skip to main |
skip to sidebar
EUobserver reports today yet another high profile failure in the EU's grand-style, centralised policy-making, adding to a list that includes, most notably, the huge waste and imbalances of the Common Agricultural Policy, the depleted fish stocks of the Common Fisheries Policy and the euro austerity crisis.
Around 75 'green' NGOs are calling jointly for the EU to scrap its flagship environmental scheme for trading carbon emissions - the ETS - accusing the scheme of actually increasing carbon emissions instead of reducing them.
According to the EU, the ETS scheme is "a cornerstone of the European Union's policy to combat climate change and its key tool for reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively." It covers more than 11,000 power stations and industrial plants in 31 countries, as well as airlines.
But environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth and Carbon Trade Watch, say that by distracting from the task of reducing consumption and dependency on fossil fuels, the scheme has caused emissions to rise.
They also highlight how the EU-ETS facility to import cheaper emissions permits from abroad in return for the polluter supporting 'offset' projects in developing countries has provoked land-grabs, human rights violations and related environmental damage in poverty-stricken regions.
'Life support'
In recent months the EU-ETS has been described as being on "life-support" due to a collapse in the price of its carbon permits - the opposite of the scheme's intention. The EU hoped that higher carbon permit prices would incentivise businesses to cut emissions or invest in clean technologies.
Companies have blamed government handouts of too many free permits in order to limit the initial impact of the scheme on the highest polluters and are supporting a European Commission proposal to suspend future permit auctions, hoping that consumption of credits in the interim will prop up prices. MEPs on the European Parliament's environment committee are due to vote tomorrow on the Commission's proposed reform.
The scheme's faults mirror the EU's similarly ill-judged rush to promote biofuels through dramatic targets and offering generous subsidies to grow fuel crops. The result has been large-scale deforestation in developing countries as land was cleared for growing these newly lucrative crops, together with a dramatic rise in food prices as farmers cashed in by switching millions of acres from food production.
Faulty structure
There are huge questions here, of course, about the merits or otherwise of biofuels and about how best to manage and preserve our natural environment.
But the far more fundamental question these failures should provoke is about whether the EU represents the best structure for effective decision-making on the now wide range of policy areas affecting our lives over which it has control.
The course of the EU's development has now demonstrated repeatedly through the increasing number of 'grands projets' emerging from its structure that over-centralised decisions, made by institutions too far removed from democratic accountability, are much more likely to be of poor quality and detrimental to Europe's security and prosperity.
Break down the elements of EU decision-making and its easy to see how this comes about.
First policy ideas are boiled down to the lowest common denominator in order to secure majority support in the Council of Ministers, often involving persuasion based not on the merits of the policy in question but on horse-trading over the benefits a country or countries could gain from a completely separate forthcoming EU decision.
Second, the counter-balancing and constructive pressure of having to answer to voters on pain of losing their jobs, perks and privileges is not something felt by the vast majority involved in make EU decisions. Not even large numbers of MEPs who, thanks to the list system the European Parliament employs, enjoy safe seats by virtue of being near the top of their party's slate of candidates.
Third, majority voting on most policy areas in the Council of Ministers prevents those countries that disagree with an EU policy or strategy (perhaps rightly) opting out of its effects, resulting in these poor quality decisions and the resulting damage being imposed uniformly on a pan-continental scale.
Finally, when policies go wrong, the cumbersome structure and huge turning circle of the EU means that changing course and limiting the damage takes years. Despite EU biofuels policy having being roundly criticised now for several years, no change is expected before 2020. Even then, the EU's inherent faults mean new decisions are unlikely to be better constructed.
EU unfit
The growing evidence of failed policies confirms the view of many that the EU's structure simply isn't fit to make decisions of the quality required in the huge areas of policy with which it is today entrusted.
Its activities on the environment have shown vividly the damage its poor decisions can cause, but this is likely to be the tip of the iceberg relative to the effect of EU decisions in the many other policy areas in which it governs with longer or more obscure feedback cycles.
Damage to the environment is bad enough. The detrimental impact of intrinsicly poor EU decision-making on a wide range of policies imposed over an entire continent should give far greater cause for worry with respect to Europe's future prospects.
The best solution would be for the accountable leaders of the EU's member governments to open their eyes and take steps to reinvent fundamentally the EU's structure to become more flexible, dynamic, accountable and attuned to Europe's 21st century needs rather than those of the 1950s.
Since the multiplicity of interests propping up the existing structure makes this highly unlikely, it is Britain's relationship with the EU that must in fact be rebuilt from first principles - those of trade, co-operation and cultural exchange, rejecting outdated and flawed centralisation.
Only days into office, our new Con-Lib coalition government has been humbled by those who have actually long been in charge - the European Union.It appears that the EU cannot be prevented from making a new financial services law that threatens to drive Britain's hedge funds industry offshore and cost us billions in tax revenue.
Quoted in Frankfurt's FAZ newspaper, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made clear the mirage of Britain's influence in Brussels and the state of democracy within the EU when she said: "Unfortunately we have to overrule the UK, but that is possible with a majority."
Given our government can be completely over-ruled by the EU, many would be forgiven for wondering why we bothered so recently to elect a government of any political colour.
It seems it was not to govern.
What election?
Once again we are shown that a majority of ministers from other European governments are in charge and all our new 'leaders' in Downing Street seem to be able to offer in response is shrugged shoulders and mutterings about battles they can't win.
Worse, their response shows no interest in actually seeking to change this anti-democratic EU situation and to regain the power to prevent severe damage being caused to a key British business sector.
How do our politicians hope to restore public faith in our democratic system if they continue to appear in this way to be little more than puppets, unable to control a Brussels regime making damaging laws that both business and government oppose?
Do David Cameron and George Osborne actually want to govern, or do they only want to posture - to occupy lofty positions, but only tinker on the margins while major decisions over how the country is run are made in Brussels by ministers in other governments that no-one here elected?
Media failure
While the response of our new leaders has so far been little more than pathetic and embarrassing, the issue at least reflects accurately the state of national democracy under the EU regime.
Yet, perversely, the EU remains largely unrecognised by the 'Westminster Village' - in which I include political journalists in the mainstream media - as a major contributor to today's lack of public faith in our political system.
Not once during the election campaign did we see or hear mention of how wriggling in the most blatant way out of a clear election promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution - when it returned repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty - undermines trust in election promises being made by Labour or the Liberal Democrats, in particular, this time around.
Not once during the election campaign, despite the amounts concerned overshadowing considerably other points of economic debate, and despite the waste of it being crystal clear, did we see or hear mention of the scale of cash Britain will hand over to the EU this coming financial year - £7.6bn (net).
No candidate was asked to justify this, while economic debate focussed on much lesser amounts.
Naturally, the politicians don't want to admit the extent to which they've marginalised themselves by handing ever more powers to the EU.
But, worse, the media seem complicit in their game that day-to-day government in this country has not become little more than a charade.
Critical cash
Has the print media, in particular, even considered that their falling revenues may to some extent be explained by the fact that political journalism appears to have drifted away from reality, occupying the same bubble as the politicians?
Sure, much news is now obtained online. The rise of the internet is undoubtedly also a factor.
But if it appears that the mainstream print media are failing to hold politicians to account - by failing to puncture their spin and to challenge them with the big questions about their credibility - why then should anyone bother buying a newspaper?
It seems a first step in putting greater pressure on our politicians to seek to govern again may be to pressure our media to burst the bubble of our leaders' increasing powerlessness.
It's a fair bet that for them to do so more robustly than at present may even be in the media's own best financial interest.
Reality check
What Nick Clegg and the rest of our new government must conclude from this early losing power clash with the EU is this. Electoral reform without rebalancing the EU's powers back in favour of elected governments - as the pre-coalition Conservative manifesto pledged steps towards - would merely be rearranging the deckchairs while democracy, and public faith in our political system, carries on sinking.
Stuart Wheeler has lost his High Court case to hold the goverment to its promise of a referendum. While Mr Wheeler has indicated his intention to appeal, the passage in the earlier version of this post about this legal hurdle in the path of final ratification of the treaty by Britain has been deleted.
However, further doubts are emerging that the Polish president is going to sign the treaty, with the office of the president beginning to publicly argue that the treaty is dead following the Irish No. This change is reflected in the updated summary below.
So far that leaves the treaty rejected by referendum in Ireland, its "substantially equivalent" predecessor rejected in public votes in France and Holland, and now ratification put on hold in the Czech Republic and Poland.
This effort by the EU - represented by the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution - to gather more power for itself at the expense of Europe's democratic governments has taken up nearly a decade of governmental wrangling and battling against public opinion that could have been much more profitably spent preparing European countries for major future challenges.
Another year of wrangling is now on the cards while the EU tries to find ways to get the treaty past the Irish people.
Enough is enough. Either the EU must now drop its 1950s superstate ambitions as a result of these multiple rejections of the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution project.
Or those who wish to see Europe make real progress in the face of modern challenges must start exploring new ways and new structures to achieve this beyond the malign influence of the EU's anti-democratic obsession with political integration.
It is self-evident that it is not necessary to pass ever more decision-making powers to remote central institutions for countries to co-operate together on the issues that affect us all.
So for how much longer will the EU's out-dated centralisation agenda be allowed to distract from tackling the issues that European countries really need to address to be fit for the 21st century?
Does Europe have any genuine leaders, with a vision for the future rather than a lazy adherence to ideas of the past? Now is the time for such a person to stand up.
------- Ratification: the state of play (updated) -------
Eight countries have yet to complete ratification of the Lisbon treaty through their Parliaments, with ratification in two further countries still awaiting presidential signatures. While the treaty may have become law in the rest, it does not come into effect until all 27 EU member countries have ratified it. So here's a run-down of the hurdles the treaty has yet to clear:
Belgium: the treaty has been passed by the country's two houses of parliament and currently awaits approval in Belgium's five regional and community assemblies.
Czech Republic: currently suspended pending a decision of the country's constitutional court on whether the treaty is in line with Czech law. President Vaclav Klaus has spoken out against continued ratification, as has the chairman of the country's senate.
Cyprus: ratification of the treaty is expected to go ahead on 3 July, according to the Cyprus Mail. Only the Green Party has called for a postponement.
Ireland: having voted 'No' a week ago, Irish ministers and leading 'Yes' campaigners have made it clear that due to the high turnout a re-run of the referendum will not be politically possible. Nevertheless, the country will be under considerable pressure from the EU and other member states, who are continuing to ratify the rejected treaty regardless.
Italy: the Italian government has said that it aims to ratify the treaty by August, but there may be complications in the form of the Northern League - a major partner in Silvio Berlusconi's new coalition government. The party says that it intends to present a Bill demanding a referendum, calling the treaty "a serious abandon of sovereignty". However, Berlusconi's party has a significant majority together with its other coalition partner, so a referendum Bill is not expected to succeed.
Netherlands: the Dutch government seems ready to treat Ireland differently to the response they received after their 2005 rejection of the Lisbon Treaty's predecessor - the EU Constitution. Having been approved by the country's parliament earlier this month, despite the presentation of a 42,000-signature petition demanding a second referendum, the treaty is now being considered by the Dutch senate. This is considered a formality and due to be completed over the summer.
Spain: ratification has been held up by a change of government but is likely to be completed, possibly before the end of June. The Spanish government support continued ratification.
Sweden: Reuters report that ratification of the treaty is to continue as planned despite Ireland's 'No' vote. This is according to a statement by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, writing on his blog last Friday. The Swedish parliament will vote on ratification this autumn, and it is expected to receive majority support.
Two further countries which are generally described as having approved the treaty in fact have not absolutely finalised ratification.
In Poland, the treaty was approved by the country's Parliament in April, but Polish president Lech Kaczynski was reportedly waiting until the outcome of the Irish referendum before adding his signature. Influential voices have urged him not to sign and on 23 June fresh doubts emerged that Mr Kaczynski will approve the treaty. According to EUobserver, presidential aide Michal Kaminski told Poland's Radio ZET that "There are a lot of indications that...the Lisbon Treaty today doesn't exist in a legal sense because one of the [EU] countries rejected its ratification," indicating that the president's office now regards the treaty as dead.
Similarly, in Germany, while both houses of the German parliament have passed the legislation ratifying the treaty, German President Horst Koehler has yet to sign it pending a Constitutional challenge. Peter Gauweiler, an MP and member of the Christian Social Union, has launched the bid to have the treaty ruled unconstitutional citing objections that the treaty impinges on German sovereignty, in particular on the rights of German citizens to representation by members of the German parliament.
