Jerzy Buzek has been pontificating on the “very dangerous” idea that EU budgets should not always increase as if by divine right – hat tip Open Europe.
How much majesty does the EU have? (Picture: Open Europe)
The European Parliament’s current president is showing the same Marie Antoinette, “let them eat cake”, qualities as his predecessors – nothing new there.
Over on Euractiv, he makes the fair enough point that structural funds could (although they usually don’t) make a difference to the EU’s competitiveness, especially to overcome economic imbalances. Oh and research is important too.
The problem is that the bulk of the EU budget is not spent on these things.
Too much structural fund money acts as slush funds to be ploughed into the pet projects of national and regional politicians or their pals. EU research is overly politicised and the tiny budget has a tendency to follow the money of rich corporations in improving existing products rather than going where it is needed on risky, pure science.
It is all dwarfed by agriculture subsidies paid to maintain diverse politically correct ideas of what constitutes farming or “sustainable rural development”, indulgences that are unlikely to turn the EU’s economy into a world beater.
Instead of demanding the EU budget remain as it is, by dieu et mon droit presumably, Buzek should be arguing for and convincing us of the spending programme Europe needs. The idea that without EU spending Europe would lose its competiveness rating is an absurd, self-indulgent fantasy. It is losing it anyway.
European economies, sluggish at best, need economic planning and prioritisation to overcome a rentier, risk averse and non-productive outlook that is distorting and inhibiting growth. At present, EU spending tends to reinforce, not challenge, a defensive European culture that is content with a third rate (or even lower) status quo and is scared of the experimentation that can challenge the old –more here and here.
His lack of seriousness is evidenced by his bizarre defence of the parliament’s Strasbourg seat – a “palace” that costs in excess of €200 million a year. Showing a truly regal disdain for reality, Buzek justifies the travelling circus with resort to the irrational mystique of monarchy.
“Strasbourg is a symbolic place. Symbols are important,” he said. “We can also ask whether for some member states it is right to keep a monarchy. But for these countries that has an historical meaning and it is still an important part of public life and interest.”
What a conceit. In Britain, the flummery and pageant of royalty (a witless culture of both traditional and modern celebrity that surrounds people who never achieved anything) is cover for the role of the Crown, unelected institutions, in limiting or containing democracy.
His comparison falls because Strasbourg does not summon up anything like the spurious, stupid glamour of contemporary royalty or the mindless, traditional deference to monarchy. The EU’s undemocratic qualities (all those ignored referendums, closed door decision making, gravy train MEPs etc) are much more exposed.
Open Europe asks: “What’s next, horse-drawn carriages for Buzek and his mates and a regal eurocrat wedding?”
Of course, euro-parliamentarians already have chauffeured limos (Buzek keeps his fulltime, personal car and driver even after he leaves presidential office). And sadly, for us all, Baroness Ashton or Herman Van Rompuy, both married, do not have the dubious attraction of either Chaz, Princess Di or Will and Kate, even if they were to become available.
The EU might not have royals or mystique (apart from all that 60 years of peace blah, blah) but it has plenty of undemocratic institutions and lots of those AD99 people who hold public office without election or merit. Europe, like Britain, needs a healthy dose of democratic republicanism. If the EU was truly a res publica (a public thing) then Buzek would not have to resort to irrational mysticism to justify its institutions.
Parliament might not be properly regal but it does like its flummery and it is at least as out of touch as the court of the Sun King ever was. Below is a picture of the unlamented Den Dover, a former Tory MEP, receiving a medal from Buzek’s imperious predecessor Hans-Gert Poettering.
He still has the medal, where's the money? (Photo: European Parliament)
Dover got his gong for his “vital contribution” despite the fact he has refused to pay back £538,290 in “unduly paid” expenses. Despite the richly earned public disgrace that led to him leaving the parliament, he also picked up a framed certificate “playing tribute to the representatives of the Union’s citizens”.
“The European Parliament expresses its gratitude to the members who, throughout their term of office, have placed their talents and their commitment at the service of citizens and the European project,” declares the text.
Dover still has his medal. The parliament does not have its money – cash that came from the EU budget that King Buzek is so keen to keep unchanged.
Perhaps, like in France on January 21 1793, it is time to send the tumbrels around to rue Wiertz…
#1 by Patrick on January 26, 2011 - 10:47 am
Let’s take this article apart, point by point.
(1) Structural funds are “ploughed into the pet projects of national and regional politicians”. No difference here with public spending in the UK and probably most other countries. You only have to look at the numerous quangos, transport projects driven by local politicians (e.g. guided busways and rent-a-a-bike schemes), millennium dome, Trident and other defence projects for the benefit of the US, overseas aid, etc.
(2) The CAP. Besides the fact that subsidies are at their lowest level since the introduction of the policy and that no serious attempt has been made by any government to try and reduce them, it is unreasonable to expect Buzek to be arguing against the CAP when Poland is one of the main beneficiaries. Perhaps if Britain had pushed a serious candidate for the Agricultural Commissioner’s job, rather than the waste of time which is the Foreign Affairs Rep, then we could have serious reform.
(3) “European economies, sluggish at best” – EU growth for the first quarter of 2011 is predicted at 1.8%, while the UK is looking at a double-dip recession. Those in glasshouses…
(4) Strasbourg. The EP stopped using the “Palace” in 1999 when it moved to the Louise Weiss building. Why did it move? The answer, as usual, is the result of a decision in which the British were prominent. At the Edinburgh European Council summit in 1992, John Major agreed that the Parliament could have two seats – Brussels and Strasbourg, and so construction of the LW building was authorised. Until that point, it would have been possible to insist on Brussels being the single seat.
Next point, why does Buzek refer to Strasbourg as “symbolic”. He doesn’t care much for royalty, why should he? Poland’s last monarch abdicated in 1795 and France’s went much the same way a little earlier. What he is referring to is the fact that Strasbourg is a city which has been fought over many times, changing hands between Germany and France several times. This is one of the reasons why it was chosen (by the Treaty of London funnily enough) as the seat of the Council of Europe after WWII. It then was the seat of the first sitting of the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, a forerunner of the EC. Strasbourg is a historically significant place.
(5) Buzek. It’s a bit rich to criticise Buzek – a former Polish PM and instrumental figure in the Polish anti-communist movement – when Britain sends unelected nobodies and political has-beens to the Commission. Let’s remember that he was democratically elected not only as an MEP but then also as EP President. Rather more than your Baroness.
(6) Den Dover. Another in a long line of dubious British MEPs which include Tom Wise, Ashley Mote, Roger Helmer and Nick Griffin. He is apparently being pursued by OLAF and the EP is trying to get the cash back. One problem though – the EP are limited to recovering the money by setting off amounts which are due to him. It has no power to bring a case in the UK and force the sale of his assets. This is proposed to change with the introduction of the European Public Prosecutor, but guess what, the British are again blocking this approach and have said they will opt out.
There’s a common theme to all the above points. The British govt takes lousy decisions on the EU and then the media seek to blame the EU for the consequences.
#2 by Bos on January 26, 2011 - 11:52 am
Well spotted Patrick!
This is another fine example of the UK school of EU journalism. Summarized in this statement of Mr. Waterfield
“The EU’s undemocratic qualities (all those ignored referendums, closed door decision making, gravy train MEPs etc) are much more exposed.”
Mr. Waterfield, as so many other EU sceptics, seem completely oblivious of the fact that it still is national politics that operate at EU level.
Mr. Waterfield knows, or he should know, that he actually criticizes politics in general (including national politics) but he always presents it in an anti-EU way.
Gordon Brown’s decision not to hold a referendum on Lisbon was not an ‘EU’ decision, but a decision by the British government. If there was pressure from ‘the EU’ it was pressure from national politicians. Barosso could stand on his head if he wanted, he doesn’t have any say in this.
The appointment of Cathy Ashton was made following a UK decision, not an EU decision.
And I suspect the deliberations of the UK cabinet are completely ‘in the sunshine’ as opposed to the ‘closed door decision making of the EU’. What a laugh!
#3 by Rolf on January 26, 2011 - 2:06 pm
What a load of codswallop from Patrick!
Just because Strasbourg is historical (and no more significant than a score of other European cities) is no justification for wasting €200 million200m of taxpayers money annually. Using Strasbourg in this way had nothing to do with its “historical significance” and everything to do with giving the French a sop because they had lost out to Belgium in hosting the HQ of the European Community.
#4 by Patrick on January 26, 2011 - 2:38 pm
@Rolf
€200m is the total cost of all the buildings used by the Parliament in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg – as well the information offices in the 27 Member States.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:069:0203:0212:EN:PDF
The seat of institutions is decided by unanimity:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E341:EN:HTML
That decision was taken in 1992 in Edinburgh:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/edinburgh/a6_en.pdf
Read it and weep. Now who’s talking codswallop?
#5 by Emile on January 26, 2011 - 2:58 pm
Please forgive the below rambling, but it is typed under the constraints of time.
Because I do so enjoy playing devils advocate, I wanted to just address a couple of things that Bruno gets at least partially right. While it is clear that national politics is every bit as dirty as EU politics, everyone who has worked or is working in Brussels will tell you that all is not well. There is no point in countering that argument by saying that Brussels is not the only place like this. True-but that retort serves no purpose as we are discussing Brussels and the need for it to be transaprent and accountable. There are many problems here with commision members and MEPs being much, much too cosy with industry and all the while the citizen remains largely ignored. The shadyness that Mr. Waterfield is refering to does need to improve, really.
Also in fairness to Mr. Waterfield, he hates Catherine Ashton, but that is presumably because she is from Labour (well, and incompetent but mostly because she is Labour I am sure).
However, where he loses out is the fact that I suspect his solution is not to knuckle down and sort the problems out-its to terminate the whole EU project if he could and if not at least have the UK leave. While many Member States would fondly wave the UK farewell, since it is as a whole a distabalising force in Europe, it is unrealistic to be making an EU without one of Europe’s most powerful and wealthy nations. And to be fair also, even thought it is slim, a majority of Brits do want to be in the EU or at least realise its in Britain’s national interest-its just that the barmy army of right wingers shout that much louder.
Not that objecting to the EU makes you barmy-prioritising your national soverignty over economic prosperity is a legitimate view which I can understand. Unfortunately however, of the people who do object, it seems to usually be the most unreasonable who get in print, blaming the EU for everything from their own Government’s lack of negotiation skills, to presumably Global warming and the potential end of the world in 2012. The fact that the right wing press is usually populated by utter economic incompetents also does not help. (a casual perusal of the Daily Mail would, I suspect, confirm my last few points for most).
One thing which Mr. Waterfield is right about (which however lost its strength a little by not being properly elaborated on) is the CAP. Oh how I detest the CAP. Perhaps I do not know enough about it and if so, I would be happy to be enlightened. However it seems to me absurd that the EU can sustain its ambitions of becoming an economic superpower by spending such a huge percentage of its budget on farming. How did we allow the continent that gave birth to Industrialisation to be transforming into the AgroUnion? Yes food is important clearly, but as shown in a recent European Voice article which I commend to anyone, when you take the actual data it emerges that our food production is well in exess of what we need already. And even if that were not the case, I would argue that spending the Union’s money on propping up French (and Polish) farmers is a non-productive exercise in continent wide protectionism. If they were not being propped up, perhaps they would be forced to actually innovate or raise their game to compete on even keel with external producers. Again, if there is a major point I am misisng, enlighten me.
This brings me to innovation. Europe is shooting itself in the foot, by not invetsing much more heavily in industry, science and innovation. We are lagging behind the US and Japan and soon China and India in this field and this is unaccpetable. High Technologies are the future, not farming. if you have economic wealth and prosperity you can buy the food you need from abroad if you must. Comparing the EU to how China will be in a few decades will be like comparing an agrarian nation to an industrialised nation. I ask-who do you think will be superior? It is my view that the budget need to be restructured away from the CAP and towards innovation, technology, research.
Lastly I just wanted to mention that I agree with Patrick’s post in all the areas I have not disagreed with above (though I do not think I have disagreed much).
#6 by Patrick on January 26, 2011 - 9:05 pm
Emile – I agree with your points. I wish that someone would get hold of the CAP and properly reform it, so that more is spent on innovation and R&D. Unfortunately, the countries who benefit most from the CAP are those who succeed in getting the most out of the EU, and those who don’t benefit so much, i.e. the UK, have consistently failed in that area. The last time a proper reform was attempted was by Ray McSharry in the early 90s. Now we have Dacian Cioloş whom the French strongly supported, which gives a clear signal that he will not be attempting big changes.
But this again goes back to the point of lousy govt decisions. Why did the Blair administration give up the opt outs which the Major government had won? Denmark has referendums on such questions, but not Britain. Why did the Blair administration agree to the Constitutional Treaty, knowing that it did not respect the Laeken declaration? Why did Brown then endorse Merkel’s Lisbon Treaty after the French and Dutch had said no to the Constitutional Treaty? Why did the British govt agree for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaty, when it had enough problems at home with the Human Rights Act? Why did Blair give up a chunk of the rebate without securing any reform of the system? Why did Britain agree for the rebate to be calculated in pounds and not EUR?
I could go on all night. The point is that Britain hasn’t wised up to the EU and the people are rightly angry. What the media should be doing is campaigning either for the govt to change its approach or for Britain to withdraw. Instead, we have these cheap shots about royalty and the former Polish PM.
#7 by Emile on January 27, 2011 - 11:45 am
Patrick-oh don’t worry, there is plenty of media in the UK campainging for withdrawal. But you are very right to highlight the appaling track record of goverment decisions from both Labour and the Tories. The issue I think is this. The Tory party is blindly against Europe, refusing to see the truth staring it in the face-that membership of the EU is a good thing in so many ways-economically, politically, culturally and even militarily (since britain’s armed forces are no longer what they used to be and the EU is moving more and more towards military union as well).
What this causes is that while the tories, due to their innate hatred of all things EU, manage to win some vital concessions, they then completely blow it by not engaging with Europe enough and antagonising everyone to the point that they cannot get Britain the influence it disserves. Someone has said that the whisper is sometimes louder than the shout and in the case of the EU this is true-sadly all most of the Tories can do on the EU is shout and pose (or take silly cheap shots as you said). Not to mention that their tactics in Europe are so woeful, they have consigned themselves to membership of the C&R in Parliament which means that they have 0% voice in parliament in real terms. Hell, of the coalition, the LibDems I would argue have a lot more influence in the EP as members of ALDE.
Now Labour on the other hand support the EU, but for some reason that traslates into rolling over completely, rather than engaging as equals as should be the case. I have no idea why Blair did not fight over the CAP, possibly because he was in too much of a hurry to jet off to Washington to see his BFF.
Britain’s approach should be one of firm engagement. What this means is that they should take que from France. If British politicians stop being so shortsighted and try to get cheap headlines about being tough in Europe, they will realise that joining up to European “solidarity” (and by that I mean participating as much as possible in sensible community projects, even if they cost money in the short term) they will be able to joing the EU’s top table and actually be able to dictate matters. In the long term that will yeald a lot more political and fiscal benefits than the pathetic short terminism in play now. If you want to make the big plays, sometimes you have to spend big and risk big in terms of political capital. Germany and France know this and that is why they run the EU. The UK still has to learn this and only when it does will it be able to pull its political weight. The automatic reflex to get opt outs on everything needs to go-that undermines the UK’s image and it should be used to get the opt outs that really matter.
Gah, I wrote too much again…Britain in the EU is a topic that does that to me.
#8 by persephone on January 27, 2011 - 1:18 pm
The latest polls suggest 49% of the British people wish to withdraw immediately from this corrupt (16 years of accounts not being approved), wildly extravagant (5.6 billion for a vanity foreign service) and undemocratic institution (we voted for a common market, not political or military union). The EU juggernaut is destroying European democracy and national sovereignty, while the oligarchs and champagne socialists/Maoists are laughing all the way to the bank.
#9 by Alexandra Lobao on January 27, 2011 - 1:23 pm
Mr. Waterfield,
I suggest you to visit Portugal and assess by yourself to which extent the European structural and cohesion funds have been crucial to so many urban and rural communities affecting large parts of the Portuguese population. European money has been spent in roads, public transports, bridges, hospitals, water and waste treatment systems, dams, urban renovation… Clearly, you ignore the huge positive effects these funds had in reducing ancestral gaps in my home country.
#10 by Marcel on January 28, 2011 - 8:43 pm
@2 Bos
No, but behind the scenes the EU leaned heavily on national politicians ‘threatening’ to limit funds and subsidies if they did not immediately cancel referendums.
Same happened to Ireland, who within an hour of the result of the first were threatened by a whole bunch of democracy hating EU-philes who demanded ‘as many reruns as needed to get a yes’.
#11 by Pedro on January 31, 2011 - 12:04 am
Mr. Waterfield, I always appreciate reading your commentary for it’s comedic value. It is hilarious to read your attempts at equating the Democratic deficit of the European Union with the shamelss shamble that is the u.k. Mr Waterfield, nobody has held office in Brussels for 68 years, BUT THE BRITISH HEAD OF STATE HAS!
Mr. Barroso, Mr. Buzek, and all other EU leaders have not been in office as long as Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Hosni Mubarak, and few others, BUT THE BRITISH HEAD OF STATE HAS!!
Mr. Waterfield, it is your unelected Prime Ministers in London that refuse you ‘people’ referendums, not Brussels!!! In Tunisia, in Egypt, etcetera, people have the courage to take to the streets seeking change. What do you britons do? Write blogs about the Democratic deficit existing in other places?? How brave!!!
Thanks for the laughs Mr. Waterfield, I look forward to your next funny article.
#12 by Roger Cole on January 31, 2011 - 11:11 am
As an Irishman, even I am amazed at Pedro’s overwhelming anti-British attitudes. The Queen of England, while Head of State, has little real power unlike other Presidents like Sarkozy. The real issue is whether one supports national democracy or not. In Ireland, the people voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty. In response the Irish political elite abolished the Forum on Europe which had facilitated democratic debate, restricted democratic access to the corporate media,and spent €millions to convince the people to change their minds on exactly the same treaty in a second referendum. This is the same political elite whose total commitment to their neo-liberal militarist ideology has all but bankrupted the country. Their reward for such loyalty to the EU Empire however was a EU/IMF deal which the Irish people cannot pay. In the election to be held this month nearly 30% of the people have not yet decided who to vote for and blind loyalty to the EU and its deal agreed to by the Fianna Fail government will see it suffer badly in the polls. Whatever happens, let me assure Pedro that Irish-EU relations are going to be central to Irish politics in the years ahead. Let me also assure Pedro that opposition to an Empire did not end with our partial defeat of the British Union,the British Empire. In fact I believe the defeat and decline of the British Empire ( it will not be invading Egypt as it did in 1956) has released the democratic values and instincts of the British people and in the years ahead I can see the Irish and British people fighting together against the emerging EU Empire
#13 by Bos on January 31, 2011 - 3:38 pm
Dear Marcel,
You wrote
“No, but behind the scenes the EU leaned heavily on national politicians ‘threatening’ to limit funds and subsidies if they did not immediately cancel referendums.
Same happened to Ireland, who within an hour of the result of the first were threatened by a whole bunch of democracy hating EU-philes who demanded ‘as many reruns as needed to get a yes’.”
Again showing how shallow your comprehension really is. You blame ‘the EU’ for leaning on national politicians, as if it actually exists as some kind of single-person entity. In reality it was those national politicians who themselves saw the need of a new treaty and therefore put pressure on each other.
It is because a more efficient EU is in the interest of national states, that those leaders pressurized each other.
The same goes for Ireland: the Irish government itself was pro-Lisbon and knew it was needed. Other EU leaders (= national leaders, including your Balkenende) put extra pressure on Ireland.
The problem is people don’t know much about the EU and politicians in power have not invested enough in explaining the EU to them. That is why parties like the PVV get an opportunity to convince citizens of their silly ideas. Including the idea that the EU is bad.
#14 by Pedro on January 31, 2011 - 9:42 pm
I am astonished that an “Irishman” is not aware that in addition to having a hereditary monarch as a head of state, the british also have an unelected head of government. The british people do not elect someone into the Prime Minister’s office (ruling Party elites do that). The Prime Minister of britain does have “real” power. It is astonishing that an “Irishman” would not emphasize that the british ‘house of lords’ is also undemocratic. Astonishing that the ‘house of commons’ elects it’s deputies with a system that completely distorts the will of the people (Party Representation, not Proportional Representation). I am amazed that in 2011, some countries claiming to be Democracies don’t even have written constitutions (britain does not enshrine, in writing, the rights of the citizen). An Irishman is not aware that the british do not have the right of recall of their elected officials, do not have the right of referenda, do not have a written constitution, do not elect their head of government, do not elect their head of state, that a supposed Democracy elects it’s houses of parliament in a manner that is not representative of the people.
Let me assure Roger ‘the Irishman,’ that the Irish people are a free people. The vast majority of Irish people are a freedom, democracy loving people which do not care for british nonsense.
#15 by Tony Camilleri on February 4, 2011 - 9:20 pm
Bruno Waterfield the best part of your article is the last sentence which I fully endorse.
#16 by AndrewTurvey on February 21, 2011 - 1:06 am
What nonsense. The British Prime Minister is indirectly elected. Indirect elections are just as democratic as direct elections and are a legitimate constitutional arrangement for a country to choose.