eurealist.co.uk

A rigged dialogue with society
The Economist 22 Oct 2004

From VOTE NO on side Bar

How independent are the civil-society organisations beloved by the European Commission?

THE European Commission knows it has an image problem. To try to fix things, it is creating the new post of commissioner in charge of communications. Margot Wallstrom, previously responsible for the environment, promises that one of her first actions in office will be to hold “brainstorming sessions” with “civil society”. Talking to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that purport to represent civil society is a proxy for the commission’s talking to ordinary Europeans. But there is something odd about this dialogue. Many of the NGOs that Brussels likes to consult are directly financed by the commission itself.

Take the “dialogue with civil society” that took place during the Convention on the Future of Europe, which last year produced a new draft constitution for the European Union. Sensitive to the charge that it was dominated by Europe’s political elite, the convention set up civil-society contact groups, allowing NGOs to air their views. Giuliano Amato, one of the convention’s vice-presidents, stressed the importance of “the support of civil society in legitimising the final outcome of the convention’s work”.

Happily, civil society seemed supportive of the idea of expanding EU power. The working group on citizens and institutions called for “the government of the Union to be in the hands of the commission, which alone was capable of representing the common interests of its citizens.” Five NGOs on this working group were invited to deliver this message directly to the convention. But all five—the Young European Federalists, the Federalist Voice, the Active Citizenship Network, the European Network Against Racism and the Polish NGO Office in Brussels—are financed, directly or through EU-funded members, by the commission itself. It is hardly surprising that they are eager for their paymasters to become the government of the Union.

The amounts of money involved are large. The Young European Federalists, which styles itself an autonomous youth organisation campaigning for “the creation of a European federation”, has received €466,000 ($560,000) from the commission since 2000, accounting for at least 50% of its funding. And this is just one of hundreds of NGOs funded by the commission. Romano Prodi, the commission’s outgoing president, boasted in a discussion paper in 2000 that “over €1,000m a year is allocated to NGO projects directly by the commission”. Most of this money goes to organisations that are not directly political: over €400m was allocated to humanitarian aid for example. But Mr Prodi also reckoned that €50m went to educational NGOs and €70m to social NGOs.

Some of the organisations financed by the EU directly promote political messages congenial to the commission. Indeed, some are assisted precisely so as to influence the political debate in Europe at critical moments. Just as Poland was completing its negotiations to join the EU, and preparing for a referendum on whether to join, the commission devoted millions of euros to pro-European initiatives in Poland. The commission influences the climate of debate more generally, by subsidising many of the think-tanks studying the EU, and by promoting the introduction of European integration studies in universities across Europe. Its Jean Monnet project has enabled European universities to set up over 2,000 teaching projects since 1990, as well as funding over 400 Jean Monnet chairs.

NGOs dealing with social issues are also big recipients of EU cash. Scores of such organisations, campaigning on issues ranging from conservation to corporate social responsibility, have been set up in Brussels. The commission finances many of them partly because they are convenient interlocutors for the various policymaking directorates. Suppose the environment or social-affairs directorates are thinking of issuing new directives and want to be seen to take account of the views of European citizens. What could be easier than picking up the phone and arranging a meeting with the local (commission-funded) NGO?

When is an NGO a GO?

Simon Wilson, director of the Platform of European Social NGOs, points out that the commission is hardly unusual in supporting NGOs. Most western governments and many international organisations do the same thing. The World Bank, for example, has made a huge effort to step up its contacts with NGOs. Mr Wilson argues that it is in governments’ interest to foster such links, since they can then tap into a wide range of expertise and experience. His own organisation received €369,383 from the commission in 2003-04, some 90% of its budget. But Mr Wilson denies that this compromises its independence. “On some occasions we broadly support the commission’s line”, he says, “but on many others we oppose it.” He cites two examples: the Social Platform’s campaign for new anti-discrimination legislation, and its effort to insert a clause in the draft EU constitution, making consultation with civil society a legal obligation.

This last (successful) campaign was, perhaps, a tad self-interested. But campaigning on their own behalf is a big occupation of these groups. Look at the websites of EU-funded NGOs and it becomes clear that one of their favoured activities is to lobby for even more EU money. Thus the European Network against Racism (80-90% commission-funded) complains truculently that “the present budget line for anti-racist activities is…insufficient. The network…needs to put pressure on the European institutions with a view to increase this amount.”

The spectacle of organisations that receive EU money using their money to campaign for more EU money is only one example of this looking-glass world. It is a world in which so-called NGOs are actually dependent on government for cash; and one in which the European Commission, itself directly financed by Europe’s national governments, finances “autonomous” organisations that campaign for more power and money to be handed to the commission itself.

An another look at the Buttiglioni Affair

Conservative Commentary:

“Even the initially supportive President of the European Commission, Jose Barraso, has responded to controversy over the putative appointment of Rocco Buttiglioni as Italy’s Euro-Commissioner by backing down. As a Bible-believing Christian, Buttiglioni’s mainstream Catholic views on the benefits of marriage to children and the morality of homosexual acts were too much for the European Parliament, which is now threatening to vote down the entire European Commission - tossing Peter Mandelson out of high office for a third time - if Rocco Buttiglioni is not withdrawn.”

With a comment from EU SERF

which puts into perspective the view of a real Conservative against that of Leftisim

Prof. Buttiglioni is the victim of a view of the world which says that the role of politicians is to meddle in everyones lives.

No self respecting leftist would fail to use a position of power to try to change the way people think. (Probably a great number of conservatives would do the same.)

However in the conservative tradition of limited government a persons personal beliefs are of little relevance as there is an assumption that he will not try to force them on everyone else.

Leftists are not able to understand this so they reject anyone who does not believe in their world view. This is the source of their intolerance.
EU Serf

From VOTE NO on side bar,

In an interview with the Sunday Times, outgoing Commission President Romano Prodi suggested that businesses wanted the EU to produce more regulations. He claimed, “Most regulation is actually requested by industry” (Sunday Times, 17 October).

If the EU parliament does veto the new Commision, Prodi may well not be outgoing quickly enough many.

Prodi’s comment demonstrates the detachment of EU officials from the concerns of ordinary businesses. While some large businesses who can afford to lobby in the EU may favour a higher level of regulation - to hold back smaller competitors - most businesses are concerned about over-regulation. A poll of 1000 chief executives of UK firms in April this year found that 74 percent thought regulations introduced in the last five years had damaged their businesses. 59 percent thought that the EU Constitution would be “bad for their business” because it would lead to an even higher level of regulation.

The EU is always making claims that they are only making regulations, because they are asked to by this or that organisation. The truth is that the EU regulations industry is about one thing and one thing only, and that is to increase the power of the Union over that of the nation states. The EU decides what it intends to do and then it goes out of its way to find the appropriate organisation often backed by the EU itself to agree, the EU then ignores any voices raised in opposition.

The point “Vote No” raises that it is the larger business that demand these regulations which have the effect of putting more pressures on smaller business making them less competitive and eventually driving them out of business altogether is well made. The EU is about larger everything except democracy!

Net contribution to the EU to rise

As the EU wants to increase the amount of money we must all pay into its coffers to enable it to continue to support Palestinian Terrorists, the Monett centres of EU propaganda among other many worthy EU causes.

According to a study by the French International Relations Institute (IFRI), quoted by Die Welt, Berlin’s net contribution to the EU could rise to 16bn euro a year by 2013.

In 2002, the net contribution of the Union’s largest member state was 7 bn euro; this rose to 9.5bn euro last year.

The institution has based its calculations with the EU budget set at one per cent of gross national income - something demanded by six of the biggest contributors to the EU budget, including Germany.

However, should the British rebate be taken away and instead a general rebate for all member states put in place, then Germany’s contribution would sink to 14.113bn euro.

To date Germany has been the biggest paymaster of the EU, but if Britain were to loose its rebate, and this is certainly very much on the cards, unless Tony is prepared to borrow one of Cherie’s handbags and do a Thatcher. We will find that it is Britain which will be paying the lions share into the EU bottomless pit, because we pay in £4.3 billion at present and the rebate would just about double that amount, therefore our costs would rise at the same rate as the suggested German rate. So in 2013 it will cost us around the same figure as Germany, and if the German economy continues to stagnate and the British economy continues to grow, we may well find ourselves in the unenviable position of taking the lead as the biggest paymaster.

In the news the cost of MPs! Apart from their £57,000 MPs are claiming extra expenses to the tune of on average £118,000, these expenses include costs to cover travel, run their offices and maintain second homes in their constituencies.

On top of this figure MPs are also entitled to a lump sum payment of between 50% and 100% of their final salary as a lump sum payment along with their pensions when voted out at an election.

This is the first time these figures have been published MPs decided to release the information voluntarily before the Freedom of Information Act forced them to do so from January.

With the Exclusion of SNP Angus Robertson £147,975, all the top ten claimants were to a man or woman, Labour MPs. Clair Curtis Thomas, Crosby wins the first prize by claiming £168,889. Whilst Keith “Beano” Vas comes a close second with a mere £164,265.

This on the face of it is a very great cost to the British taxpayer who have to struggle on an average wage of £20,000. I am sure that out there, some people will be prepared to jump to the defence of these charges, but before doing so, they should consider some of the following points:

In the past thirty years the work an MP must do in order to make any claim to represent their constituents by scrutinizing legislation, has more than halved, as now the majority (minimum 60%) of our laws are made in the EU, and are not subject to approval or alteration by the British Parliament; they play at looking at some of the stuff streaming out of Brussels, but they can do nothing about it anyway.

Whilst these MP are always on the front line in demanding our industry or service sector to continually cut costs and become ever more efficient; they have had their own work load cut by at lease 50% whilst their own costs are spiralling, what other organisation would still exist today if were the case.

The House of Lords which still does take its job of scrutinizing carefully legislation and amending it, if needs be, as well as producing copious and carefully argued reports on various aspects of EU legislation, the constitution and many other matters, costs a total of £91,000, per member to run, but House of Commons cost: £409,000, per member and just to add to the general discussion of value for money, in the 2002-3 session, the, the House of Lords sat for 174 days, whilst our representatives in the Commons only sat for 162 days. It is looking as if our much maligned second chamber is much more cost effective than the Commons.

All this however, pales into insignificance when we look at the cost of running the real government of Britain; the European Parliament cost a staggering £1,138,000, per member to run and in line with their more important position in society? these MEPs only sat for a total of 161 days in the 2003-04 session.

The EU Parliament, by putting pressure on the new EU Commision President José Manuel Durão Barroso, to drop Rocco Buttiglione - the Italian Commissioner under fire for his conservative views on gays and women, is staking a claim to a superior level of power than the individual states that send their chosen Commissioners.

They are in effect taking the line that the states must only suggest people the Parliament will accept. According to Andrew Duff, a liberal MEP; the current situation is one of those “historical moments”.

It is historical in that the Europhiles can no longer maintain their brainless claim that the states are in charge of the EU, and that power flows from our governments to the Commision who sets the agenda.

This procedure is on its way out in any case, because the EU Constitution makes changes to the rules on the states ability to choose their own Commissioner. In the future the state must suggest three people and the Commission President will then choose which of the three he will select to be in the Commision.

You can imagine the horse trading that will then go on between the Parliament and the President, with the States representing the people who have to pay for all of this charade, having to stand on the sidelines and watch.

I suppose only those people that have shown a history of supporting gay rights, or being suspected of some fraudulent activity in their past will be considered acceptable to the socialist block in the EU Parliament.

President elect Barroso has said today that he intends to keep the present make up of his commision and put the ball firmly back into the Parliaments court in the hope that his entire Commision will survive the vote.

But which ever way it goes the Parliament have placed their marker on the proceedings and in the future everybody will have to consider this when selecting their Commissioners.

And to think we did not know any of this was going to happen when we joined that nice trading group the Common Market.

Scotsman.com News - Latest News - Whistleblower Hands EU ‘Corruption’ Papers to SFO:

The former European Commission chief accountant Marta Andreasen who was brought in by Neil Kinnock to counter allegations of corruption and mismanagement.
But he suspended her from her job in May 2002 when she refused to sign off the EU accounts and made known her concerns to the public, she has now been sacked for breach of trust and disloyalty??? after she went public with her belief that lax accounting left the £63 billion a year euro-budget “massively open to fraud”.

Ms Andreasen eventually sacked last week after a two year suspension, insisted today, at a press conference that she did not regret her actions, she said she had acted in the interests of the public. She said “I do not withdraw the claims that I have made and I am not sorry for the actions that I have taken.

“Whatever The EU Commission say I communicated my concerns about the accounting systems to the hierarchy at the right time. I proposed changes and instead of getting an answer I was removed from the job.”

Ms Andreasen joined UKIP MEP Ashley Mote to deliver documents to the Serious Fraud Office in London, which they say support a number of allegations about the EU.

They argue that the UK Government is knowingly behaving in a fraudulent manner by paying money to Europe.

The papers they handed in today support allegations of institutionalised fraud and corruption at the heart of the EU, they claim.

Lack of financial control means some 95% of funds have not been accounted for and there has been no audit of the treasury for the last 14 years, they say.

They also say the EU accounting system is structurally flawed and there are seriously defective management controls.

With money in more than 200,000 bank accounts in 45 banks worldwide, inadequate accounting systems mean fraud is easy to commit and hard to detect, they claim.

They say there have been cover-ups within the EU hierarchy and money laundering by EU officials through a New York office.

They were backed in their concerns by leading barrister Leolin Price QC and it was suggested that if no criminal action was taken there was still the possibility of a civil case against the Government.

Mr Mote said: “This is a catastrophe for British taxpayers. It is a scandal that successive British governments have turned a blind eye to this disgraceful and unacceptable state of affairs for so long.”

He said the Government’s funding of the EU to the tune of £12 billion a year must stop “at once”.