund cross-border education and training programmes if it is to add value.
When the European Council agreed to a lower budget increase than the 5.9% proposed by the Commission, the European Parliament, led by the EPP, responded by re-instating the 5.9% increase. This matters because after the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now has a say in the Budget. Previously it would just be asked to approve the over-all amount. Now it can negotiate on individual budgets for transport and fisheries and so on. MEPs have already threatened to block funding for ITER, the international nuclear fusion reactor project.
On October 5, after a bruising debate, the Budget Committee of the EU Parliament voted to reject the Council’s proposal to limit the increase to 2.91%. The Council said that a 5.9% increase on 2010 – giving an overall EU budget of €130.14billion – was “politically unrealistic”.
The UK government goes further. It sees the proposal increase as – at the very least – insensitive.
Earlier this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron told a joint press conference in London with Danish counterpart Lars Lokke Rasmussen that the figures should be progressively "reduced rather than increased." The UK's net transfer to EU institutions is set to rise from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12.
On 30th September, Vince Cable, the UK’s business minister spoke to MEPs in the European Parliament: He said; “At a time when national governments, including mine, are having to make very painful cuts in public spending, no one can understand why the European budget is not being subjected to the same discipline.” Clearly, this has fallen on deaf ears.
The most audacious part of the Commission’s budget plans is the four percent increase for administration costs. The Commission has even gone to the European Court of Justice to save planned pay increases for EC officials after Council threatened to impose a freeze.
The European Parliament – along with the Commission – believe that there is a need to increase EU funds to compensate for the short-falls that will come about in national public spending. MEPs are particularly concerned that infrastructure and regional development projects would suffer. However they go much further than ring-fencing investment projects – they have also rejected a Council proposal for a €820.71m cut to the hugely bloated agriculture and fisheries sectors.
While tax payers have been asked to indirectly or directly shoulder the costs of getting through the financial crisis, can the EU conceivably demand for more?
National governments are forced to take measures to cut national defence spending, reduce child benefits, postpone school building schemes, lay off thousands of workers. Is this the right time for MEPs to make the case for more money for cross-border student exchange schemes, bee-keeping research or the Palestinian Authority? MEPs are worried that if the EU does less, it would become less relevant. If the EU does less, but does it well, they should have nothing to fear. The EU budget should not be used as a substitute for another European stimulus package. It should be there to support growth, jobs and prosperity, for the long-term success of the single market.
The fight over the EU budget is set to rumble on. The European Parliament will vote on the Committee’s recommendation during the plenary session in Strasbourg next week.
Although the Parliament will continue to push the limits of its mandate and test the patience of the Council in doing so, ultimately it does not have the power to impose its will on the national governments. Perhaps, instead MEPs should reconcile itself to the political imperative across Europe. Rather than re-start a debate over stimulus versus austerity, it should accept the new reality, while securing as best it can its constituent interests.
Friday, October 8, 2010
William Hague spells out plans for EU Scrutiny
UK Foreign Minister, William Hague this week sent a warning shot to the European Union – the sovereignty of the British parliamentary system is paramount and any future EU treaty will be put to a referendum – by law.
Mr Hague was giving his keynote speech on foreign affairs at the Conservative Party Conference and he underlined the government’s commitment to introduce an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972 to ensure that any treaties “giving away power” would be put to a public vote before ratification. This would put the UK on the same footing as Ireland. The Irish have voted on any new EU treaty since 1987. The Foreign Secretary also said he would follow through on his election promise to introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Act – making it clear where the ultimate authority in the UK lies.
Party conference is a great opportunity for any politician to play to the gallery and Mr. Hagues’ tough words on Europe was music to their ears. However, on re-reading his speech, his bark was much worse than his bite.
After the traumatic ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, there is no appetite in the EU or in any of it member states for another institutional treaty.
At the Conservative Party conference in 2009, there were calls for a referendum on the repatriation of powers in the field of employment and judicial affairs. It was believed that this could strengthen a Conservative Government’s hand in demanding opt-outs in those areas.
The Conservatives, now in office, seem to have backed off from attempts to renegotiate shared competences with the EU. This may be because they are sharing power with the more euro-enthusiastic Liberal Democrats in a coalition government. It might also be because it would be just too difficult – and may even undermine any attempts to get a good deal from the on-going bargaining over the EU budget.
All that was left for Mr Hague to say on Tuesday in Birmingham was to say that his government would, “reaffirm once and for all the sovereignty of our ancient parliament”, I suppose to protect the legislature from encroaching demands from Brussels.
Again, this is not such a radical departure from what is already acknowledged elsewhere in Europe. One of the reasons for the delay in ratifying Lisbon was that the German constitutional courts had been asked to rule on whether the Lisbon Treaty would have any effect on the sovereignty of the Bundestag.
Mr Hague pointed out to party representatives, “EU law has effect in this country because - and solely because - Parliament wills that it should. Parliament passed the 1972 European Communities Act…..I can tell you today that we will legislate this autumn to underline that. A sovereignty clause on EU law will place on the statute book this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo.”
This has been met with some bemusement in Brussels where it is considered that the Lisbon Treaty actually offers a greater role for national parliaments to block EU legislation. Indeed there is some frustration in the European Commission that there is not enough scrutiny of EU laws by national assemblies. The scrutiny committees in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons are under-resourced and lack the time and political weight to properly scrutinize European legislation.
Mr Hague does acknowledge that the new sovereignty clause is hardly ground-breaking. He says, “It will not alter the existing order in relation to EU law. But it will put the matter beyond speculation…This clause will enshrine this key principle in the law of the land.”
So the foreign secretary’s speech does not herald a departure with the UK’s relationship with the EU. Brussels can breathe a collective sigh of relief. The coalition government’s package of EU policies amounts to little more than symbolism.
Messrs. Cameron and Hague had successfully buried the issue of the Lisbon Treaty during the general election campaign, they still run the risk of encouraging the euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party to amend the Sovereignty Bill during its parliamentary passage. The Conservative leadership will be desperate to contain this prospect since it would not only put the UK on a collision course with Brussels but also create tensions with their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
Given their political limitations, the Conservative leadership will need to look elsewhere to restrict the expansion of EU decision-making post-Lisbon. David Cameron has hinted at negotiating the application of the “so-called” passerelle clause in the Lisbon Treaty.
This article allows the European Council to switch decision-making from unanimity to qualified majority (but not in foreign affairs or defence). This could significantly widen the scope of EU influence. However, Gordon Brown had already negotiated the insertion of a provision that the passerelle cannot be used without the agreement of both houses of Parliament.
So what red meat is left for the euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party?
Firstly, the UK is notorious for gold-plating EU directives. Where other Member States implement the spirit of the directive, the UK follows it to the last letter.
Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty envisaged national parliaments playing a fuller role in EU legislative scrutiny. However, the EU scrutiny committees in the Houses of Parliament are under-resourced – and although there is a wealth of talent in the House of Lords committee, it is difficult to find experienced MPs wanting to serve on the Commons committee. The Committees should initiate debate on draft directives before they are adopted by the EU institutions.
In Denmark, parliamentary committees mandate ministers on the line they should take in EU negotiations. And ministers are then required to report back to their committee after their Council meeting. Of course, this would not work quite so well in the UK. However, we do have some talented MEPs in Brussels and the scrutiny committees could and should invite them to take part on a regular basis.
For the Conservatives, the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation is clearly important. They are restricted in their ambitions despite some grand-sounding initiatives. However, the new government could make a real impact by improving the scrutiny mechanisms already available to them.
Mr Hague was giving his keynote speech on foreign affairs at the Conservative Party Conference and he underlined the government’s commitment to introduce an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972 to ensure that any treaties “giving away power” would be put to a public vote before ratification. This would put the UK on the same footing as Ireland. The Irish have voted on any new EU treaty since 1987. The Foreign Secretary also said he would follow through on his election promise to introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Act – making it clear where the ultimate authority in the UK lies.
Party conference is a great opportunity for any politician to play to the gallery and Mr. Hagues’ tough words on Europe was music to their ears. However, on re-reading his speech, his bark was much worse than his bite.
After the traumatic ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, there is no appetite in the EU or in any of it member states for another institutional treaty.
At the Conservative Party conference in 2009, there were calls for a referendum on the repatriation of powers in the field of employment and judicial affairs. It was believed that this could strengthen a Conservative Government’s hand in demanding opt-outs in those areas.
The Conservatives, now in office, seem to have backed off from attempts to renegotiate shared competences with the EU. This may be because they are sharing power with the more euro-enthusiastic Liberal Democrats in a coalition government. It might also be because it would be just too difficult – and may even undermine any attempts to get a good deal from the on-going bargaining over the EU budget.
All that was left for Mr Hague to say on Tuesday in Birmingham was to say that his government would, “reaffirm once and for all the sovereignty of our ancient parliament”, I suppose to protect the legislature from encroaching demands from Brussels.
Again, this is not such a radical departure from what is already acknowledged elsewhere in Europe. One of the reasons for the delay in ratifying Lisbon was that the German constitutional courts had been asked to rule on whether the Lisbon Treaty would have any effect on the sovereignty of the Bundestag.
Mr Hague pointed out to party representatives, “EU law has effect in this country because - and solely because - Parliament wills that it should. Parliament passed the 1972 European Communities Act…..I can tell you today that we will legislate this autumn to underline that. A sovereignty clause on EU law will place on the statute book this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo.”
This has been met with some bemusement in Brussels where it is considered that the Lisbon Treaty actually offers a greater role for national parliaments to block EU legislation. Indeed there is some frustration in the European Commission that there is not enough scrutiny of EU laws by national assemblies. The scrutiny committees in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons are under-resourced and lack the time and political weight to properly scrutinize European legislation.
Mr Hague does acknowledge that the new sovereignty clause is hardly ground-breaking. He says, “It will not alter the existing order in relation to EU law. But it will put the matter beyond speculation…This clause will enshrine this key principle in the law of the land.”
So the foreign secretary’s speech does not herald a departure with the UK’s relationship with the EU. Brussels can breathe a collective sigh of relief. The coalition government’s package of EU policies amounts to little more than symbolism.
Messrs. Cameron and Hague had successfully buried the issue of the Lisbon Treaty during the general election campaign, they still run the risk of encouraging the euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party to amend the Sovereignty Bill during its parliamentary passage. The Conservative leadership will be desperate to contain this prospect since it would not only put the UK on a collision course with Brussels but also create tensions with their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
Given their political limitations, the Conservative leadership will need to look elsewhere to restrict the expansion of EU decision-making post-Lisbon. David Cameron has hinted at negotiating the application of the “so-called” passerelle clause in the Lisbon Treaty.
This article allows the European Council to switch decision-making from unanimity to qualified majority (but not in foreign affairs or defence). This could significantly widen the scope of EU influence. However, Gordon Brown had already negotiated the insertion of a provision that the passerelle cannot be used without the agreement of both houses of Parliament.
So what red meat is left for the euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party?
Firstly, the UK is notorious for gold-plating EU directives. Where other Member States implement the spirit of the directive, the UK follows it to the last letter.
Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty envisaged national parliaments playing a fuller role in EU legislative scrutiny. However, the EU scrutiny committees in the Houses of Parliament are under-resourced – and although there is a wealth of talent in the House of Lords committee, it is difficult to find experienced MPs wanting to serve on the Commons committee. The Committees should initiate debate on draft directives before they are adopted by the EU institutions.
In Denmark, parliamentary committees mandate ministers on the line they should take in EU negotiations. And ministers are then required to report back to their committee after their Council meeting. Of course, this would not work quite so well in the UK. However, we do have some talented MEPs in Brussels and the scrutiny committees could and should invite them to take part on a regular basis.
For the Conservatives, the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation is clearly important. They are restricted in their ambitions despite some grand-sounding initiatives. However, the new government could make a real impact by improving the scrutiny mechanisms already available to them.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Will the UK sign up to European Economic Governance?
Brussels was brought to a standstill yesterday by 100,000 trade unionists from across Europe who were demonstrating against plans being drawn up by the European Commission that would penalise member state governments that fail to rein in their deficits.
Trade Unions across Europe are concerned that the fiscal conditions being placed on Member State governments by the EU will lead to more job losses and threaten economic growth.
The conditions are being drawn up to ease market fears over unsustainable public spending after the “shock and awe” €750billion plan to protect the Eurozone from collapsing during the weekend of May 7-9th.
The Commission believes that the €110bn EU bail-out of Greece earlier this year shows that without any fiscal union there is no guarantee that the whole system won’t fall apart when a shock hits the system. Olli Rehn, the Commissioner for monetary affairs has said: “We need stronger and better EU economic policy co-ordination”. In other words; more economic governance. And this spells trouble for the UK’s relations with the EU.
For now, the idea of more EU “economic governance” has not registered in the UK. It is seen as a Eurozone response to a Eurozone problem.
However, the German Chancellor is insisting that it should be a matter for all 27 Member States. This is to ensure that the French don’t get it all their own way. Germany is concerned that France will form a political bloc with the more “fiscally-relaxed” member states rather than agree to serious structural economic reforms. France is more ambitious about fiscal union but not so keen on the budgetary constraints that Germany is insisting on.
There are inevitably conflicting views on what economic governance would look like. If applies to all of the EU27 Member States, then the UK will want to see a minimalist framework – a sort of code of good fiscal conduct. However, BusinessEurope – the employer’s federation want to see co-ordination of demographic pressures on pensions, stress-testing of public finances and monitoring of labour, product, services and capital markets.
The European Central Bank has not shied away from proposing a radical agenda for European control of deficit and spending. In June this year, the ECB proposed an independent EU fiscal agency to monitor public finances; financial sanctions and the even removal of voting rights in EU institutions.
The ECB believed that Member States had not been stringent enough in applying the fiscal rules that exist. Apart from ignoring the pressures that governments were under to revive their economies following the financial crisis, the ECB solution would be an unacceptable loss of fiscal autonomy. Its response is that Greece had de facto lost fiscal autonomy after it was bailed out.
But member states are not going to give up the fiscal controls that easily. What might be more acceptable is the Commission’s less ambitious plans to synchronise preparations of national budgets. The idea is that governments would submit national economic programmes to the Commission every April. Commission experts will look at the plans and advise the Council, which in turn will issue country-specific policy guidance in July. Only then would member states finalise their budgets and present to their national parliaments.
This arrangement was agreed in September but the UK managed to get a concession and the UK government will continue to present the budget first to the House of Commons and only then would it submit the budget to the Commission and Council “for their consideration”.
The Coalition Government in the UK is looking on with some trepidation. The Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor will be resistant to anything that smacks of undermining national fiscal autonomy. The LibDem deputy Prime Minister and Business Secretary are likely to see some merit in better fiscal co-ordination. Divisions within the coalition on Europe will, at last, surface after the governments best efforts to ignore their differences.
Trade Unions across Europe are concerned that the fiscal conditions being placed on Member State governments by the EU will lead to more job losses and threaten economic growth.
The conditions are being drawn up to ease market fears over unsustainable public spending after the “shock and awe” €750billion plan to protect the Eurozone from collapsing during the weekend of May 7-9th.
The Commission believes that the €110bn EU bail-out of Greece earlier this year shows that without any fiscal union there is no guarantee that the whole system won’t fall apart when a shock hits the system. Olli Rehn, the Commissioner for monetary affairs has said: “We need stronger and better EU economic policy co-ordination”. In other words; more economic governance. And this spells trouble for the UK’s relations with the EU.
For now, the idea of more EU “economic governance” has not registered in the UK. It is seen as a Eurozone response to a Eurozone problem.
However, the German Chancellor is insisting that it should be a matter for all 27 Member States. This is to ensure that the French don’t get it all their own way. Germany is concerned that France will form a political bloc with the more “fiscally-relaxed” member states rather than agree to serious structural economic reforms. France is more ambitious about fiscal union but not so keen on the budgetary constraints that Germany is insisting on.
There are inevitably conflicting views on what economic governance would look like. If applies to all of the EU27 Member States, then the UK will want to see a minimalist framework – a sort of code of good fiscal conduct. However, BusinessEurope – the employer’s federation want to see co-ordination of demographic pressures on pensions, stress-testing of public finances and monitoring of labour, product, services and capital markets.
The European Central Bank has not shied away from proposing a radical agenda for European control of deficit and spending. In June this year, the ECB proposed an independent EU fiscal agency to monitor public finances; financial sanctions and the even removal of voting rights in EU institutions.
The ECB believed that Member States had not been stringent enough in applying the fiscal rules that exist. Apart from ignoring the pressures that governments were under to revive their economies following the financial crisis, the ECB solution would be an unacceptable loss of fiscal autonomy. Its response is that Greece had de facto lost fiscal autonomy after it was bailed out.
But member states are not going to give up the fiscal controls that easily. What might be more acceptable is the Commission’s less ambitious plans to synchronise preparations of national budgets. The idea is that governments would submit national economic programmes to the Commission every April. Commission experts will look at the plans and advise the Council, which in turn will issue country-specific policy guidance in July. Only then would member states finalise their budgets and present to their national parliaments.
This arrangement was agreed in September but the UK managed to get a concession and the UK government will continue to present the budget first to the House of Commons and only then would it submit the budget to the Commission and Council “for their consideration”.
The Coalition Government in the UK is looking on with some trepidation. The Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor will be resistant to anything that smacks of undermining national fiscal autonomy. The LibDem deputy Prime Minister and Business Secretary are likely to see some merit in better fiscal co-ordination. Divisions within the coalition on Europe will, at last, surface after the governments best efforts to ignore their differences.
Sarkozy’s “Blustery Spat” over EU Rebuke
Tempers are still frayed in the Berlaymont this week. Nerves are still raw and noses not yet quite back into joint following what was probably the most ill-tempered working lunch of Europe’s leaders for a long time.
Despite the earnest agenda that had been prepared, the heads of government from the EU’s 27 Member States had to restrain themselves from turning the European Council lunch into a bun fight.
Instead of using the opportunity to flesh out the EU’s foreign policy post-Lisbon or develop new measures on economic governance following the Euro-crisis, the lunch, according to the FT, instead turned “into a blustery spat” over France’s expulsion – or voluntary relocation scheme - of Roma.
Put simply, the European Commission believes this contravenes the sacred cows of free movement for EU nationals and non-discrimination of EU nationals. The Roma that were sent back to Romania are EU nationals and the Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship – and Vice President of the Commission to boot, Madame Viviane Reding is on the warpath.
At first, the formidable Mme Reding was measured in her response to President Sarkozy’s initiative to offer money to Roma who had set up camps in France. It was when she claimed to have found out that the French Government were being “duplicitous” in what they had been telling the Commission, she went nuclear. The Commission Vice President said that the policy was worthy of Vichy France.
This did not go down too well in Paris. President Sarkozy bounded into Brussels last week for the Council Summit looking for a show-down with the Commission – something which always plays well at home.
Sarkozy slammed Viviane Reding for her "deeply shocking" and "insulting" comments. However, he couldn’t help himself from going further. He suggested that perhaps Luxembourg – Mme Reding’s Member State – would want to accommodate Roma travellers. This only undermined his position that France was well within its rights and that it was an infringement of national sovereignty to order the Government to change policy that had been designed to crack down on crime and disorder.
Although President Barroso tried to quell the dispute, he was forced to defend his Vice President when President Sarkozy harangued him in front of EU leaders. The result? Mme Reding apologised only for the Vichy remark. President Barroso stood his ground on the substantive allegations that were levelled at the French Government.
President Sarkozy was publicly isolated. He had failed to rally any political support from his European colleagues. It was a shame that serious issues around economic governance and EU foreign policy were sidelined.
However some fundamental principles were re-established. The Council President Herman Van Rompuy concluded that the European Commission has the responsibility of overseeing the application of EU law in the areas of freedom of movement and non-discrimination.
Another positive result for the Commission was an invitation from the Summit to the Commission to write the strategy for Roma travellers.
As for M. Sarkozy, he was sent back to the Palace Elysee with his tail between his legs, facing the prospect of Mme Reding taunting him with infringement procedures for contravening EU laws.
Despite the earnest agenda that had been prepared, the heads of government from the EU’s 27 Member States had to restrain themselves from turning the European Council lunch into a bun fight.
Instead of using the opportunity to flesh out the EU’s foreign policy post-Lisbon or develop new measures on economic governance following the Euro-crisis, the lunch, according to the FT, instead turned “into a blustery spat” over France’s expulsion – or voluntary relocation scheme - of Roma.
Put simply, the European Commission believes this contravenes the sacred cows of free movement for EU nationals and non-discrimination of EU nationals. The Roma that were sent back to Romania are EU nationals and the Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship – and Vice President of the Commission to boot, Madame Viviane Reding is on the warpath.
At first, the formidable Mme Reding was measured in her response to President Sarkozy’s initiative to offer money to Roma who had set up camps in France. It was when she claimed to have found out that the French Government were being “duplicitous” in what they had been telling the Commission, she went nuclear. The Commission Vice President said that the policy was worthy of Vichy France.
This did not go down too well in Paris. President Sarkozy bounded into Brussels last week for the Council Summit looking for a show-down with the Commission – something which always plays well at home.
Sarkozy slammed Viviane Reding for her "deeply shocking" and "insulting" comments. However, he couldn’t help himself from going further. He suggested that perhaps Luxembourg – Mme Reding’s Member State – would want to accommodate Roma travellers. This only undermined his position that France was well within its rights and that it was an infringement of national sovereignty to order the Government to change policy that had been designed to crack down on crime and disorder.
Although President Barroso tried to quell the dispute, he was forced to defend his Vice President when President Sarkozy harangued him in front of EU leaders. The result? Mme Reding apologised only for the Vichy remark. President Barroso stood his ground on the substantive allegations that were levelled at the French Government.
President Sarkozy was publicly isolated. He had failed to rally any political support from his European colleagues. It was a shame that serious issues around economic governance and EU foreign policy were sidelined.
However some fundamental principles were re-established. The Council President Herman Van Rompuy concluded that the European Commission has the responsibility of overseeing the application of EU law in the areas of freedom of movement and non-discrimination.
Another positive result for the Commission was an invitation from the Summit to the Commission to write the strategy for Roma travellers.
As for M. Sarkozy, he was sent back to the Palace Elysee with his tail between his legs, facing the prospect of Mme Reding taunting him with infringement procedures for contravening EU laws.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Another Day, Another Euro
There has been some ill-informed nonsense written about the Euro since Greece was bailed out with the help of Eurozone members.
Some economists, who should know better, claimed that the crisis would spread to other vulnerable euro countries like Italy and Spain; that these countries would have no choice but to leave the single currency and that even Germany might walk away and start printing Deutschmarks again.
However, the Euro is much stronger than that - and is designed to withstand such shocks. It can, of course, be improved by enforcing strict deficit rules and by creating, which it now is, an emergency bail-out fund. What does not need to happen is any so-called economic governance. National budgets should not be subject to ECOFIN approval and tax policy should remain a useful competitive tool not be remotely part of any european fiscal union. The European Central Bank however does need to be more political in interest rate decisions and take into account more inflationary pressures in a Euro member state that is struggling. But thats as far as it goes.
I resisted joining in the clamour for quick fix solutions and rather stood back and watch the debate burn itself out. The Greek crisis has been dealt with and the Euro moves on
I read with interest some opinion polls which shows that two thirds of voters noe believe the EU is more relevant than ever following the financial crisis. thsi is remarkable considering no-one particularly liked being asked to bail out the Greek system as though it were some kind of perverse award for their fecklessness.
It was unfortunate that UK Deputy PM used the excuse of the Greek financial crisis as the reason why he changed his mind on the urgency of austere deficit cuts. Regardless, none of this of course excuses the fact that he campaigned to win Lib Dem votes without telling his voters that he had changed his mind.
What is also strange is that the Conservatives did not join on the bandwagon and launch a tirade against the Euro just when it was at its weakest. Perhaps this can be explained by the realisation that a weakened EU was not in the UK's interests. david Cameron himself said so during a visit to Paris shortly after becoming Premier.
Observers are mystified as to just how muted Cameron, Hague and Osborne have been on Europe - especially when there is a real chance to put the boot in.
The junior coalition partners can be credited for keeping the eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives reined in but how long can this last? At a Progress meeting in the House of Commons, chaired by the new MP for Wolverhampton, Emma Reynolds, Labour Party members came together to find ways of putting a wedge in the coalition on the issue of Europe. While every-one agreed that Europe is not a priority for voters, it is the coalition's achille's heel. Although there is no sign yet of a coalition split Labour is watching closely for any sign of fracture.
The Coalition Government's approach to the EU and its key partners has been surprising but commendable. But dont be fooled. It does not mark any shift of the Conservatives policies on Europe. It is pure RealPolitik. There was genuine fear that the weakened Euro would drag the UK back into a recession. But here we are - out of the storm. Another Day - another Euro. The single currency carries on.
Some economists, who should know better, claimed that the crisis would spread to other vulnerable euro countries like Italy and Spain; that these countries would have no choice but to leave the single currency and that even Germany might walk away and start printing Deutschmarks again.
However, the Euro is much stronger than that - and is designed to withstand such shocks. It can, of course, be improved by enforcing strict deficit rules and by creating, which it now is, an emergency bail-out fund. What does not need to happen is any so-called economic governance. National budgets should not be subject to ECOFIN approval and tax policy should remain a useful competitive tool not be remotely part of any european fiscal union. The European Central Bank however does need to be more political in interest rate decisions and take into account more inflationary pressures in a Euro member state that is struggling. But thats as far as it goes.
I resisted joining in the clamour for quick fix solutions and rather stood back and watch the debate burn itself out. The Greek crisis has been dealt with and the Euro moves on
I read with interest some opinion polls which shows that two thirds of voters noe believe the EU is more relevant than ever following the financial crisis. thsi is remarkable considering no-one particularly liked being asked to bail out the Greek system as though it were some kind of perverse award for their fecklessness.
It was unfortunate that UK Deputy PM used the excuse of the Greek financial crisis as the reason why he changed his mind on the urgency of austere deficit cuts. Regardless, none of this of course excuses the fact that he campaigned to win Lib Dem votes without telling his voters that he had changed his mind.
What is also strange is that the Conservatives did not join on the bandwagon and launch a tirade against the Euro just when it was at its weakest. Perhaps this can be explained by the realisation that a weakened EU was not in the UK's interests. david Cameron himself said so during a visit to Paris shortly after becoming Premier.
Observers are mystified as to just how muted Cameron, Hague and Osborne have been on Europe - especially when there is a real chance to put the boot in.
The junior coalition partners can be credited for keeping the eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives reined in but how long can this last? At a Progress meeting in the House of Commons, chaired by the new MP for Wolverhampton, Emma Reynolds, Labour Party members came together to find ways of putting a wedge in the coalition on the issue of Europe. While every-one agreed that Europe is not a priority for voters, it is the coalition's achille's heel. Although there is no sign yet of a coalition split Labour is watching closely for any sign of fracture.
The Coalition Government's approach to the EU and its key partners has been surprising but commendable. But dont be fooled. It does not mark any shift of the Conservatives policies on Europe. It is pure RealPolitik. There was genuine fear that the weakened Euro would drag the UK back into a recession. But here we are - out of the storm. Another Day - another Euro. The single currency carries on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
