Archive for category Secrecy

Greek crisis: Time to junk the EU-IMF?

Who should we believe as the Greek and the wider European sovereign debt crisis spirals further out of control?

Should it be the financial markets and the media or the political institutions of state and the hard working officials of the EU and IMF?

In Brussels we trust?

The European Commission and many EU governments, especially in southern Europe, are getting increasingly rattled by their failure to convince financial investors, or speculators, that everything is going to be ok.

On Wednesday, commission officials were angrily threatening credit rating agencies after Standard & Poor had the nerve to give the thumbs down to the EU-IMF by downgrading Greek bonds to junk status.

The downgrade, the first time a euro area member state’s bonds have been junked, came as Standard & Poor also questioned Portugal’s sovereign debt status sending financial markets into a tailspin.

Furious officials have accused the credit rating agencies and markets of being out of step with reality. Be warned, they said, Brussels is ready to use new regulations to stop credit agencies from being the bearers of bad news that undoes all the hard work of officials.

“We have seen developments in the markets that raise some doubts about behaviours of some of the players,” said a Commission spokesman.

New regulations enter into force in December this year allowing the powers that be to make sure “the quality of the rating methodology and the ratings is watched over”.

“We would expect that when credit rating agencies assess the Greek risk, they take due account of the fundamentals of the Greek economy and the support package prepared by the ECB, IMF and Commission,” said the spokesman.

There is a palpable sense of official outrage that markets have not been convinced by the “carefully calculated” aid package for Greece backed by a “concrete” offer of €45 billion in IMF and euro zone loans.

“Isn’t that far more reflective of reality than some of the other hypotheses being put forward as absolute reality?,” said the spokesman.

Others are less convinced that perversly evil markets are undoing all the noble and good work of the officials.

Hugo Brady, a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, told Reuters: “The markets aren’t stupid. They aren’t going to be fooled by elaborate peacocking displays. They can see when reactions are credible and when they are not.”

While not at all convinced that markets should dispose of the fates of nations, I am utterly unconvinced that the world would be ok if only we all trusted the officials.

Governments that raise investment to cover their debts by issuing bonds to be bought, sold and traded in the market have to live with the fact that investors are likely to assess the product before buying it.

There is no reason why – during a crisis or at any other time – a credit agency, or anyone else, should not critically assess Greek, Portuguese or other government bond even if their conclusions are deeply inconvenient for EU-IMF officialdom.

Financial markets, and state dependence on them, have played a major role in the banking fiasco, the resulting recession and the sovereign debt crisis that necessarily followed it.

If politicians, and the EU, were serious about taking on the financial sector, then they should have allowed banks to fail, without allowing the moral hazard of their dodgy dealing to be transferred to public authorities, making sovereign debt an issue.

Limiting the ability of financial players to issue damaging ratings would not make markets more rational. It might make life easier for officials but it would be bad for the public, in the marketplace of ideas, because it would further shroud the workings of finance and sovereign funds in obscurity and mystery.

Credit rating agencies (even if they made a hash of assessing toxic sub-prime assets held by banks before the crisis) have the same right to pronounce on sovereign debt as anyone else.

What’s next? Should the regulators start looking at the “methodology” of newspaper articles slating the EU’s cack-handed attempts to solve the Greek crisis?

Europe’s crisis will not get better or go away if people stop or are stopped from scrutinising or rating government bonds or EU-IMF packages.

European countries are deep trouble, problems that have been compounded by the junk policies, let alone bonds, of Europe’s governments and their Union. Let’s start a run on their authority.

10 Comments

MEP second pension list published

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

More hypocrisy in the European Parliament

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

E-who? Politics behind closed doors

Welcome to this blog.

I want to make it a place where pro-European ideas as opposed to pro-EU ideology can be discussed.

To kick off the debate (and I will be joining in on the comments), I would like to plug a pamphlet I worked on with the Manifesto Club.

eu-phrasebook-cover2

I argue that the European Union has evolved, not as a federal super-state that crushes nations underfoot, but as an expanding set of structures and practices that have allowed Europe’s political elites to conduct increasing areas of policy without reference to the public.

I go into some detail as what the structures and practices are that lie behind the EU – there is quite a lot of completely new material based on six years work in Brussels.

Here’s how it opens…

Five years ago in a nondescript Brussels meeting room, in the dreary Justus Lipsius building, the leaders of France, Germany and Britain took some time out of a gruelling European Union summit for a trilateral meeting.
Negotiations on a text that was later to become the EU Constitution were proceeding badly under the chairmanship of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi in December 2003. The talks were to be completed, under the aegis of the Irish, the following June.
Jacques Chirac, at that time the French president, was keen to sign up Tony Blair, the British prime minister and Gerhard Schröder, German chancellor, to ‘a pact between France, Britain and Germany under which none of the three countries would hold referendums’.
Chirac was worried that he had more or less promised the French people a vote on a future EU Constitution and, according to someone present in the room, ‘clearly wanted to get out of any such undertaking’.

Read the full essay by downloading it as a PDF – click here.

My conclusion:

Today there is a new political divide: between those who accept the political process should be based on mistrust of the people, conducted behind the EU’s closed doors, and those who do not.

The EU referendum question has become constitutional in the true sense of the word: it is about the nature of politics, who participates in politics, and for whom political structures are organised.

Debating the EU needs to become an argument about what politics should be, in opposition to how it is.  I hope this blog can be one of the places this can happen.

, , , ,

2 Comments