The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has published a note on the signing of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America (ACTA) by the European Union and its member states.
At the first signing ceremony, 1 October 2011, ACTA was signed by Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States.
Yesterday, 26 January 2012, ACTA was signed for the EU (Council or Commission) and 22 of the 27 member states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
In other words, Mexico and Switzerland have not signed yet. The EU member states which did not sign the agreement yesterday are expected to do so on the completion of respective domestic procedures. They are: Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands and Slovakia.
ACTA contents
The ACTA negotiations were conducted as a master class in undermining trust by and in governments and the European Union, but many of the public comments, for instance on Twitter #ACTA, give an impression that the contents of the agreement should be better known before being understood.
The proposal for a Council decision COM(2011) 380 exists in 22 official EU languages, with the agreement annexed. The English version is here.
INTA rapporteur and events
The ACTA rapporteur in the EP Committee on International Trade (INTA), Kader Arif, renounced his preparatory task as a protest move against the process (in French).
The Pirate MEP Christian Engström offers an orderly view of a chaotic situation. The text of the blog post is in Swedish, but the links lead to items in the original languages.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Follow events on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator of euroblogs.
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Friday, 27 January 2012
A communication disaster called ACTA
During the negotiations of ACTA the participating states did their best to undermine public trust by secrecy and obstinate refusal to publish various documents (Techdirt). When the first batch of countries signed ACTA in October 2011, the EU Commission and Council ignored the occasion (Grahnlaw).
The going is still pretty wild on Twitter under the hashtag #ACTA after the new signing ceremony yesterday for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America.
The web pages of the European Parliament are accessible again. Actually it was ironic that Anonymous took down the EP pages (New Europe and European Voice), when ACTA was signed for the Council of the European Union and 22 member states (The Register).
How did the European Union inform about the signing?
DG Trade offers us a news archive with the latest items from the past two months – empty. Trade commissioner Karel De Gucht has nothing new on ACTA.
The signing of ACTA has not made it to the front page of the European External Action Service (EEAS), with the Delegation of the European Union to Japan equally dismal.
The Council of the European Union did not deem the ACTA signing in Tokyo worth a press release.
In other words, the EU Commission (DG Trade) and the Council have learnt nothing from their continuing communication disaster among internauts. As incompetent and insensitive as before, the EU institutions seem to act on the presumption that a majority in the European Parliament is (once more) going to do what the governments of the member states want it to do. Public trust is not essential.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Follow events on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator of euroblogs.
The going is still pretty wild on Twitter under the hashtag #ACTA after the new signing ceremony yesterday for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America.
The web pages of the European Parliament are accessible again. Actually it was ironic that Anonymous took down the EP pages (New Europe and European Voice), when ACTA was signed for the Council of the European Union and 22 member states (The Register).
How did the European Union inform about the signing?
DG Trade offers us a news archive with the latest items from the past two months – empty. Trade commissioner Karel De Gucht has nothing new on ACTA.
The signing of ACTA has not made it to the front page of the European External Action Service (EEAS), with the Delegation of the European Union to Japan equally dismal.
The Council of the European Union did not deem the ACTA signing in Tokyo worth a press release.
In other words, the EU Commission (DG Trade) and the Council have learnt nothing from their continuing communication disaster among internauts. As incompetent and insensitive as before, the EU institutions seem to act on the presumption that a majority in the European Parliament is (once more) going to do what the governments of the member states want it to do. Public trust is not essential.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Follow events on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator of euroblogs.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Herman Van Rompuy: Great Expectations
Herman Van Rompuy initiated a channel to EU citizen (bloggers) by launching 'Ask your question!' on Facebook. However, a few days after Europe Day 9 May 2011 most of the questions are still unanswered and the few recorded replies can hardly be described as illuminating, although new comments may still appear.
Until then, instead of the 'Great Expectations' drummed up – and then deceived – the questions by the participants and their reactions remain the most valuable part. (Remember to scroll down to older posts, until the end.)
The rickety institutional framework of the eurozone and the continuing appearance of new salvage operations erode trust in leaders wedded to 'dark secrets'.
Mainly written by pro-EU bloggers, posts marked 'eurozone' and 'myeurope' on Bloggingportal.eu tell us something about the need for 'comprehensive reform', way beyond failed PR exercises and official optimism.
The European Union needs to become real, trustworthy and comprehensible in the eyes of its citizens.
Update 14 May 2011: Read the EurActiv article 'EU leaders played poker with the euro and lost, says Borrell' (13 May 2011).
Ralf Grahn
Until then, instead of the 'Great Expectations' drummed up – and then deceived – the questions by the participants and their reactions remain the most valuable part. (Remember to scroll down to older posts, until the end.)
The rickety institutional framework of the eurozone and the continuing appearance of new salvage operations erode trust in leaders wedded to 'dark secrets'.
Mainly written by pro-EU bloggers, posts marked 'eurozone' and 'myeurope' on Bloggingportal.eu tell us something about the need for 'comprehensive reform', way beyond failed PR exercises and official optimism.
The European Union needs to become real, trustworthy and comprehensible in the eyes of its citizens.
Update 14 May 2011: Read the EurActiv article 'EU leaders played poker with the euro and lost, says Borrell' (13 May 2011).
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Eurobarometer findings on EU public opinion: Open Europe blew it
In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States of America, surprisingly for a country where the first amendment enshrines the separation of church and state.
What do citizens of the European Union trust in?
The UK based anti-EU lobby group Open Europe has avidly seized on diminished support for the EU:
On 26 August 2010, the Open Europe blog accused the European Commission: A Classic Example Of EU Spin. According to Open Europe the Commission is “trying to take us for a ride”.
The main item of the Open Europe’s press summary 27 August 2010 was: Support for the EU falls to a nine year low; Only 50% of Germans consider EU membership “a good thing” – down 10 points in less than a year.
The main headline of the Fortnightly Open Europe Bulletin 27 August 2010: Support for EU hits nine-year low. Open Europe called the European Commission’s press release a blatant and dishonest (taxpayer-funded) attempt by the Commission to spin clearly unfavorable poll results.
The same day, Open Europe Director Mats Persson recycled the allegation in a post on his EUobserver blog: An exceptionally poor attempt at spinning unfavourable poll results.
Commission press release
Let us go to the EU Commission’s offending press release (26 August 2010, IP/10/1071; available in 22 languages):
Spring 2010 Eurobarometer: EU citizens favour stronger European economic governance
Open Europe seems to have found particularly offensive that the headline of the press release and Commissioner Viviane Reding used the words stronger or enhanced “economic governance” as shorthand for the 75 per cent EU-wide support for a “stronger coordination of economic and financial policies among all the EU Member States”, the highest support (26 per cent) among institutions - national and international - for ability to “take effective actions against the financial and economic crisis”, as well as high support for some sort of economic reform agenda (reducing public deficit and debt in respondent’s own country, surveillance of international financial groups, and for priorities of the EU 2020 reform strategy).
Actually, sensible enterprise interest groups and single market supporters notice promising signs of European awareness of the need for economic reform, at macro and micro level.
What is Open Europe playing at?
But professedly pro-market Open Europe, worried about “pressing challenges of weak economic growth, rising global competition, insecurity and a looming demographic crisis” blew it.
Blew it by playing with words, instead of looking at the substance.
This is the benign interpretation. It is possible that Open Europe’s interests lie elsewhere, not in a general European interest to achieve economic reform.
A more worrying alternative is dogmatism: that the overriding ideological aim of Open Europe is to dismantle or roll back the European Union, so much so that the interest of functioning economies and markets come second.
Another possibility is that the real agenda of Open Europe is to keep the EU too weak to coordinate economic policies and in order to protect the particular interests of a few financial institutions from sensible supervision.
Or are there still other reasons for such vehemence against ‘economic governance’?
The European Citizen wisely said the Eurobarometer results are vague, and that policy makers and supporters will have to make the cases for their ideas and try and win support for them.
Open Europe’s urge to bash the Commission got in the way of a golden opportunity to boost the economic reform agenda of the European Union, but perhaps this is but a minor concern for this lobby group and its backers.
EU citizens trust in economic reform and in the European Union, more than in their national government or parliament, but what does Open Europe trust in?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
What do citizens of the European Union trust in?
The UK based anti-EU lobby group Open Europe has avidly seized on diminished support for the EU:
On 26 August 2010, the Open Europe blog accused the European Commission: A Classic Example Of EU Spin. According to Open Europe the Commission is “trying to take us for a ride”.
The main item of the Open Europe’s press summary 27 August 2010 was: Support for the EU falls to a nine year low; Only 50% of Germans consider EU membership “a good thing” – down 10 points in less than a year.
The main headline of the Fortnightly Open Europe Bulletin 27 August 2010: Support for EU hits nine-year low. Open Europe called the European Commission’s press release a blatant and dishonest (taxpayer-funded) attempt by the Commission to spin clearly unfavorable poll results.
The same day, Open Europe Director Mats Persson recycled the allegation in a post on his EUobserver blog: An exceptionally poor attempt at spinning unfavourable poll results.
Commission press release
Let us go to the EU Commission’s offending press release (26 August 2010, IP/10/1071; available in 22 languages):
Spring 2010 Eurobarometer: EU citizens favour stronger European economic governance
Open Europe seems to have found particularly offensive that the headline of the press release and Commissioner Viviane Reding used the words stronger or enhanced “economic governance” as shorthand for the 75 per cent EU-wide support for a “stronger coordination of economic and financial policies among all the EU Member States”, the highest support (26 per cent) among institutions - national and international - for ability to “take effective actions against the financial and economic crisis”, as well as high support for some sort of economic reform agenda (reducing public deficit and debt in respondent’s own country, surveillance of international financial groups, and for priorities of the EU 2020 reform strategy).
Actually, sensible enterprise interest groups and single market supporters notice promising signs of European awareness of the need for economic reform, at macro and micro level.
What is Open Europe playing at?
But professedly pro-market Open Europe, worried about “pressing challenges of weak economic growth, rising global competition, insecurity and a looming demographic crisis” blew it.
Blew it by playing with words, instead of looking at the substance.
This is the benign interpretation. It is possible that Open Europe’s interests lie elsewhere, not in a general European interest to achieve economic reform.
A more worrying alternative is dogmatism: that the overriding ideological aim of Open Europe is to dismantle or roll back the European Union, so much so that the interest of functioning economies and markets come second.
Another possibility is that the real agenda of Open Europe is to keep the EU too weak to coordinate economic policies and in order to protect the particular interests of a few financial institutions from sensible supervision.
Or are there still other reasons for such vehemence against ‘economic governance’?
The European Citizen wisely said the Eurobarometer results are vague, and that policy makers and supporters will have to make the cases for their ideas and try and win support for them.
Open Europe’s urge to bash the Commission got in the way of a golden opportunity to boost the economic reform agenda of the European Union, but perhaps this is but a minor concern for this lobby group and its backers.
EU citizens trust in economic reform and in the European Union, more than in their national government or parliament, but what does Open Europe trust in?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
From Paint It Black to Moses? UK public opinion on EU
Yesterday’s blog post, UK Eurobarometer score: Euromyths 68 - Trust 20, discussed the media climate and public opinion in the United Kingdom with regard to the European Union. The Eurobarometer findings are in line with what we have reported many times before, for instance the Angus Reid poll published in June 2010.
If we turn from the UK country factsheet of the Spring 2010 Standard Eurobarometer 73, which compares the country only with EU averages, to the full first results, we see the uniqueness of public opinion in Britain.
In May 2010, the general level of trust in the European Union had plummeted from 48 to 42 per cent. Estonia reported the highest trust score, 68 per cent, with 22 per cent tending to be distrustful of the European Union (pages 15 and 16).
Not only did the United Kingdom report almost the reverse numbers – 68 per cent distrusting and 20 per cent trustful – but the second lowest trust score among all 27 member states was the 37 per cent reported from Germany, almost twice the proportion in Britain.
The negativism of the political atmosphere, media climate and public opinion in the United Kingdom are truly exceptional, almost four decades after accession.
The view of European integration and the European Union in the UK is not bleak – it is tainted uniquely black.
Should the UK government (Pharaoh) listen to what the voters (Moses) have to say in “Go Down Moses”?
Namely: Let my people go.
Withdrawal or secession in Eurospeak.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
If we turn from the UK country factsheet of the Spring 2010 Standard Eurobarometer 73, which compares the country only with EU averages, to the full first results, we see the uniqueness of public opinion in Britain.
In May 2010, the general level of trust in the European Union had plummeted from 48 to 42 per cent. Estonia reported the highest trust score, 68 per cent, with 22 per cent tending to be distrustful of the European Union (pages 15 and 16).
Not only did the United Kingdom report almost the reverse numbers – 68 per cent distrusting and 20 per cent trustful – but the second lowest trust score among all 27 member states was the 37 per cent reported from Germany, almost twice the proportion in Britain.
The negativism of the political atmosphere, media climate and public opinion in the United Kingdom are truly exceptional, almost four decades after accession.
The view of European integration and the European Union in the UK is not bleak – it is tainted uniquely black.
Should the UK government (Pharaoh) listen to what the voters (Moses) have to say in “Go Down Moses”?
Namely: Let my people go.
Withdrawal or secession in Eurospeak.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
Friday, 27 August 2010
UK Eurobarometer score: Euromyths 68 - Trust 20
About three months from the conclusion of the fieldwork, the first results of the regular Eurobarometer poll are out. Yesterday, many Twitter comments about the findings were like shells fired in an artillery battle between entrenched frontlines, but even with the best will in the world it is hard to be analytical in 140 characters about a survey of opinions in 27 EU member states (and candidate countries).
Not unsurprisingly, the untiring anti-EU munitions factory Open Europe uses its blog to accuse the European Commission of spin when highlighting the demand for crisis resolution by the European Union.
Anyone heard of “the pot calling the kettle black”?
The press summaries of Open Europe seem to translate the lobby group’s professed aim of radical EU reform into a daily tirade of negative quotes from disgruntled individuals all over Europe.
These selective snippets, as well as opinions and ‘research’ by Open Europe are then fired off by mass market media on the anti-EU campaign trail (examples The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express), as well as their high-profile columnists.
Various campaign groups (examples EU Referendum Campaign and the Bruges Group, mentioned by Eurogoblin) in the United Kingdom are only too happy to praise their Lords and pass the ammunition, hoping for V-Day in the form of an ‘out’ referendum.
Pot shots by ‘patriotic’ foot soldiers in the Angloblogosphere (examples EUReferendum blog, Witterings From Witney, The Talking Clock, Your Freedom and Ours, The Boiling Frog, John Redwood, the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Cranmer) echo the big guns by repeat fire consisting of legitimate criticism, one-sided cursing, twisted facts and pure Euromyths.
Because many of the ‘better off out’ blogs are content to quote each other, without caring to check or evaluate the original sources, many Euromyths keep making the rounds long after being exposed as complete bollocks.
Small wonder that critical but sane bloggers like Nosemonkey, Eurogoblin, The European Citizen, Atomic Spin, The Endless Track, Robert Jones, Euromove and WSJ Real Time Brussels repeatedly refute Euromyths or calmly disprove them by presenting more constructive views.
The saner voices may have the facts and arguments on their side, but they lack fire power. The anti-EU shelling – branded as eurosceptic - has turned public opinion in the United Kingdom, especially England, deeply suspicious of European integration and the European Union. According to Eurobarometer 73 (Spring 2010), in the UK only 20 per cent of the Crown subjects tend to trust the EU, while 68 per cent lack trust, so the levels of trust are way below the EU averages. Exceptionally, in Great Britain even the national parliament and government are slightly more trusted than the EU.
In the short run the negative attitudes are a problem for the European Union, but at a deeper level the disconnect between voter sentiment and rulers poses serious questions for the political system in the United Kingdom.
How far can the policy choices in a representative democracy legitimately be allowed to ennoble public opinion by straying from the views of the ruled?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
Not unsurprisingly, the untiring anti-EU munitions factory Open Europe uses its blog to accuse the European Commission of spin when highlighting the demand for crisis resolution by the European Union.
Anyone heard of “the pot calling the kettle black”?
The press summaries of Open Europe seem to translate the lobby group’s professed aim of radical EU reform into a daily tirade of negative quotes from disgruntled individuals all over Europe.
These selective snippets, as well as opinions and ‘research’ by Open Europe are then fired off by mass market media on the anti-EU campaign trail (examples The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express), as well as their high-profile columnists.
Various campaign groups (examples EU Referendum Campaign and the Bruges Group, mentioned by Eurogoblin) in the United Kingdom are only too happy to praise their Lords and pass the ammunition, hoping for V-Day in the form of an ‘out’ referendum.
Pot shots by ‘patriotic’ foot soldiers in the Angloblogosphere (examples EUReferendum blog, Witterings From Witney, The Talking Clock, Your Freedom and Ours, The Boiling Frog, John Redwood, the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Cranmer) echo the big guns by repeat fire consisting of legitimate criticism, one-sided cursing, twisted facts and pure Euromyths.
Because many of the ‘better off out’ blogs are content to quote each other, without caring to check or evaluate the original sources, many Euromyths keep making the rounds long after being exposed as complete bollocks.
Small wonder that critical but sane bloggers like Nosemonkey, Eurogoblin, The European Citizen, Atomic Spin, The Endless Track, Robert Jones, Euromove and WSJ Real Time Brussels repeatedly refute Euromyths or calmly disprove them by presenting more constructive views.
The saner voices may have the facts and arguments on their side, but they lack fire power. The anti-EU shelling – branded as eurosceptic - has turned public opinion in the United Kingdom, especially England, deeply suspicious of European integration and the European Union. According to Eurobarometer 73 (Spring 2010), in the UK only 20 per cent of the Crown subjects tend to trust the EU, while 68 per cent lack trust, so the levels of trust are way below the EU averages. Exceptionally, in Great Britain even the national parliament and government are slightly more trusted than the EU.
In the short run the negative attitudes are a problem for the European Union, but at a deeper level the disconnect between voter sentiment and rulers poses serious questions for the political system in the United Kingdom.
How far can the policy choices in a representative democracy legitimately be allowed to ennoble public opinion by straying from the views of the ruled?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
European Parliament: “Trust us ─ we are clean (soon)”
It is a promising sign. The European Parliament has reacted to reports on wide-spread sleaze.
But the statement is an almost blanket denial. The issues are serious enough to merit space. First, let the EP speak.
Then we try to evaluate the measures and trust of the European Parliament.
***
European Parliament press statement
On 24 February 2009 the European Parliament issued the following press release:
Getting the facts straight on MEPs’ allowances
Institutions - 24-02-2009 - 10:34
Recent media reports in some Member States have given a false impression of the situation on MEPs’ expenses. In fact, following an Internal Audit Report made one year ago, the European regulatory framework was subject to a major change last December when Parliament and Council approved a new statute for Parliamentary Assistants.
Moreover, effective controls have already taken place: 99.5 per cent of the payments made by Parliament to Members' assistants in years 2004-2007 under the rules governing parliamentary expenses and allowances has now been cleared as regular based on extensive checks of the relevant documentation.
These checks have been carried out by Parliament’s services for all Members, whether or not they have been subject of reporting in the media and whether or not payments made to their assistants were mentioned in the Internal Audit Report. The checking of the payments relating to parliamentary assistance made in 2008 is currently ongoing.
Major reforms of systems for employment of assistants and travel expenses
Various claims have been made relating to an Internal Audit Report, which found a number of weaknesses in the system for the employment of MEPs’ assistants. The aim of Internal Audit Reports is to enable problems to be fixed, and this report was one of the factors behind Parliament’s decision essentially to replace the system governing the payments of parliamentary assistance allowances with a new European and common regime.
From July this year, Brussels-based assistants are being added on to the employment system for EU officials, with those based in the MEPs’ Member State being handled by qualified paying agents chosen by the Institution, guaranteeing tax and social security arrangements in the relevant Member State. The practice of Members employing close relatives as assistants is being phased out with new contracts no longer allowed.
A major reform of MEPs’ travel expenses will see, from July this year, expenses refunded on the basis of documented costs incurred rather than on a flat-rate basis as is the current practise.
Effective controls in place
Parliament’s services have undertaken and undertake a variety of checks on the various payments made to MEPs' assistants and request further information where doubts arise. If it has turned out that funds have been improperly claimed, the relevant sums have been recovered from the payments concerned. Where there has been and is good reason to suspect fraud, Parliament’s services can, and do, call in the EU’s anti-fraud investigations office, OLAF. This can ultimately lead to cases being passed to the relevant national prosecutors.
***
The EP press release is available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-50236-054-02-09-901-20090224IPR50235-23-02-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm
***
Documentation
The European Parliament offers supporting documentation, available through the same web page.
‘Allowances paid to Members of the European Parliament’ offers basic information about the amounts paid to MEPs.
There is a link to Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 7.10.2005 L 262/1.
There is also a link to the so called Assistants’ statute, European Parliament legislative resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0606 of 16 December 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, awaiting final approval and publication.
In addition, there is an explanatory press release of 16 December 2008 ‘New employment and payment system for MEPs' assistants’.
***
Evaluation
It is indeed a positive sign that the European Parliament engages in a discussion about its practices. But can the case it presents be likened to more than white-wash?
The European Parliament offers no excuses for the notorious misuse of public funds by elected representatives, for the lack of controls and action against culprits, or for the active suppression of available evidence.
Only the belated reforms undertaken serve as an indirect admission of guilt.
We are now told to trust the European Parliament that the 99.5 per cent of MEPs’ expenses currently cleared as regular are indeed in order. How can we verify that? Are we offered any credible proof? Has the EP decided to publish audit reports?
The European Parliament has placed itself in the unenviable position of having forfeited the trust it might have had.
There is but one remedy to the credibility problem on past history and existing practices: earning back trust by extreme openness. Publish every audit report and invite new ones, open the books for outside inspection and take action against the sinners.
***
Promised reforms
Unrepentant and secretive about the past and present, the European Parliament lets us understand that it is going to become virtuous in July 2009, after the European elections.
The MEPs’ Statute seems to plug one gaping hole, since Article 20 foresees reimbursement or actual travel expenses only, from July 2009. Other allowances can still be flat-rate.
Late in the day, some changes were made to the status of MEPs’ assistants by way of a Bureau decision on 9 July 2008 on Implementing Measures for the Statute for the Members of the European Parliament. (Where are these Implementing Measures on the EP’s web pages?)
If the 16 December 2008 resolution on the so called Assistants’ Statute enters into force, accredited assistants at the EP’s places of work would be paid by the Parliament.
The Assistants’ Statute seemed less clear about the salaries of local assistants in MEPs’ home countries, but perhaps the following sentence in the press release should be interpreted as a promise of implementing measures (reforms) to come:
“The larger package of measures includes not only a European statute for assistants working in Brussels but also the handling of contracts of and payments to assistants working in the Member States by qualified and duly recognised payroll organisations in those countries.”
***
Let me get the facts straight: The European Parliament’s grudging reforms and recent press statement are still a long way off from a public relations success, especially from an institution which profiles itself as a watchdog with regard to how taxpayers’ funds are spent by other EU bodies and member states.
Ralf Grahn
But the statement is an almost blanket denial. The issues are serious enough to merit space. First, let the EP speak.
Then we try to evaluate the measures and trust of the European Parliament.
***
European Parliament press statement
On 24 February 2009 the European Parliament issued the following press release:
Getting the facts straight on MEPs’ allowances
Institutions - 24-02-2009 - 10:34
Recent media reports in some Member States have given a false impression of the situation on MEPs’ expenses. In fact, following an Internal Audit Report made one year ago, the European regulatory framework was subject to a major change last December when Parliament and Council approved a new statute for Parliamentary Assistants.
Moreover, effective controls have already taken place: 99.5 per cent of the payments made by Parliament to Members' assistants in years 2004-2007 under the rules governing parliamentary expenses and allowances has now been cleared as regular based on extensive checks of the relevant documentation.
These checks have been carried out by Parliament’s services for all Members, whether or not they have been subject of reporting in the media and whether or not payments made to their assistants were mentioned in the Internal Audit Report. The checking of the payments relating to parliamentary assistance made in 2008 is currently ongoing.
Major reforms of systems for employment of assistants and travel expenses
Various claims have been made relating to an Internal Audit Report, which found a number of weaknesses in the system for the employment of MEPs’ assistants. The aim of Internal Audit Reports is to enable problems to be fixed, and this report was one of the factors behind Parliament’s decision essentially to replace the system governing the payments of parliamentary assistance allowances with a new European and common regime.
From July this year, Brussels-based assistants are being added on to the employment system for EU officials, with those based in the MEPs’ Member State being handled by qualified paying agents chosen by the Institution, guaranteeing tax and social security arrangements in the relevant Member State. The practice of Members employing close relatives as assistants is being phased out with new contracts no longer allowed.
A major reform of MEPs’ travel expenses will see, from July this year, expenses refunded on the basis of documented costs incurred rather than on a flat-rate basis as is the current practise.
Effective controls in place
Parliament’s services have undertaken and undertake a variety of checks on the various payments made to MEPs' assistants and request further information where doubts arise. If it has turned out that funds have been improperly claimed, the relevant sums have been recovered from the payments concerned. Where there has been and is good reason to suspect fraud, Parliament’s services can, and do, call in the EU’s anti-fraud investigations office, OLAF. This can ultimately lead to cases being passed to the relevant national prosecutors.
***
The EP press release is available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-50236-054-02-09-901-20090224IPR50235-23-02-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm
***
Documentation
The European Parliament offers supporting documentation, available through the same web page.
‘Allowances paid to Members of the European Parliament’ offers basic information about the amounts paid to MEPs.
There is a link to Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 7.10.2005 L 262/1.
There is also a link to the so called Assistants’ statute, European Parliament legislative resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0606 of 16 December 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, awaiting final approval and publication.
In addition, there is an explanatory press release of 16 December 2008 ‘New employment and payment system for MEPs' assistants’.
***
Evaluation
It is indeed a positive sign that the European Parliament engages in a discussion about its practices. But can the case it presents be likened to more than white-wash?
The European Parliament offers no excuses for the notorious misuse of public funds by elected representatives, for the lack of controls and action against culprits, or for the active suppression of available evidence.
Only the belated reforms undertaken serve as an indirect admission of guilt.
We are now told to trust the European Parliament that the 99.5 per cent of MEPs’ expenses currently cleared as regular are indeed in order. How can we verify that? Are we offered any credible proof? Has the EP decided to publish audit reports?
The European Parliament has placed itself in the unenviable position of having forfeited the trust it might have had.
There is but one remedy to the credibility problem on past history and existing practices: earning back trust by extreme openness. Publish every audit report and invite new ones, open the books for outside inspection and take action against the sinners.
***
Promised reforms
Unrepentant and secretive about the past and present, the European Parliament lets us understand that it is going to become virtuous in July 2009, after the European elections.
The MEPs’ Statute seems to plug one gaping hole, since Article 20 foresees reimbursement or actual travel expenses only, from July 2009. Other allowances can still be flat-rate.
Late in the day, some changes were made to the status of MEPs’ assistants by way of a Bureau decision on 9 July 2008 on Implementing Measures for the Statute for the Members of the European Parliament. (Where are these Implementing Measures on the EP’s web pages?)
If the 16 December 2008 resolution on the so called Assistants’ Statute enters into force, accredited assistants at the EP’s places of work would be paid by the Parliament.
The Assistants’ Statute seemed less clear about the salaries of local assistants in MEPs’ home countries, but perhaps the following sentence in the press release should be interpreted as a promise of implementing measures (reforms) to come:
“The larger package of measures includes not only a European statute for assistants working in Brussels but also the handling of contracts of and payments to assistants working in the Member States by qualified and duly recognised payroll organisations in those countries.”
***
Let me get the facts straight: The European Parliament’s grudging reforms and recent press statement are still a long way off from a public relations success, especially from an institution which profiles itself as a watchdog with regard to how taxpayers’ funds are spent by other EU bodies and member states.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
