Last week I was in Brussels to participate in a joint parliamentary meeting of national parliamentarians and members of the European parliament to discuss Europe’s response to the challenges beyond the current crisis. The British parliament was represented by two members of the House of Lords, Lord Haskins and myself.
Most of the participants were national parliamentarians as many MEPs were busy elsewhere. Parliamentarians from new member states were particularly active and we heard from them a whole range of views from committed social Europeans to fringe national parties who considered the EU a socialist conspiracy. Some thought that the worst of the financial crisis was behind us. Others thought there was worse to come.
From all parliamentarians in general there were a lot of calls for stronger regulation of the financial markets and banks to control speculation. A transaction tax was mentioned several times. So was tax harmonisation to prevent a race to the bottom. Many speakers reminded us of the requirement for a “social Europe” while at the same time jobs had to be created. Some felt that this would be best done by being more protectionist while others called for a more open Europe. Public procurement was seen as a source of jobs, but several speakers were critical of the system. Interestingly technology and green development was hardly mentioned. Health tourism was criticised, but the free movement of social benefits was praised. Some thought that there was too much imbalance between the new East European members where many assets were still owned by the State and the rest of the members where there was a more market orientated economy. There were also complaints about lower payments to farmers in the new member states.
Mr Baroso responded and his theme was the need for a common vision in Europe to overcome the crisis. We must not go back to the old Europe he said. He emphasised that sharing meant empowerment and interdependence was strength. He was optimistic in responding to most of the points and his responses were from the point of view of a social market economy. High social standards while encouraging new sources of growth. He spoke of a mechanism to deal with the financial crisis now and in the future incorporating a way of dealing with the sources of imbalance.
This was an interesting visit and a welcome opportunity to hear the differing views from other member states. But they were so diverse I am amazed that the Commission can hold it together. But it seems to work thank goodness.
“He emphasised that sharing meant empowerment and interdependence was strength.”
if his next line was “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength” then I think Orwell’s estate will demanding royalties from the EU…
Mr Barroso is an eloquent and accomplished speaker. There is many a two legged ass to be found in the EU Parliament because he has talked the hind legs off of them.
One of the undesired effects of democracy comes about when the ‘collective need’ across member states has to be addressed by legislation. To any single member state the relevance of a specific need sometimes seems out of place.
The place to debate that need is within the EU Parliament because each MEP can have their say in chamber on its relevance. The overlap between the relevance of a local need to the relevance of the ‘collective need’ happens because the majority view is taken leaving some states scratching their heads as to why it ever applied to them.
I see you make no mention of the EU budget, its has not been agreed by auditors for over ten years now and I cannot think of any other public or private body that has audited accounts and that continues to legally trade.
Then there is the ambition of creating a Federal Europe of member states. MEPs are elected using proportional representation which causes fragmentation or overly represented minority groups to be installed. Given the number of political parties present and if we take the example of the Federal Weimar Constitution and its inability to form quorums to get things done its hard to see how the EU can ever function as a federal government. Would some idiot for instance install an Article 48 to resolve deadlock and use NATO to persuade a change of mind?
As for the Banks everybody is getting bogged down in detail. Around 1997 most of the world’s banks were suffering poor growth in the good debt sector. The events that took place later was the result of their foray into the math of long term stability and giving money to the bad debt sector to promote growth.
Banks are back where they were in 1997 with very poor growth. Their strategy now is a cartel of passing increased costs and charges onto their customers to increase growth whilst forcing customers to keep extra deposits in current accounts to meet their Basel asset requirements. The other problem for banks and commodities alike is that all this ‘funny money’ that is being pumped into the world economy is depressing (stabilising?) prices and further reducing profitability.
Ref: Federal Weimar Constitution
http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php
It does seem to me advantageous to have another banking body in the world capable of lending money to shore up dodgy state finances.
At one time there was only the IMF, was there not?
Does it mean however that the German dominated ECB(European Central bank) is gradually and irrevocably taking more and more financial powers in other European nation states, an ECB which apparently the UK/Bank of England does not want to be involved?