Euinsider's Blog
Just another WordPress.com weblog

Mar
15

Finance ministers of the Eurozone are meeting in Brussels tonight 15 March to discuss measures to support Greece in case it requires help dealing with its financial difficulties. Germany and several other countries are still reluctant to commit themselves to a bail-out plan as they want Greece to implement the measures it has announced.  A bailout for Greece would send the wrong signals for other euro countries with bad pulic finances…

Read more in the European Voice (15 March):  http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2010/03/finance-ministers-seek-to-define-support-for-greece/67410.aspx

Mar
12

On the 16th of March, the finance ministers from all 27 EU member states will hold their regular meeting. The agenda will be dominated by discussions on new legislation for the regulation of hedge funds and private equity funds. The UK, which is home to around 80% of all hedge funds and private equity funds in the EU, wants to make sure that funds based outside the EU can be sold throughout the 27 member states. Other countries are reluctant to allow funds that are not subject to EU regulation to be sold in their territories. They want to place strict guidelines on hedge funds, but the UK is concerned that such rules will damage the industry.

It is hard to see why EU should impose protectionist measures that would harm the business in the city of London. As the London mayor Boris Johnson has said:

“Hedge funds won’t go to Paris or Frankfurt, they’ll go to New York or Shanghai […] “What is good for London is good for the UK and what is good for London is good for Europe.”

What is the advantage with such a development?    

If ministers can reach agreement, negotiations can start on getting an agreement with the European Parliament. And the support for open markets and low regulation is unfortunately not very high in this institution. It seems like the EU needs a scapegoat to blame for the financial crisis. But to regulate the legislation governing hedge funds does not improve anything, quite the opposite; it will decrease the tax revenues in London, which will be felt in Britain and Europe as well.

Mar
09

Angela Merkel supported the creation of a European Monetary Fund in a statement yesterday (8 March). This fund should rescue eurozone member countries that are in financial troubles.

“I think the idea [of a European Monetary Fund] is a good one,” Angela Merkel said. “Without changing the [EU] treaty, it cannot be done. We would need a treaty change,” she continued. “If the European Union is to be capable of taking action, it will run into such questions,” she added. “The EU treaty will not be the end of history. Then we would be in a static system. I don’t want that, I want Europe to respond to new situations.”

So a few months after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, it’s time to debate new changes of the treaty? Wouldn’t such a fund give the wrong incentives?

http://www.euractiv.com/en/euro/merkel-warns-emf-would-require-new-eu-treaty-news-321886

Mar
09

I would like to recommend the web site http://www.itsyourparliament.eu/ 

This site gives an overview of the votes cast in the European Parliament. You can easily find and compare voting records of members of the European Parliament and political groups. This kind of tools is very useful for journalists and obviously for interested citizens as well. It is a serious democratic problem that few people know how the members and the political groups are voting, despite the fact that the European Parliament has co-decision rights in most fields, with the new Lisbon Treaty.

Mar
05

Jan A Johansson, researcher for the pan-European political party EU Democrats, has written a report on the European Parliament elections in comparison with all other elections and referendums in the European Union for the period 1979-2009.

Among the conclusions:

  • The European Parliament (EP) elections’ turnout has been historically low –the downward trend is expected to continue.
  • In comparison with other elections, the electorate is less interested in EP elections. EP elections reflect the highest level of apathy amongst voters.
  • When EP elections and local or national elections and/or referendums are held at the same time, turnout in the European Parliament elections increases.

The report is highlighting one major democratic problem, the low turnout in the elections to the European Parliament. On the one side, the Parliament is given more and more power with every treaty. On the other side, the turnout is getting lower with every election, despite the fact that the European Parliament is doing its best to “market” the elections. Before the elections of June 2009, The European Parliament organised an information campaign to raise people’s awareness of its role and urged them to vote using the slogan “It’s your choice!” The campaign was spread over the 27 countries of the European Union covering all 23 official languages. The cost was around 18 million Euros. The money was taken from the 2008 and 2009 budget of the European Parliament, which is a part of the EU’s overall budget. Countries where voter turnout was previously low or was predicted to be low in 2009 were specifically targeted.

Read the report here:

http://www.eudemocrats.org/eud/uploads/THE%20LOWEST%20OF%20THE%20LOW%20-%20EUD%20REPORT.pdf

Mar
03

The Lisbon Treaty was supposed to make the EU speak with one voice in Foreign Affairs and to make the EU act more rapid and coherent when any major international crisis emerge. The result so far? Not very impressive. 

The reaction to the earthquake in Haiti has not been coherent. The EU sent its humanitarian aid commissioner, Karel de Gucht, within days of the tragedy.  The French President, Mr. Sarkozy, went to Haiti as well. Baroness Ashton, Europe’s foreign policy chief, decided to stay in Europe, with the motivation that she had nothing to contribute with on the ground, except taking up valuable space when planes were unable to land because of the state of the airfield. However, the new EU Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, Kristalina Georgieva, is already in Haiti.

Three EU representatives have been in Haiti so far, but not the Foreign Policy Chief herself. Baroness Ashton has now changed her mind. She will go to Haiti today, two months after the earthquake. Her motivation: ”There is still massive work waiting for us (in Haiti). A real Marshall Plan is needed. That is why it is now the right moment to go to Haiti. The airport is open again and high-level visits are not taking up valuable air space and resources” (Daily Telegraph, 2 March 2010).

Wouldn’t it be better to go to the Chilean earthquake region, at this time?  

The member states of the EU have different international priorities and different approaches on how to act in order to help countries in need. When the US is sending Hillary Clinton to Haiti, the EU is debating on whether to go, and whom to send. Who knows, maybe Mr. van Rompuy, the new President of the EU, will go to Haiti as well within a few days. Or to Chile.

Feb
22

Who will become the new President of the European Central bank? The current President of the bank, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet, is due to step down next year.  The Times has published a good article on the top candidates for succeeding Mr. Trichet:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article7036311.ece

Let me guess that Germany will win the battle on this position, and that Mr. Axel Weber, the current head of the Bundesbank, will become the next President of the European Central Bank.

Feb
22

“Three presidents, that’s just too crazy for words”

(C. Boyden Gray, a former US ambassador to the EU, on the leadership structure created by the Lisbon treaty)

Source: www.europeanvoice.com , 22 February 2010

Feb
22

The European Parliament will hold a mini plenary session in Brussels this week (24-25 February). The reform of the common fisheries policies is one of the items on the agenda. The EPs opinions on the EU’s fisheries policies have become very important, since the institution now has full co-decision rights within this area. I think that one particular area of the fisheries policies of the EU deserves special attention, namely the fisheries agreements with developing countries. 

The negotiation and implementation of bilateral fisheries agreements between the EU and developing countries is a key component of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The aim of the agreements is to promote responsible and sustainable fisheries in the waters of non EU countries. The agreements give the European fleet access to fish resources in the territorial waters of developing countries. These agreements are criticised by the environmental movement and aid organisations. The fisheries agreements are concluded primarily with African countries. Several important partners, such as Senegal or Angola, have declined the EU offer to renew a Fisheries Partnership Agreement.

The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) claim that the EU’s fishing fleet is helping to overfish African waters, depriving local fishermen in the developing countries of their main source of income. When the EU concluded a fisheries agreement with Angola, the WWF stated: “Angola is starving but the EU – while providing emergency food aid – has recently signed an agreement to take fish from Angolan waters to feed European markets” (“A WWF Report in Angola Highlights Controversial EU Fishing Agreements with Developing Countries,” WWF, 8 October, 2002).

When the EU signed a fisheries agreement with Morocco in May 2006, some of the EU governments expressed strong criticism. The agreement provides for the EU to pay Morocco €144.4 million under four years in return for giving 119 European vessels opportunities to fish in Morocco’s Atlantic coastal waters, including the disputed territory of Western Sahara, the former Spanish colony that was invaded by Moroccan forces in 1975. The Western Saharan waters should have been excluded from the fisheries agreement, according to the criticism (“New EU – Morocco fisheries agreement in breach of international law”, The Fisheries Secretariat, www.fishsec.org).

The fisheries agreements are concluded with countries that are not full democracies. The government of the country might have a financial interest to conclude the agreement, but it is not necessarily beneficial for the population.

The fisheries agreements have been reformed and improved over the years. Nevertheless, further reform is needed, in order to obtain agreements that are truly beneficial for all parties involved. The basis of the fisheries agreements has remained the same, despite the reforms, namely to secure long term access to third countries fish resources and maintain the European fleet’s presence in international waters. The main determining factor of the financial contribution provided by the EU remains the level and conditions of EU fleets access to developing countries resources, not the developmental needs of the third countries.

Ideally the objective of the agreements should be to contribute to the establishment of responsible and sustainable fisheries in the developing countries. Access for boats of EU origin should be restricted to countries where there is no competition (for resources and fishing zones) with the local small scale sector. The EU should not fish in countries where a surplus has not been proved and prevention of overexploitation cannot be guaranteed. The money paid for the agreements should go into investments in the developing countries fishing sectors, in order to safeguard the future contribution of their fisheries sector to reduce poverty and secure food supply.

Feb
18

New meetings are scheduled of the finance ministers of the eurozone (15 March) and the EU (16 March). Greece will deliver its own assessment by 16 March of how well its deficit reduction is going. The European Commission and the European Central Bank will also give an assessment in mid-March of whether further measures are needed in addition to those approved by EU finance ministers on Tuesday (16 February).

So far the EU finance ministers have placed binding obligations on Greece to reduce its deficit by four percentage points this year and to bring it below 3% of gross domestic product by 2012.  Greece have been asked to reduce civil service recruitment, introduce a pay freeze for the civil service, cut the number of municipal authorities and present a tax reform. The ministers have told Greece to prepare “additional measures” that could be quickly introduced, if necessary, to reach the four percentage point cut, including raising value-added tax, placing excise duties on luxury goods and cars and increasing taxation on energy.

read more in European Voice (18/2):  http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/finance-ministers-take-time-out-over-greece/67167.aspx