Archive for April, 2009

EU fishing failure, the human cost

Posted by Bruno Waterfield in Democracy, EU on April 23, 2009

The European Commission has finally admitted that the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy has failed.

After over three decades of mismanagement a completely new fisheries policy is needed – but don’t hold your breath.

Despite, or more accurately because of, the CFP, 88 per cent of European fish stocks are over-fished, compared to 25 per cent elsewhere in the world.

Almost a third – 30 per cent – of Europe’s managed fisheries are “outside safe biological limits, they cannot reproduce at normal because the parenting population is too depleted”, said a Brussels policy paper out on Wednesday.

“Yet in many fisheries we are fishing two or three more times more than what fish stocks can sustain.”

There is a human cost for this policy failure for hundreds of thousands of European fishermen (280,000 of them), the British whitefish fishing fleet (for example) has been cut 60 per cent.

It seems for nothing.

Fishermen and women are faced with a system that treats them as hostiles and has the added downside of not working.

Last July, I spoke to some of the Irish fishermen at the sharp edge of this failure. Fine people, whose tragic story is a truly European one echoed along the coastlines of Scotland, Spain, France and elsewhere.image015

People like Cliona Conneely (above) have been criminalised for sticking up for themselves and their interests – read more.

As I argued, her expertise and commitment, like that of people in many other walks of life, was overridden by the technocrats and “experts” who impose the “we know best” rules and procedures of officialdom.

But the problem with the CFP is that it is a product of a complex, hidden world of bureaucratic deal-making between EU and national officials. It is not enlightened administration.

Quotas are not set around industry needs, or scientific advice on fish stock conservation, but on trade offs between officials – sometimes on utterly unrelated issues.

Fishing quotas are not allocated on equitable or conservation criteria but on the grounds of contingency for the technocrats, who tell us “they know best” on such complex tans-territorial issues.

Countries like Ireland and the UK, with large coastlines and a fishing industry, lost out as part of their respective late EU membership deals, when civil servants in London and Dublin decided that the industry was worth sacrificing as part of the price to join.

Ireland used to point to its economic growth rates to sustain this argument – which is a brutal, but a valid one, a pity it was not had more openly and publicly at the time (in Britain too).

The CFP is run for the administrative convenience of national and EU officials who use fishing industries as chips in negotiations.

As the Commission has now admitted, this has been a disaster.

Like so much of the EU, the CFP has been more about convenience for officials, inspectors and administrative experts (bean counters) than anything or anyone else.

It is not surprising that European fishermen have become territorial about their waters and sometimes blinded to their industry’s wider interest when the CFP has so often been pitted against them.

I personally have no disagreement with the idea of planning across Europe’s waters, seems like a rational idea to me, but such an economic policy has to be rooted in open, honest, public political debate and democratic consent.

It also has to be about the industry – including, of course, the need to preserve fish stocks – not bureaucratic trade offs, often bringing entirely unrelated side deals on CAP and structural funds into the picture. Read more>>

20 Comments

How dangerous is an anorak?

Posted by Bruno Waterfield in Precautionary principle on April 20, 2009

“It is a miracle that our generation managed to survive into adulthood without legislation like this,” said a European Commission official, rather dryly.

danger-anorak

We were chatting next to a display (see above) of rather harmless and normal looking children’s anoraks displayed as just some of the “dangerous products” seized by EU and national consumer safety officials.

“These items of children’s clothing pose a risk of STRANGULATION due to the presence of drawstrings in the hood area,” said the notice.

Yes. The EU last year acted to tackle the menace posed by laces, cords and belts in clothes placed on the market for children under seven years old. Length restrictions also apply for children up to 14 years old.

Apparently, the banned anorak toggles could get tangled or caught leading to accidental strangulation of children.

In risk-averse Europe, where the EU’s precautionary principle holds sway, this means a ban.

As a small child, my mittens or gloves used to be fixed to long bits of elastic running up the sleeves of my toggled anorak to stop them getting lost. Deadly. A miracle I survived that without the regulators to save me.

“You might think that we are going too far, but that’s not right,” said Meglena Kuneva, Bulgaria’s engaging consumer protection commissioner.

Oh yeah?

In Finland, another EU official told me, fixed hoods on any child’s clothing is banned because of the snag and strangulation risk.

Hoods must now be attached to coats or jackets with Velcro or poppers, something else to get lost.

“Yes, you might well say that children have had drawstrings on their hoods for generations but not any more and they will be safer for it,” said the commission SANCO staffer.

In fact – of course – it is the culture of officialdom that has changed and expanded, “better safe than sorry” is now the maxim for regulators and the minimum requirement now expected of parents.

It is no surprise that, in a world where anorak toggles are banned on “elf and safety” grounds, 51 per cent of children aged 7 to 12 years are not allowed to climb a tree without adult supervision.

An ICM poll for Play England last year found that 49 per cent had been stopped from climbing trees altogether because it was considered too dangerous. Perhaps they could fall and their hoods could get caught? After all, you can’t be too safe. Read more>>

, ,

4 Comments

MEP second pension list published

Posted by Bruno Waterfield in European elections, Secrecy on April 17, 2009

At least 50 per cent of MEPs will get a publicly funded second pension when they retire.

In the British case, where it is 80 per cent of MEPs, the leaders of all the political parties, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Ukip are represented.

Fair enough, they are entitled to it and they must be worth it.

Hat tip to Open Europe for publishing the list (which is not exhaustive) – click here.

The European Ombudsman has repeatedly ruled that the names of the MEPs who benefit from the scheme should be published.

In April 2007, MEPs voted to keep secret the list of names of those who are benefitting from the fund.

Just to remind you how this scheme works.

Two thirds of this extra pension is paid for in supplementary payments by the taxpayer.

MEPs pay £1052(1,194 euros) a month into the scheme. That cash is added to with a publicly funded payment of £2104 (2388 euros).

But and it is a big BUT, at present the MEP’s contribution is automatically deducted from his or her office expenses – although, at last, this is about to change.

There are no checks to ensure that it is paid back.

But I am sure that all MEPs play by the rules.

No one would want wish to imply that any of our representatives to the European Parliament play fast and loose with any allowances or benefits.

MEPs, on reaching retirement age and leaving the parliament, can expect an extra pension benefit, on top the same national scheme for Westminster MPs, worth an annual £14,736 for every five year term of office.

An MEP, like the former Conservative Den Dover, who benefits from the perk can net a combined pension of around £35,000 after just 10 years in office.

2 Comments

Crisis? What crisis for MEPs?

Posted by Bruno Waterfield in Economic crisis, European elections on April 16, 2009

It appears that MEPs are going to brave political unpopularity to bailout their second pensions.

The European Parliament’s powerful and secretive “bureau” has been struggling to plug a £106 million black hole in the fund that pays out a second pension perk to MEPs.

This generous pension perk is already two thirds funded by the taxpayer and predictably the public purse will “almost certainly” be raided to make up fund losses caused by the financial crash and dodgy investments.

The identities of the 478 MEPs who get the publicly funded second pension contributions worth over £12 million a year is a closely guarded secret – read more here.

That benefit bill – on top of national pensions, which are for British MEPs the same as Westminster MPs – could now rise by up to GBP10.6 million a year to meet the shortfall.

Up to half the losses are said to stem form investments, via a Luxembourg fund, in schemes linked to the disgraced American financier Bernard Madoff.

This story has been rumbling around for some weeks now. Several officials I have spoken to in this period have denied both the losses and the likelihood of a pension bailout.

A leaked note from the bureau (the body that runs the EU’s assembly’s administration), dated April 3, makes it clear that “parliament will assume its legal responsibility to guarantee the right of members of the Voluntary Pension Scheme to the additional pension”.

READ MORE>>

3 Comments

Politics for cretins, it is the EU way

Posted by Bruno Waterfield in Democracy, European elections on April 9, 2009

Jesus wept. You just can not make these things up.

In three weeks time various desperate, creepy, touchy feely Brussels communications types (you know who I mean) are hoping to gather “young people” together in European cities to deliver an Isley Brothers-style shout to Europe.

Let us forget for now (suspending disbelief is part of everyday life here in Brussels), that the message already came through loud and clear from France, the Netherlands and Ireland.

Those “shouts”, popular votes, went unheard. But, hey, never mind. That was real politics this is just advertising puff for the European elections.

The “shout” is part of an MTV campaign (three spots, cost of EUR2.3 million) to “encourage young people throughout the European Union to share their feelings, ideas and concerns”.

The ads “feature young people hanging loudspeakers in London, Paris and Rome and aim to encourage young people throughout the EU to express themselves, to make their voices heard”.

“Young people will then be encouraged to make themselves heard politically, by taking part in the European Parliament elections in June.”

Appropriately enough, there is activity planned on Twitter too.

All this excitement comes to a shattering, juddering climax on April 30 with an “EU-wide ‘Can you hear me’ sound wave“.

“Join us for the biggest shout in Europe. Ever. A roaring soundwave that can be heard from the North of Finland to the South of Spain.”

“Yes, that big. Yes, that loud.”

“Do it yourself or with friends – on the street, in town, at home, from a window or on the internet through a webcam.”

“We will film the event for a TV special that will be shown across Europe on MTV.”

Better keep your ears peeled or you might miss it.

Needless to say, behind all the breathless, gushing PR prose is the cynical appreciation that “young people” must be bribed to secure their involvement in such a dreadful and moronic exercise.

“Make your voice heard now and you could be shouting at a top MTV gig somewhere in Europe,” says the website.

“You and a friend could be off to a top MTV event. Capture or record a shout telling us how you feel about being part of Europe; your experiences, travels, culture – whatever you want to shout about! Get your mates involved or make it more personal.”

This is all typically patronising and commitment-lite, an indication of the low expectations and true contempt in which “young people” and the rest of us are held.

It is European politics for cretins. “Whatever you want to shout about”, it doesn’t really matter what, it can be a swivel-eyed Eurosceptic rant, it can  even be your holiday snaps, just as long as you do and as long as you do it with the EU for MTV.

It is a circle jerk. This is the kind of mindless activity that really can make you blind.

People, young or old, should not vote in the European elections unless they think they are being offered a manifesto that directly addresses politics – for the EU, to reform it or against it.

It is better not to vote than to perpetuate a ghastly sham. If low turnout reflects a lack of political engagement with the EU project then so be it.

It is certainly better to do nothing than to indulge the creepy, vampire-like proclivities of the political living dead in their restless search for youthful affirmation via stunts like this.

In terms of how the EU functions and its practices, you can shout all you like. Changing things requires politics.

How much politics, outside the empty, exhausted posturing of mainstream national parties or little England-type nationalists, will there be on offer in the European elections?

Mindless stunts and exhortations to vote (it’s your choice) are no susbstitute for politics and illustrate how little real choice there is.

The EU, and most public authority at the national level for that matter, leans heavily on structures that lift policy to a technocratic realm above politics and maintain a public free zone for officialdom and diplomats.

Time for politics for a change.  To quote the great Gil Scott-Heron:

“The revolution will not go better with Coke. The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath. The revolution will put you in the driver’s seat. The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised, will not be televised, will not be televised. The revolution will be no re-run brothers. The revolution will be live.”

You won’t find the revolution on MTV, especially when it comes from the EU communications people.

6 Comments