Archive for category European elections

Res publica, royalty and EU

Posted by Bruno Waterfield in Democracy, Economic crisis, EU, European elections on January 25, 2011

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…

16 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

More hypocrisy in the European Parliament

Posted by Bruno Waterfield in European elections, Secrecy on March 11, 2009

Euro-MPs have commendably voted for new rules making it easier to get legislation related European Union documents into public view.

But, inevitably, sadly, predictably and hypocritically the same MEPs have decided that the same openness should not apply to how they spend their expenses.

This is a great pity as the proposals, drafted by Michael Cashman, are a major improvement on the current secrecy status quo.

The hypocrisy – to make sure Euro-MP expense accounting is exempt – is already being used by opponents of greater access to documents, especially the European Commission to discredit openness.

It was the EPP – that’s the European Parliament’s largest centre right grouping, including the Tories – that tabled the amendments to ensure that MEPs’ financial accounting could remain top secret.

The PES – the second largest, Socialist, grouping, including Labour – agreed, partly as a trade off to preserve the proposals. The Liberals in Alde voted against, to their credit.

Tory and Labour Euro-MPs decided that their expenses would remain exempt from public interest requests under existing rights and privileges contained in the “Members’ Statute”.

Article Six of this EU legislation states “(1) Members shall be entitled to inspect any files held by Parliament. (2) Paragraph 1 shall not apply to personal files and accounts.”

This is the catch all privilege that is currently used to hush up wrong doing by MEPs by preventing any scrutiny of how they spend their allowances.

Here is the amendment, number 115, from Hartmut Nassauer on behalf of the EPP:

“The definition of an overriding public interest in disclosure shall take due account of the protection of the political activity and independence of Members of the European Parliament, in particular with regard to Article 6(2) of the Members’ Statute.”

“Justification. With a view to protect the political activity and the independence of members, the Members’ Statute provides that personal files and accounts of a Member of the European Parliament are not accessible by other Members of the European Parliament. As the Members’ Statute is directly applicable Community law, other legal acts must respect its provisions and cannot allow circumventions. Therefore it seems appropriate to include the specific nature of these documents in the definition of an overriding interest.”

This amendment means that accounts or financial disciplinary measures, such as demands for MEPs to pay back money back, will not be counted as documents even though such information would be on the basis of the parliament’s rules and procedures.

Read more>>

, ,

2 Comments

Oh what a turn off

Posted by Bruno Waterfield in Brussels life, Democracy, EU, European elections on February 17, 2009

It costs £53,000 for every hour broadcast but under 160,000 people have watched it since broadcasting began in mid-September. Over 60,000 of those were in the first week.

This means that this lavishly funded European Union channel attracts less than 1200 viewers every day, from an audience of over 400 million.

It is, of course, the European Parliament’s EuroparlTV. That’s the web-TV service that will cost over £32 million over four years, over £9,000 worth of vanity programmes for each and every MEP.

The viewing figures (hat tip to Julien Frisch) are impossible to verify and have to be based on whispers or hints from various parliament sources because no official figures are being released.

I asked one parliament official if he could tell me the viewing figure. “No. We are not interested in the figures,” came his reply. Yes, things are that bad.

Read more.

, , ,

10 Comments