European Reform - Mike Burnett's blog

and the logical outcome of the Euro

2012-01-29T03:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9046820/IMF-tells-Greece-it-will-lose-control-of-budget-in-return-for-bail-out.html

As George Osborne says, transfers from Northern Europe to Greece have to be regarded as like moving money from London to the north of England.

Or, to put it another way, the Euro as constituted can't work unless, say, the Finns regard Greek public debt in the same way as a Finnish public debt

The real history of the Euro crisis....

2012-01-29T03:02:00.000-08:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9046875/The-great-EU-conjuring-trick.html

1. The fundamental mistake was to let Italy - and therefore Spain, Portugal and Greece - to join prematurely and based on "snapshot convergence" (one moment in time) rather than over, say, five years consistent compliance
2. That France and Germany undermined the Stability and Growth Pact in 2003
3. That the convergence criteria were too narrow and should have included, for example, wages, productivity and trade balance components
4. That the convergence criteria as framed did not take account of the economic cycle ie should have permitted target annual deficits should have been lower in upswings and higher in downswings.

The EU prospered for 40 years without a single currency - building on sand has now created great stresses to preserve the benefits of the Single Market.

Now the least painful solution - see my posts of 12 December - is for the Eurozone to divide into the North European Euro and the South European Euro.

You couldn't make this up....

2012-01-27T01:07:00.000-08:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9036199/Tainted-former-EC-president-Jacques-Santer-to-raise-money-for-EU-bail-outs.html

The structural weaknesses of the Eurozone were well articulated by David Cameron yesterday in Davos ie deep financial integration, a more balanced trade structure, collective debt and a strong central bank behind it.

None of these have been effectively addressed in the many summits and crisis meetings over the past 18 months or so, so attempting to raise more money would be difficult in any case....

Scottish independence - the European dimension

2012-01-23T04:52:00.001-08:00

An interesting development along the lines I foresaw in an earlier post

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html

"The Iron Lady"

2012-01-20T06:54:00.001-08:00

I saw "The Iron Lady” last week which, for me, reaffirmed the some of political and personal traits for which she stood – with some paraphrasing:

• Personal responsibility
• The idea of a balance of exercising rights and accepting responsibilities
• “One’s life must make a difference”
• You become resolute if you have to fight for things rather than having them given to you on plate
• It’s possible to achieve things even when you don’t quite fit in to the prevailing mood of an environment.

Some have criticised the insensitivity of the approach ie flashback by someone suffering from the privations of old age. But it does address an issue which is difficult and sensitive. Mental deterioration is no respecter of wealth, race, gender, class or position. And access to public services for the elderly and their treatment by providers, and particularly in the case of chronic and incurable conditions, continues to be in public focus. The extent of Margaret Thatcher’s need for care may in a sense help raise awareness of the demands for public services of the many who need them.

What next for European reform in 2012?

2012-01-12T08:29:00.000-08:00

David Cameron appears to have won the argument about the exclusion of the single market from the planned EU Treaty changes though, as Mats Persson, director of Open Europe, said: "This latest draft marks a provisional victory”. He is right – and it will need to be secured in practice as well as in the legal text.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9008470/Eurozone-waters-down-its-tough-fiscal-rules-in-new-treaty.html)

If this argument has been won, what should be the UK’s next strategic priorities for European reform in 2012?

The focus should now be on:

1. Securing a budget freeze for 2014-2020
2. Pressing the European Commission to more vigorously pursue infringements of single market and competition rules
3. Arguing for the introduction of “sunset clauses” to all new EU Directives/amending Directives
4. Exploiting the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty which fit with our strategic objectives

An ambitious agenda, requiring a forensic approach, but one within the reach of a Prime Minister who has shown authority and the ability to win allies in the EU.

The ghost of Christmas past

2012-01-04T05:36:00.000-08:00

Have the baby boomers have stolen the inheritance of the current generation? Is the current generation really worse off than their parents?

In other words, do the arguments of David Willetts (in “The Pinch”) and Ed Miliband about the current young generation’s prospects make sense?

Ian Cowie was more provocative recently in the Daily Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100013939/baby-boomers-with-80pc-of-uk-wealth-shouldn%e2%80%99t-feel-guilty-about-younger-generations-problems)
with a different angle, arguing that the baby boomer generation deserve their comfortable retirement because of their prudent and restrained behaviour in their youth.

Meanwhile, I settled down to a story from Christmas past written by a 21 year old graduate looking at the world his parents and grandparents had created for him in 1975.

1. A Britain uncertain of its role in the post-imperial world
2. A world potentially on the brink of nuclear exchange far more destructive than the current financial crisis. In other words, maybe a global recession but not “Dr Strangelove” or “On the Beach”
3. A British economy which was the sick man of Europe, structurally uncompetitive, strike-ridden (well before the “winter of discontent”) and on the brink of needing an IMF rescue
4. A deeply hierarchical working environment unmitigated by the outlets of social media, access to information and comment on the internet, mobile phones or email
5. Much less equality of opportunity for ethnic minorities, women and those with non-heterosexual preferences
6. A higher education system where only 1 in 8 attended university
7. Restrictions on travel arising from practical factors such as the absence of budget airlines, currency restrictions and the absence of credit cards. I recall when visiting Germany in 1975 that I was limited to taking £25 in cash and was obliged within a month of return to visit a bank with my passport and register the re-conversion of foreign currency into sterling
8. Credit restrictions which made obtaining mortgages and other loans much more difficult

So the younger generation in 1975 (that’s me!) could have had plenty to complain about the world created by their parents and grandparents. And we didn’t know then that Margaret Thatcher was about to transform Britain....

No-one is pretending that the next decade will be easy. Putting right our unbalanced economy, over-sized state sector and broken society are significant challenges.

But the age of austerity will not be easy for any generation. Older generations could point to the increasing disrespect for them, evidenced by, to put it neutrally, variable standards of, and access to, health care and social care.

Promoting inter-generational resentment rather than a shared sense of community makes no contribution to addressing the significant challenges. Rather, it has the ring of a sense of entitlement both at a personal level, and, more widely, in Western society, which is closer to denial than a determination to adapt to a future which, as always, is different from our past.

I have seen the Big Society at work...in Germany and the Netherlands

2011-12-30T09:20:00.001-08:00

Is it really possible to engage citizens to care about their communities? Have we gone so far down the route that “it’s the state’s job to create healthy communities”? In what circumstances can the ideas of civic engagement which underlie the Big Society be most fruitfully applied?

Two recent visits to continental Europe to different countries and different types of community have given me greater clarity about how and where the Big Society might flourish.

Firstly, I visited Borne, a small municipality of around 21,500 inhabitants in the eastern Netherlands, which is relatively socially and ethnically homogeneous.

The municipality of Borne has had a history of citizen consultation on its future developments, but wanted to deepen this approach by creating a widely shared vision for the future of the community through engagement of civil society and citizens in the decision making process for the future of the community and as a starting point for joint action

What was it that impressed me about Borne’s initiative (www.mijnborne2030.nl) apart from the obvious enthusiasm of the people who I met?

• The willingness of local politicians and municipal officials to take the risk of offering choice to citizens within a clearly articulated framework. Politicians were taking the risk that, if citizens make direct choices, their roles may become less relevant
• The genuine nature of the choice of different strategic visions offered by the municipality, rather than consultation on a single strategy. This was done via a civic referendum, in which the opportunity to vote was also extended to anyone aged 15 or over, and in which on-line voting was permitted, thus engaging the next generation of voters in a process which will impact on their lives
• The unity of purpose amongst all stakeholders (municipal officials, more than 20 partner organisations and politicians from different parties) to use this process to shape the future of Borne
• The clear understanding of the need to translate the vision of “Mijn Borne 2030” into an implementation plan in order to meet the expectations of citizens created by this project and there are processes for doing so
• The understanding of the need to start this process of implementation by reflecting it in the budgetary decisions of the municipality for 2012 and in the internal organisation of the municipality.

Secondly I visited Münster, a city of around 270,000 inhabitants in North-Rhine Westphalia and home to more than 100 different nationalities.

“Show Colours for Münster” (perhaps a better translation from the German would be “Münster - Showing its true colours”) is a continuing campaign (launched in 2006) as the vehicle to engage the citizens of Münster in the improvement and upkeep of green spaces in the city and also a lake within the city boundaries (muenster-bekennt-farbe.de). Using this vehicle many projects and activities have been undertaken with money and time donated by citizens. It aims to strengthen the identity of citizens with their home town, develop civic spirit and secure a high quality of life in the city.

I came away with several positive impressions including that:

• There is no reason why this campaign – which is the branding for a series of individual projects - cannot continue to be sustained given the fact that it is a project which relies as much on the high level of enthusiasm already shown by citizens and businesses (and the support of the local media) as the resources of the city
• The level of public enthusiasm and financial contributions from citizens and businesses generated by the project is very high (more than €500,000 contributed in cash or materials for environmental improvements and 3,300 suggestions in response to a public consultation in 2010)
• There was a unity of purpose amongst politicians from different parties to support the campaign, so that if a change in the political direction occurred, the policy would probably not change significantly
• The extension of the campaign into areas with predominantly social housing
• One small but striking feature in the city was use of creative art on utility junction boxes (sponsored by a local energy company), a welcome contrast to the graffiti with which they are often disfigured.

What are common themes from these two apparently diverse examples?

Firstly, the importance of a long standing belief in the value of community solidarity to improve the quality of life. It may be coincidence, but in both communities Catholicism, and echoes of its traditional sense of social mores and constraints underpinning community behaviour, is a prominent religion. Alastair Campbell may have famously said that “we don’t do God” but there is a framework of responsible citizenship – whether religious or secular - lying somewhere between the excesses of the alcohol-fuelled individualism which blights towns and suburbs in the United Kingdom - unrelated to the summer riots – and the pressure for conformity which acts as a social constraint on behaviour in the cultures of some continental European countries.

Secondly the idea that government doesn’t have all the solutions and has not pretended in either of these municipalities that it does have all the answers.

Thirdly, in both Borne and Münster there is a readiness to adapt civic structures and processes to respond to citizen engagement.

Fourthly, the importance of political consensus in encouraging citizens to believe that these initiatives are not transient and thus are worth investing time in. Put simply, a change in the political balance of these authorities may lead to some of the practical aspects of implementation being changed but is not likely to lead to fundamental change in direction away from the encouragement of citizen engagement.

Above all, the obvious point that if you create something to be proud of, and give people a sense of belonging, citizens are more likely to support their communities than to trash them.

What conclusions for the future of the Big Society in the United Kingdom can be drawn from these experiences?

Firstly, that high levels of civic engagement are possible in different kinds of community, both in Borne (small and relatively socially and ethnically homogeneous) and Münster, a medium-sized city with more than 100 different nationalities.

Secondly, it takes time to nurture civic engagement. Both Borne and Münster have had a history of civic engagement over time, so the latest developments have occurred in an environment where citizens are accustomed to dialogue with the local administrations and expect that they will be listened.

These examples do not act as a blueprint for what we should do - and nor should we expect to be able to copy them directly. But they do reveal how far British society has, to use David Cameron’s word in the context of the summer riots, become sick and how far we are from having the foundations for the Big Society. So for me the main lesson is that our aim in our first term be to prepare the ground with a more ambitious implementation of the Big Society to come after 2015.

PS First published on Conservative Home - Thanks to those who posted to the thread there http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/michael-burnett/

Mind your language....

2011-12-12T02:31:00.000-08:00

The biggest danger to the future of the EU now is intemperate language used by political leaders - particularly the triumphalism of those shouting "Britain out"

What saddens me is that there's no recognition of the catastrophe that the Eurozone in its current form is bringing on Europe (and possibly the world economy) and the refusal to deal with it by (temporarily) restructuring the Eurozone - "reculer pour mieux sauter" - to what it should have been in the first place. And the markets are speaking - capital flight from French banks to German, Dutch and Luxembourg banks

Alternatively, and instead of ramping up the stakes dangerously by saying "if the Euro fails, Europe fails", Angela Merkel should have been setting out the reality that the only way to "save the Euro" in its current form is debt mutualisation and fiscal transfers. That could work.

We are now in a classic denial of reality - spending a lot of effort on the wrong issue ie defending a € in ways which won't work because the ways which will work are judged to be politically unacceptable

This is only Round 1....

2011-12-12T02:30:00.001-08:00

There was never a realistic chance of an agreement that David Cameron could sign up to last week in Brussels because there was never any chance of realistic answers to the two key questions raised by him

1. If there is a new Treaty (whether of 17 or 27) with the Eurozone forming a bloc, which EU decisions in future should be taken by unanimity to prevent the UK being permanently outvoted?
2. If there is a new Treaty (whether of 17 or 27) with the Eurozone forming a bloc, what new definition should there be of qualified majority for EU decisions in future to prevent the UK being permanently outvoted?

But this is only Round 1

1. Nothing happened at the summit to resolve the fundamental problem of the Eurozone ie the difference in competitiveness between its members, which can only be resolved by a devaluation which is put to good use. Nor is there even a true fiscal union with debt mutualisation and fiscal transfers. The least difficult way of achieving a devaluation is for the Eurozone to divide into the North European Euro and the South European Euro.
2. The whole event was mainly about NS's re-election, so there'll be a Round 2 after May. Francois Hollande has said he will re-negotiate the accord in any case but so will NS if he were re-elected (defence co-operation etc)
3. In any case, the accord could very well be overtaken by events when there is a new € crisis - even ECB intervention is not the silver bullet to save the € in its current form because the ECB in the end has to be funded by someone and Germany can't pay for everything).
4. Guy Verhofstadt has already raised questions about the role of the EP in the new architecture, so there’ll be no quick deal

How Labour mismanaged Public Private Partnerships - and how we should reform them

2011-11-22T06:44:00.000-08:00

PPP was the Labour government’s name for the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) introduced by the Major government. Concessions such as toll roads have been around for many years but the massive expansion of PPP since 1997 has been driven by a different type of PPP, so-called “public service PPP”, i.e. where the payment for the service comes not from end users but direct from public budgets.

Can public service PPP make sense? In concept, they do. They are based on the sound idea that government buys services through an integrated contract for both asset construction and operations which is bid for by a competitive process and paid for by a series of fixed equal instalments over the life of the service contract. The equal instalments cover the capital costs and operating costs so in effect the cost of construction is spread over the life of the service contract. It can be thought of as a form of leasing. The private partner is usually paid nothing until the service is being provided ie nothing during the construction phase. The advantages of this approach - the “no service, no payment principle” - are that:

1. Because the private partner is paid nothing during the construction phase it has proved to be a strong driver to on-time construction;
2. Because the private partner is remunerated for a fixed sum over the life of the service contract it acts as an incentive to “fit for purpose” construction: i.e. it helps to avoid on the one hand over-engineering in design and construction and on the other hand poor quality design and construction which could lead in both cases to expensive operating costs.

Nevertheless, some people still ask how PPP can be value for money when the government can borrow more cheaply than the private sector to finance infrastructure and the private sector profit needs to be allowed for. Again, in concept, PPP can represent value for money. The extra cost of borrowing and private sector profit can be outweighed by a combination of greater efficiency in construction and operating costs and of the value of risks explicitly transferred to the private partner.

So what’s gone wrong with the use of PPP in practice?

Government departments and other public bodies have been under pressure to use PPP even when it did not clearly represent value for money compared with other ways of delivering public investment. This could easily be done by making it clear that there would be no capital allocation for non-PPP schemes. The highly subjective and potentially imprecise risk transfer adjustment offers plenty of scope to achieve the “right” result. So PPP has sometimes been used when it was not appropriate (how often is difficult to tell because commercial confidentiality is often used to avoid making figures public).

The risk transfer adjustment assumes that, if a transferred risk materialises, it does not then revert to the public sector. But this idea has not always been sustainable. The government could not accept the consequences of the financial failure of NATS – the private partner selected for the UK’s air traffic control PPP in 2001 – which faced it after the significant reduction in air traffic after September 11th. It had to offer immediate financial assistance to the company in order to create the space for a restructuring and refinancing arrangement.

PPP have usually involved long periods of negotiation with the winning bidder after the competitive award procedure. Significant contracts details are often finalised when the public sector is in a weaker position ie after competition has been eliminated. This has often occurred because of the failure to require bidders to obtain committed lender funding as part of their bids.

The length of the service element of PPP contracts is in many cases for periods well beyond a reasonable planning horizon for public services (20-30 years typically). The public sector is committed to pay for these services but may not need them in future or may want them delivered differently. Any change – additional services, changes in the way services are delivered, or performance standards for services – has to be negotiated with the incumbent supplier without competition, placing the public sector in a weak bargaining position.

Lenders in practice have taken very little risk. For example, to make the London Underground PPP bankable, the government guaranteed 95% of bank debt, even if the service provider failed (as Metronet did).

The government failed to effectively regulate key developments in the PPP market such as:

1. Significant increases in equity returns through debt re-financing after the construction phase. The public sector now shares in re-financing gains, but it is still far from easy in some cases to calculate the re-financing gains and in some cases re-financing has led to an increase in the length of already very long contracts and thus a potential increase in the termination liabilities;
2. The development of secondary markets in PPP equity stakes ie where the original investors sell their shares to third parties. These raise fundamental issues about the relative commitment of the public and private sectors to PPP contracts and potentially undermine the “design, build and operate” logic of PPP.

In short, PPP are a useful tool for delivering public infrastructure which have been overused and misused by the current government – and something which the current government will have to put right as a matter of priority.

So what should we do now we have the opportunity to reform PPP?

Firstly, keep demolishing the Gordon Brown myth that PPP has delivered value for money based on savings achieved in the procurement phase. Value for money in PPP contracts should be based on an assessment of the quality and cost of services over the entire life cycle of contract, so at present it is too soon to say if PPP will represent value for money in delivering public infrastructure

Secondly, use PPP only when it is clearly value for money in the procurement phase ie if the PPP option is a given percentage better than the alternatives. So they remain still value for money against the alternatives even when the value for money in the original deal reduces over time.

Thirdly, improve PPP governance ie make sure that value for money in the PPP procurement phase is realised during the contract execution phase. This means ensuring that the public sector gives sufficient attention to managing PPP contracts awarded and using auditors to validate continuing value for money

Finally, use the government’s market clout to change the PPP model to give better value for money for the public sector. This shouldn’t be a difficult message for a government in hard economic times to get construction companies, FM service providers and lenders to understand.

It really matters to British business and taxpayers...

2011-11-22T06:18:00.000-08:00

The EU public procurement rules are being reformed, though some might argue it's too soon to assess the effect of the 2004 reforms

There's much talk about "simplifying" the EU public procurement rules, but I think that this is missing the point.

The rules exist more to benefit business in bidding for contracts by ensuring open, transparent and competitive procedures (and thus ensuring value for money for the taxpayer) and not merely make life convenient for public authorities

It's not in the UK's interests, with our open and transparent approach to public contracts, to have rules which enable other European countries to be less transparent about major contracts, which would be the probable effect of simplification.

The most potentially damaging proposal is allowing free choice to public authorities to use the negotiated procedure with prior notice to award contracts. The safeguards to be proposed are likely to be insufficiently precise and fail to promote legal certainty, which will also not benefit businesses or public authorities.

Generalising the use of the Negotiated Procedure with notice would in effect render Competitive Dialogue redundant. But studies by both HM Treasury and the European PPP Expertise Centre have shown that Competitive Dialogue brings clear benefits when applied properly

In November 2010, HM Treasury published its review of the implementation of Competitive Dialogue in the UK which identified several positive aspects of its application, ie that:

1. “Both (the public and private sectors) are in agreement that the process is capable of maintaining sufficient competition. Over 90% of public sector respondents felt their procurements maintained competitive tension throughout the process. When the private sector respondents were asked the comparable question, the percentage remained above 90%”
2. “Competitive Dialogue has successfully addressed the issue of protracted post-preferred bidder discussions. Based on evidence received during the review, the period from Preferred Bidder stage to Financial Close for PFI projects is shorter under Competitive Dialogue and the practice of making late changes to contracts appears to be much reduced”
3. “In addition to reducing the scope for significant changes to be made to contracts following the completion of the competitive stage of the process, the introduction of the Competitive Dialogue procedure has brought valuable discipline to the post-preferred bidder period, introducing a clear and structured process, with a contracted deadline for closing projects"
4. “The introduction of Competitive Dialogue has improved procurement outcomes by enabling the public and private sectors to develop and deliver more appropriate, bespoke, value for money outcomes. 78% of respondents to our general survey agree bidders have an increased or significantly increased ability to deliver improved solutions when compared to the Negotiated Procedure (with notice)”.

The European PPP Expertise Centre review was published in July 2011. This highlighted the following positive aspects of the Competitive Dialogue procedure, based on input from the countries that use it relatively frequently compared to alternative procurement procedures:

1. Improved communication between the Contracting Authority and the bidders during the dialogue, which allows to better define the Contracting Authority’s needs and come up with better design and innovative solutions
2. Enhanced competitive tension during the dialogue period which allows the Contracting Authority to achieve better value for money and agree on all vital commercial issues while there is still competition among participating bidders
3. Better price discipline which leaves less room for “price creep” at the post-preferred bidder stage
4. A general perception that Competitive Dialogue does not expose the Contracting Authority to greater risk of legal challenges than alternative procurement procedures.

In short, Competitive Dialogue has realised the benefits it was expected to bring. And the solution to inappropriate or ineffective use is to apply it properly not to make it redundant.

Rather than talking about changing or undermining Competitive Dialogue, surely it makes more sense to enshrine value for money as a public procurement principle by referring to value for money specifically in the Directives?

Europe - the final humiliation

2011-11-07T12:41:00.000-08:00

Last week sealed the ultimate failure of the Euro – the historic mistake of the European political leadership to create a Eurozone which was completely unsustainable and which, given the divergence at the time in public finance, was known to be unsustainable.

Set aside whether or not the latest rescue package would have succeeded or not before the immediate Italian crisis, though, since it did not restructure the Eurozone to take account of divergence in competitiveness and the solution to excessive borrowing cannot be more debt, it would have been very unlikely to do so.

Consider the implications of the head of the EFSF travelling to China to (unsuccessfully) beg the Chinese government to invest even more than they already have in European government bonds designated in Euros and to make a strategic investment in the EU.

Firstly, there was the political humiliation, secondly the still unknown political and economic price of dependence which might have been paid and thirdly the potential disruption to the U.S. – and therefore world – economy should this lead to a rebalancing of Chinese investment away from U.S. government bonds.

Those with a historical perspective remember the fate of Germany before the nineteenth century – the Holy Roman Empire was – physically and diplomatically – the battleground of the major powers on its periphery ie France, Austria and Russia.

Is the EU condemned to be the Holy Roman Empire of the twenty-first century? It competes in a world of broadly unified nation states such as the U.S., China, India, Russia, and Brazil and nations with sovereign wealth funds. Meanwhile the EU is obsessed with the defence of the Euro indefensible in its current form, unable to find purely European solutions to European challenges and propagating the dangerous and mistaken idea that any change in the membership of the Eurozone could threaten the very existence of the EU. Reculer yes, but not without hope of mieux sauter in the future.

Absence of reality has often meant short-term decisions in the EU which defer addressing serious issues. But the recent Eurozone summit and the attempt to finance the rescue package externally have moved unreality to a new level which one of my colleagues – not usually with a tendency to exaggerate – described as dangerous nonsense.

Scottish independence – A purely Scottish issue?

2011-11-01T05:35:00.000-07:00

The SNP’s victory in this year's Scottish parliament elections is a political earthquake whose aftershocks will persist.

Most of the attention so far has been on its implications for the United Kingdom ie will it lead to Scottish independence and is a vote for the SNP equivalent to a vote for independence? Should England, Wales and Northern Ireland have a voice in any decision, perhaps by means of a parallel consultative referendum? Others have commented on whether or not Scotland could be economically viable, the implications for Scottish public finances and what would have been the implications of the banking crisis for an independent Scotland.

I'm sure, however, that the decision will not be purely economic. Czech colleagues have spoken in recent years about the peaceful separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the 1990s, which showed that even two relatively poor countries could separate amicably. Their answer was in essence that Slovakia wanted to go and relations are happier on both sides now that they have. They couldn't really identify any loss to them in financial, economic or cultural terms. But Czechs who were married to Slovaks faced dilemmas about where to live after the separation - the languages are very close but would the job opportunities be equal?

And there are some things in life whose value is not appreciated until you don't have them. Will a Union of 300 years prove to mean more than one which lasted 75 years, much of which was spent under Nazi and then communist oppression?

However, in my view not much of this is any business of anyone else than the people of Scotland when they are offered the choice. And while David Cameron rightly deserves praise for winning the vital AV referendum, I would suggest the best way to secure a Scottish Yes vote for independence is a No campaign in which English politicians of any party (or any English voices) play a prominent role. Even if this were not so, respect for the democratically expressed views of Scottish voters would suggest that a period of silence would be the appropriate response south of the border during the referendum campaign, even from those with impeccable Scottish surnames (including my own).

It is inconceivable that Scotland would want to be independent if it were not to be an EU member. The SNP have asserted that Scotland would automatically become an EU Member State, but this is far from certain - see
http://news.scotsman.com/scottishindependence/Independent-Scotland-would-have-to.3328377.jp and http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp2.pdf

Would Scotland then have a smooth entry path to the EU? There is no precedent for EU enlargement arising from secession from an existing Member State and it is likely that the establishment of such a principle would raise uncomfortable issues for a number of EU Member States, such as, for example, Spain, Italy and Belgium. EU accession requires the consent of all existing Member States. Thus it can be envisaged that there would be a lively debate at EU level about the implications of Scottish EU accession following secession.

And, finally, where would the remainder of the UK stand on Scottish EU accession? It is very unlikely that the remainder of the UK would oppose EU membership for an independent Scotland. But, as is always the case when new states join the EU, we would, along with other Member States, look to protect our essential national interests. A neutral Scotland could be slightly inconvenient, unlike in the era of the Cold War when it might have been positively dangerous. But in the case of Scottish entry to the EU, we have in reality only one vital national interest ie border controls following the creation of another land frontier. So the UK’s only condition for Scottish accession to the EU should be a legally binding agreement (not justiciable in the European Court of Justice) that an independent Scotland could not join the Schengen area except in the context of a common decision with the remainder of the UK and the Republic of Ireland to do so.

In a UK context, then, the decision about Scotland’s independence is essentially for the people of Scotland alone, but the wider context in which they will make it is very much a European one.

PS First published on Conservative Home - Thanks to those who posted to the thread there http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/michael-burnett/

What are MEPs there to do? (Part 3 - the devil is in the detail)

2008-03-09T04:52:00.000-07:00

In a parliament with no majorities, MEPs need to build cross-party and cross-national alliances to get things done ie win votes, promote amendments in Britain's interests and stop amendments which harm Britain's interests.

In fact, when MEPs are doing their job properly it's hard work on practical details.

And practical details are important. For example, by bringing service concessions within the scope of the Public Procurement Directives, far more major contracts across Europe, such as public-private partnerships, will have to be tendered transparently and competitively Europe-wide - a major opportunity for British businesses well used to a generally competitive home market for government contracts. But if you don't understand the Public Procurement Directives, the difference between public contracts and concessions, who you have to get on board to bring about this change (mainly the French, Spanish and Italians in this case) and where they are coming from then you will have not much chance of bringing about this change

Another example...MEPs now have the power to scrutinise the Commission's implementation of EU law through the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, introduced in 2006 into the Comitology process. There are more than 250 Comitology bodies, which in 2006, for example, delivered more than 2500 opinions on planned implementing actions by the Commission.Thus there is plenty of scope for MEPs (particularly those who have specialist knowledge of areas of European law) to engage with the detail of how EU law is implemented.

One thing is certain - and it misses the point about how the European Parliament works - nothing relevant to the work of the European Parliament can be achieved by forming an "official opposition"

Firstly, because, as we have found out over the past 11 years, oppositions can't do much to implement policies or change laws.

Secondly, by sitting in "opposition" you cannot build the coalitions necessary to win key votes.

And there is a more fundamental objection to the idea of "official opposition" in the European Parliament - it implies that the EU has a "government" which of course is not consistent with the idea of an EU as a partnership of nation states....

Kosovo - What is to be done by the EU? - Part 2

2008-03-01T03:03:00.000-08:00

Sadly, it took no great foresight - see post of 30 November 2007 - to predict what was going to happen over Kosovo's declaration of independence - disunity in European Foreign and Security policy, with Spain, Cyprus, Slovakia and Romania showing no sign of wanting to recognise the independence of Kosovo.

The emerging crisis over Kosovo has only served to highlight the weakness of the EU as an entity.

A strong confident EU would not have allowed itself to be buffeted by Russian and American policy and have used its power and influence - and attraction, since Serbia and Kosovo both want to join the EU - to implement a European solution accepted by both parties.

And there is still no credible European strategy to manage the regional risks which may follow from Kosovar independence - possible destabilisation of Macedonia, which narrowly avoided civil war in 2001, the rise of irredentism in Republika Srpska, one of the key players in the Yugoslav tragedy of the 1990s and the creation of a new entity for which there is no transition plan to economic self-sufficiency based on a thriving private sector.

What are MEPs there to do? (Part 2 - loyalty to the Party)

2008-02-24T02:31:00.000-08:00

Important decisions such as those on the Treaty of Lisbon, the single currency, defence, foreign policy are - and should - made by national governments

So Conservative MEPs should first and foremost be Conservatives working towards the goal of a Conservative government

What are MEPs there to do? (Part 1 - the day job)

2008-02-17T02:56:00.000-08:00

In my view they have five main roles:

1. To stand up for the interests of the region for which they are elected and for British interests
2. To hold the Commission to account for the spending of the EU budget and end the scandal of the EU budget not having being signed off by the auditors for the past 13 years, if necessary by the threat to withhold UK budget contributions
3. To ensure that the Commission does not exceed its powers in implementing decisions by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament
4. To enact legislation to complete the European Single Market
5. To review the body of European law – the so called acquis communautaire, which comprises according to different estimates of between 80,000 and 170,000 pages – and propose repeal of, or the introduction of “sunset ” clauses to, those parts which are no longer necessary

But the European Parliament does not – and should not – exist to decide matters such as how the euro zone works, which countries should adopt the euro, which countries should belong to the EU or constitutional issues such as the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Of course it wins headlines when Conservative MEPs make high profile protests about the European Parliament’s actions on matters such as the Treaty of Lisbon – but it’s also a distraction from the serious business of proposing an alternative way of making Europe work for Britain, something which we still haven’t done as a Party.

And in the EU if you don’t have a Plan B for others to support (call it the Treaty of London as I have in various earlier posts), you will surely end up with a Plan A which you don’t want….

A year of blogging - history and "modernisation"

2008-02-11T03:30:00.000-08:00

Looking back over the past year, I'm struck by how many postings make references to history - though perhaps you might expect that from a history graduate...

But history is a necessary counter-balance to Labour's constant use of the value laden term "modernisation" - one might (with apologies to George Orwell and Animal Farm) almost say "future good, history bad".

Labour have been contemptuous of our history and traditions - to take two of the many examples, by weakening the Union of the United Kingdom and surrendering powers to an unreformed EU in the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon

Intelligent politics is about both looking to the future and conserving what is best about existing instititutions - and understanding that where we want to go as a nation comes from where have been

England, the Archbishop and why we are who we are

2008-02-09T09:46:00.000-08:00

It's hard to imagine Rowan Williams as the succcesor to Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury who enthusiatically promoted the English Reformation, something for which in the end he paid with his life.

The 1530s were a period of confidence and certainty, the period when England first withdrew from the "European Union", captured by the assertion in Statute in Restraint of Appeals of 1532 that "this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King".

This is a far cry from the defeatism of Archbishop Williams and his comments about the inevitability of sharia law in England.

In making his comments, Rowan Williams also overlooked one the main underlying causes of the Reformation ie the abuse of the powers of ecclesiastical courts. If he has forgotten this lesson from history, and one of core principles of the English Reformation, then he should seriously ask himself whether he is fit to lead the church born out of that bold assertion of English sovereignty.

Elegy for England?

2008-01-31T09:45:00.001-08:00

At the start of the twentieth century Edward Elgar composed his second symphony and, for those who are moved by his music, it is a sombre, lyrical and poignant commentary on Edwardian England – an England on the brink of the social upheaval that was the First World War.

I make no apology for a third consecutive blog about England... about the kind of nation we have been, we are and what we want to be.

John Major spoke of creating a country “at ease with itself”

David Cameron rightly highlights the need to fix our broken society – one where schools will introduce metal detectors to find knives, 17 teenagers have been murdered in London in a year going about their daily lives, where the UNICEF 2007 children’s report placed the UK as worst amongst developed economies for children’s well-being, where a recent IPPR study showed British youth to be amongst the most badly behaved in Europe on measures such as drug use, violence and binge drinking.

Low level vandalism and disorder is not fully under control in our village in “leafy Solihull” - and part of the traditional working class town in which I grew up, and where crime was once very rare, has been terrorised by a gang which the police appear to have found it difficult to deal with – criminal activity which can’t be blamed on illegal asylum seekers or any other group of outsiders who might be used to distract attention from the breakdown of decent behaviour across English society as a whole.

All of this would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago but those who say so are dismissed as being nostalgic for a golden age. But I for one will not accept that label or allow Elgar’s England to be a symbol of a “land of lost content”.

Tackling crime and low level disorder at its basic level – with families taking responsibility – would do much to preserve the cohesion of our society and allow us to face the challenges of the twenty-first century from the secure foundation of a stable society.

In praise of Glenda Jackson...

2008-01-19T05:18:00.000-08:00

now a Labour MP but who had a first successful career as an actress.

Nowhere did she display her acting talents more clearly than as Queen Elizabeth 1 in the 1971 television series "Elizabeth R", which I've just recently watched again.

Elizabeth's England of the late sixteenth century is still - just - recognisable in the England of today : independent-minded towards continental Europe, Protestant, feeling threatened by internal and external enemies yet tolerant enough not to make too many of what the Queen called "windows into men's souls", trading with the wider world. It was ruled over by a determined woman, a fighter, a survivor who was a skilled judge of people and situations.

Understanding the England of the first Queen Elizabeth is still, for neighbours, a useful guide to understanding "why we are who we are" in the early part of the twenty-first century

A battle for England's soul

2008-01-12T05:09:00.000-08:00

Civil wars are always the most brutal of conflicts - we have witnessed one recently in Europe which followed the break up of former Yugoslavia.

But, as I was reminded this week by re-watching the Channel Four series on the English Civil War, ours was no different, engulfing all strata of society and where the distinction between civilians and the military melted away.

And it was, literally, a battle for England's soul. Both sides thought that God was on their side - the king who believed that he ruled by divine right, his Puritan-inspired opponents who believed that everyone should, without the intervention of the clergy, be able to worship God in their own way. Both sides interpreted victory or defeat as the will of God, a sign of divine favour or disapproval.

It also showed the enduring interconnection within our islands - events in Scotland and Ireland intervened decisively in the conflict.

It was fought against the backdrop of the European "Thirty Years War", a brutal struggle between Protestantism and a Catholicism renewed by the Counter-Reformation. Rightly or wrongly, the fears of English Protestants about King Charles I's leanings towards Catholicism (his wife was a French and openly Catholic) were based on fears about what was being reported through the first stirrings of a popular media as happening to Protestants in Continental Europe - and Ireland

It was also a conflict about where the right to exercise power comes from - hereditary succession and narrow elites or the democratic legitimacy of a parliament? For England the answers did not come decisively until 40 years later, when the Glorious Revolution of 1688 enshrined constitutional monarchy as the system which has survived until today. And the horrors of the Civil War created a distaste for radical change which has nevertheless allowed the British political system to evolve over the past four centuries, though of course sometimes through conflict based on the need to address specific issues

It showed how, even amongst the Parliamentary side, there were deep divisions - the Levellers believed in a much greater equality in the social order than did army officers from the upper and middle echelons of society. Army and Parliament were often also divided - and there were a number of instances which endorsed Chairman Mao's dictum that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

And one of the principles which lay at the heart of the conflict - "no taxation without representation" - inspired the American revolutionaries more than a century later

So many lessons for our own times and, in one satellite TV channel's very apt slogan, an important part of "Why we are who we are"

Europe's place in the world

2008-01-04T03:15:00.000-08:00

Whenever I leave Europe, it always feels so small. It's about a 3 hour flight from UK to the Black Sea coast of Romania - the edge of the EU - and yet still between 7 and 8 hours flight to Colombo.

A few impressions of my visit (the main purpose was to watch England play cricket, but we'll draw a veil over that....)

1. Sri Lanka does not quite have the entrepreneurial buzz of Singapore, Hong Kong or Mumbai but many people make a living through small businesses in the informal economy - a total contrast to the old EU

2. We rush around so much in modern life and find it difficult to find true contentment - David Cameron's ideas about quality of life strike a real cord. I found true relaxation being lashed by the monsoon rains at the top of Sigiriya rock, a palace complex built in 7 years - evidence of a technologically intelligent civilisation in 5th century AD which built the rock fortress and advanced irrigation systems

3. As far north as Habarana Sri Lanka's 30 year old civil war seems far away but from there it's only 50 miles from the city of Trincomalee which has seen fighting in the past - the war is an ethnic conflict which the country can't afford but can't find a way to escape from

Free movement of capital?

2007-12-09T05:04:00.000-08:00

Had an interesting discussion this week in Brussels about EU policy towards foreign direct inward investment.

Should the EU allow anyone to buy up our strategic industries - especially energy and defence? Should we insist on reciprocity of investment opportunity if we allow inward FDI? Or should we manage our risks by a move towards a "democracies-only" inward investment policy?

More to the point, how can we make sure that we have a free choice and not one forced by need for FDI - a position which we should surely be able to reach, given the size of our GDP.

Hard choices - or rather avoidance of them by the EU - a theme I'll return to in 2008, reinforced by time to reflect from far away from Europe.

This is the last blog for 2007, so I leave you with a poser (mainly for British readers)

Who, before Gordon Brown, was the last man from Dunfermline to try to rule England?

Answer in first post of 2008 - have a good Christmas and New Year

The EU in 2008 - time to stop behaving like Nero?

2007-12-09T03:51:00.000-08:00

...with some apologies to Nero, whose fault after the fire in AD 64 was over-ambition not lack of ambition.

But many of the key questions asked by this blog in 2007 still remain unanswered at the start of 2008.

Will the Treaty of Lisbon help to create energy security for the EU?
Will it help create a credible defensive force for the EU and a sustainable Common Foreign and Security policy?
How will the EU enforce border controls effectively?
How will the EU provide security for its citizens against imported and home grown terrorism?
In the light of these pressing issues, why did the EU devote energy in December 2007 to the low priority EU-Africa summit?

This blog wants to see an EU that will work, but does not believe that it can be said to do so until such key questions have a credible and sustainable answer.

These questions actually follow from a series of deeper questions which also remain unanswered.

Why is EU obsessed with institutions and the current so called Community method and thus avoids creating new means of effective governance? Form should follow function. At its most basic is defence and security. In this field Europe will not have a credible policy until it can act without the support of the United States. We still rely on NATO for our defence. So we cannot as Europeans look in the mirror and fully maintain our self-respect

Why does the EU budget not reflect the new priorities of citizens for a new century ie external security, internal security, energy security and the freedoms of the internal market? It is easier to make declarations and/or try to increase the budget rather than shift priorities

Why cannot the EU decide who its strategic partners in the world, in addition to the US? It is easier to pretend that everyone is, rather than to focus on a country such as India, which is closest to sharing our political and cultural values and is liberalising its economy

Why can the EU not definitively decide which countries are eligible for entry and work out a credible policy for those neighbours who are not? It is easier to pretend that the door will never close

In short, there is a lack of will to face hard choices – will 2008 be the year the EU grows up and faces them?

Kosovo - What is to be done? (by the EU)

2007-11-30T05:34:00.000-08:00

Lenin's famous question, or perhaps challenge, now has immediate relevance to the EU.

No-one can be quite sure what is going to happen. As someone once said "forecasting is difficult, particularly about the future".

But now that the elections are over, reconfirming the intention of Kosovar Albanians to declare independence from Serbia, it is far from speculative to predict the following sequence of events.

1. No agreement on the future status of Kosovo is reached by December 10th
2. Shortly afterwards the Kosovar administration declares independence
3. The US recognises Kosovo's independence
4. Serbia refuses to accept the declaration
5. Russia backs Serbia's stance, so the UN is paralysed
6. The EU declares that there is "grave crisis" and that "something must be done"

But, to come back to Lenin, what is to be done?

None of this, if it happens, will come as a surprise, so why do we need to ask the question? We should know already what the EU stance will be, particularly because the EU stance can influence the outcome.

Of course Kosovo is a difficult issue, but foreign and security policy is often about difficult decisions and Kosovo is currently part of Serbia, with whom the EU has now signed a Stability and Association Agreement (the first step to EU membership). So this is no longer in the EU's back yard but inside the building.

Failure to establish a clear and sustainable position on the way forward, believed because it is backed by the will to act, will again underline the need for a different approach to EU Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The current approach is plainly ill suited to crises and will not be fixed by a move closer to the Community method in the Treaty of Lisbon.

Defence and security are the first duty of a government - and an obsession with a single model of achieving outcomes which it promotes is the main reason for rejecting the Treaty.

The tragedy of Zimbabwe - continued

2007-11-25T02:20:00.001-08:00

It's impossible to imagine how much worse Zimbabwe's situation can become - this week's news of the de facto nationalisation of mining companies will be another blow to the already wrecked economy (and hardly a triumph for "quiet diplomacy" which Gordon Brown will doubtless claim he is continuing to pursue at the current Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda).

The economic chaos into which Zimbabwe has descended was exactly what was foreseen by Ian Smith, who died this week. He opposed majority rule in what was then Rhodesia, afraid of the political and economic chaos in many of the newly independent African countries, though his stance was widely derided at the time as being out of touch with the climate of decolonisation prevailing in the 1960s.

History never sees the counter-factual case, so we will never know if he was right or wrong, or if his determination to prevent majority rule was precisely what led to the rise of Robert Mugabe.

But his death removes another of the demons (Matabele, MDC-supporting city dwellers in Harare etc) which Robert Mugabe has created to justify his cruel dictatorship

The sorrow of Belgium

2007-11-17T04:08:00.000-08:00

Belgium's political crisis continues with the failure to form a new government.

Many predict the break up of Belgium. And it is a real possibility because the human and economic ties between Flanders and Wallonia are much looser than those between the Czech Republic and Slovakia and certainly those within the United Kingdom. I remember a number of conversations with Flemish taxi drivers telling me that they are fed up of subsidising French speakers, one indication that the sense of a common identity in Belgium has broken down.

Belgium has always been one of the most active proponents of the model of a Europe which is based on the Community method, which adds a certain irony to breakdown in that country of what the advocates of that vision of Europe call social solidarity.

In the end of course the resolution of this issue is a matter for the people of Belgium, even though the status of Brussels has an international dimension.

But the disappearance of Belgium would have wider European implications, the first example of potential so called "enlargement from within" since Flanders and Wallonia would both expect to become EU members. What then of Catalonia? Of Scotland? Of Bavaria even? This would raise the prospect of a Europe not of Member States but Member Regions. How far would this go? Are the historians right to see in this the recreation of the Holy Roman Empire, weak and subject to interference by external powers? Or a Europe with a strong centre and weak member entities?

This may or may not be what Europeans want - though it would certainly be a minority view in England - but the point is that it should not be allowed to emerge by default. If it happens it should be the result of conscious decision and, like other constitutional changes such as the Treaty of Lisbon, be determined by inter-governmental agreement ratified by referendum

When Sunday comes….

2007-11-11T23:25:00.000-08:00

This year Remembrance Sunday falls on Armistice Day itself, which always gives the church service a particularly poignant feel, especially when the names of the dead are read out.

And a few years ago the service at St Patrick’s church in Solihull was given even more meaning by the research of one of the church members, who had been able to find out something about the lives of those who had died for our freedom.

Whenever there is war, service personnel – and those close to them - will ask themselves the question asked in this poem, written by my son James when he was 14 years old.

For England

Men I’ve fought with blown away
Goodbyes I never got to say
The things I suffer every day
For England, For England

A sniper’s bullet in the night
Another day, naught but fright
These things I risk through dark and light
For England, For England

Mud and sewage, rats and mice
Clothes and hair filled with lice
To kill a man and pay no price
For England, For England

Wounded, dying on the floor
Things I never should endure
What am I really fighting for?
For England? For England?

Many of them might have said they were fighting for freedom, for justice, for democracy.

But what kind of freedom and justice?

My continental European friends and colleagues, aware of the UK’s opt out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty of Lisbon, ask me if Britain doesn’t care about human rights? Or even opposes the idea.

Today is a day to remember the dead who fought for what they believed to a just cause – but the question of what they were fighting for is one which deserves an answer and one which I will return to.

Lest we forget

2007-11-03T10:53:00.000-07:00

Guilty verdicts were handed down this week to 21 terrorists for the Madrid train bombings - proof that Europe is vulnerable to home grown terrorism.

But this week our thoughts must be with those close to the 191 who died, and the survivors, for whom 11 March 2004 will be a day they never forget.

Proof perhaps of the saying that every family is but one step away from a tragedy.

Do you sincerely want to win?

2007-10-28T04:59:00.000-07:00

In the case of Afghanistan, the answer from the European members of NATO at last week's NATO summit appears to be no.

Of course there are different roles to be played in conflict prevention. logistics and intelligence support, peace keeping and post conflict reconstruction but none of this will have any value if there is no will or capability for military engagement - the hard, dirty end of keeping Europe well-defended.

This is a role which can't be sub-contracted to a few NATO members, because it represents inequality of sacrifice and makes it more difficult to build political support in those countries who are prepared to make combat troops available.

Put simply, people say "Why are our service personnel dying for the benefit of others?"

And it's the main reason why I'll be voting against the Treaty of Lisbon - because any moves to create a country called Europe should be put on hold until there is evidence that such a country can defend itself independently of NATO (which has come to mean in practice independently of the United States)

To fail to plan...

2007-10-20T05:36:00.000-07:00

An interesting discussion in Brussels this week at a European Commission workshop about ICT skills strategies across Europe.

National strategies vary across the EU 27, with many of the new EU members relying on vendor-driven ICT skills programmes.

Is this a conscious decision or the result of default? (a "no strategy strategy, as someone put it). One of the consequences of the collapse of the failed central planning of communism has been an aversion in transition economies to planning. But the counter to excess planning is not no planning but appropriate planning.

It also highlighted the question of the level at which decisions should be taken within countries - a coherent ICT skills policy which starts with the secondary education curriculum and decisions about the funding of tertiary courses requires national co-ordination. Yet many new EU states have devolved powers to large numbers of small municipalities. In Slovakia, for example, which has a population of five million, there are more than three thousand municipalities.

Can they really plan education and training coherently?

And could there be a wider lesson here? Localism and decentralisation sound attractive - until an issue emerges where it can be a barrier to appropriate planning of national needs

Thin red lines are not the answer....

2007-10-14T03:03:00.000-07:00

even in the unlikely event that they are legally sustainable.

It’s time to move beyond the idea of a “unique treaty for Britain” to putting the argument for a Europe that will work.

So this week in Lisbon matters - and not because of some staged “battle for British interests” by Gordon Brown, which will allow him to emerge “victorious” and ready to try to avoid a referendum.

We need to use our membership of the club to argue for club rules which will work and allow Europe to prosper, defend itself and make its weight in the world count.

European reformers have also often missed the point – an integral part of rejecting Plan A is to come up with a credible Plan B and build a coalition for it. Tim Kirkhope is a notable exception with his plan for a simplifying Treaty.

When can we do this?

After Britain has rejected the flawed Reform Treaty in a referendum (which will surely take place and which will result in a No vote). This is not of course rejection of EU membership – and calls from both the Liberal Democrats and the United Kingdom Independence Party for a referendum on the UK’s EU membership are designed to miss the point. The Treaty of Lisbon cannot be ratified solely by Parliament in the UK because all parties promised a referendum on the European Constitution and - depending on who you listen to - the effect of the Treaty of Lisbon is 90%-95% similar to that of the Constitution

The Reform Treaty deserves to be rejected, not because it changes the EU’s institutions, but because it changes them in the wrong way. It builds on structures which are outdated and is not a fundamental reform. It is flawed because in a world which has changed radically since the 1950s. It does not ask what the EU should do and then create structures to do it effectively – in short, it fails the “form follows function” test.

What would the outlines of a reformed Europe look like?

Moving beyond the “Community method”, except for internal market and competition issues (where decision making processes should remain broadly unchanged). This would redefine the scope of competence of the European Court of Justice

Moving towards an enhanced inter-governmental approach (can anyone think of a better phrase?) by creating Executive Agencies to which Commission officials would be re-deployed and entrench power with democratically elected politicians

Giving leadership roles to different countries for each Executive Agency, related to competence and importance to each eg defence and security to Britain, France and Germany, training and research to the Nordic countries, agriculture to Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece, structural funds to some of the new accession countries, environmental policy to the Netherlands etc

Creating different decision making and implementing processes for different policy areas (eg a rapid action Command Group for defence and security matters) but all under the overall umbrella of the Council of Ministers, with defined powers for the European Parliament, also differentiated by policy area

Redirecting the EU towards new priorities of EU citizens in the 21st century, with resources to match ie away from agriculture and towards training, research, border controls, internal security, external security, energy security, promoting competition, promoting the internal market, promoting enterprise and maintaining competitiveness and meeting common environmental challenges (see blog entry from 9 February 2007)

Will it be easy? Of course not - winning support for a new concept of a reformed Europe will take time and effort and particularly the bargaining over who leads in which policy area, which will call for significant compromises. It may first require an ex-post UK referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon even afterit has been ratified

Does any country have the right to ask the question? Of course - it's our club and we have the right to propose changes to the club rules.

Can we succeed? - Remember the old adage "If you think you can, you might, if you think you can't, you're right"

Will Europe win? It will preserve the best of the current systems and be modernised to face new challenges. It would be a "settlement for a generation", and avoid the need for IGCs in the near future

Most importantly, it will have removed the first of the two main barriers to being able to defend itself in dangerous world - the will to act and the structures to act promptly - and thus be able to debate the second challenge - willingness to devote resources to defence and security.

Whatever kind of Europe you want, a realistic debate on resources for defence and security will be a step towards Europe which can have self-respect, because it doesn't have to rely on other countries for its self-protection.

Friends and neighbours continued...

2007-10-08T04:11:00.001-07:00

In today’s multi-polar world the EU will need them....

Should it be neutral between the players? Or should it focus on a strategic alliance and, if so, with whom?

If the EU wants another strategic partner apart from the United States, there’s a strong case for it to be India which:
· Has the critical mass of 1 billion people
· Is a democracy with a liberalising economy, an independent judiciary and a diverse media
· Is committed to pursuing its disputes by economic and diplomatic means and generally does so (tensions with Pakistan have eased considerably)
· Has experience of managing religious diversity
· Has strong cultural ties with the EU (not just that they drive on the left, measure in miles and play cricket!)
· Is an observer at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, a major new bloc though which the EU can deal with all other key actors on the world stage, including Russia, China and Iran (and is thus to be welcomed)

Do any other candidates match up better?

And who is my neighbour?

2007-09-30T08:31:00.000-07:00

A question at the front of our minds this week here in Maastricht with a group of diplomats and civil servants from Russia, Ukraine and the Caucasus, where we debated European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).

European Neighbourhood Policy is the EU policy of good neighbourly relations with states who are not and are not envisaged to be candidates for EU membership.

It's a useful idea in principle, but there are, as is often the case with the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, some problems with the reality.

Firstly, some of the countries included in the ENP, such as Georgia, Armenia and the current government of Ukraine, see it as a stepping stone to EU membership.

Secondly, the five year action plans for co-operation are very ambitious and thus risk discrediting the policy. They are also short on conditionality ie what the EU should do with the promised resources if the neighbours don't fulfil the progress envisaged in the agreement.

Thirdly, as some conference participants pointed out, the definition of frozen conflicts is pragmatic rather than principle based. Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh are included - but the debate ranged across a series of other situations which, on a different set of criteria, could be included eg the position of Russian-speaking minority in Estonia, the entire territory of Moldova (part of Romania before 1941), the position of the Slavophone minority in Greece, the different positions of Turkey and Armenia as to whether what happened in 1915 constituted genocide or the possible status of the Serb minority if Kosovo were to be independent. You don't have to agree with any of these assertions to recognise the issues...

Some participants accused the EU of double standards. And while one Member State (Spain) claims part of the territory of another (UK), perhaps the EU should be careful about telling other countries about how to resolve ethnic and national questions.

But it's surely time to ask whether or not, the ENP in its present form serves EU interests. If it creates more ill-will than goodwill, then it's time for a rethink.

The tragedy of Zimbabwe

2007-09-16T04:06:00.000-07:00

The news from Zimbabwe becomes even more shocking and Archbishop Ncube, one of the few open opponents of the Mugabe regime, is now discredited.

For me it's hard to believe - when we lived in Lusaka in the late 1980s, a weekend at Lake Kariba just across the border was the place to take a boat out, relax, to buy goods which were scarce in Zambia and to enjoy good hotels and good food and wine.

I was last in Harare in 2001 and fell into casual conversation with one of the hotel staff. When I told him that it was ten years since I'd been to Zimbabwe he immediately said "Ah, that was in the good times". I reflected that things must have been bad if he was prepared to make a spontaneous and unguarded comment to a stranger.

Now it is hard to see how the situation can improve.

Will South Africa go the same way? All the pressures of expectation and history are there, and maybe the reason why President Mbeki has been so reluctant to intervene as decisively as he could undoubtedly do in Zimbabwe through economic means

Down the Tube

2007-09-09T03:37:00.000-07:00

The London Underground PPP - worth more than £30 billion - is one of the largest in Europe

But it was badly designed because the separation of service operation and infrastructure maintenance required artificial and complex success measures, only very limited risk was taken by lenders and because insufficient service improvement was required by the private partners (a full account of the London Underground PPP is given in Christian Wolmar's book - see link).

It's damning indictment of Gordon Brown, who, as Chancellor, pushed it through against widespread opposition - part of the UK government's approach to PPP as the default option for infrastructure projects rather than case by case assessment of whether or not each one gave value for money

Now Metronet, one of the private partners, has gone into financial administration, surely it's a good time to stop and reflect how and where PPP has been used and how it might be used properly in future

A true Greek tragedy

2007-09-01T09:15:00.000-07:00

Having spent time working in Athens and Thessaloniki this year I've found it difficult to get the Greek fires out of my mind, though of course the fires in the Canary Islands and the floods in UK are no less disastrous for those who have suffered from them.

Greece is debating whether or not its own government was well enough prepared for the emergency and responded effectively.

But was there enough support quickly enough from its EU partners?

At risk of repetition, the EU needs to do more of what directly matters to citizens in a practical way - like responding to natural disasters when there is an appeal for help.

So maybe it's time for a response plan for a range of natural disaster scenarios and the earmarking by all EU members of a pool of emergency service assets able to be deployed in response to requests for help with fires, floods, avalanches, air and sea accidents etc

Homage to Mallorca

2007-08-25T01:09:00.000-07:00

even the European Reform blog takes a holiday...

Time to reflect on how the much derided package tourism and (recently) budget airlines have brought Mallorca - once the preserve of the rich and famous - in reach of everyone. And the Mallorquins are a good example of how to manage tourism effectively - the high density resorts immediately east and west of Palma contrast with the quiet resorts of the north and west.

I couldn't raise any enthusiasm for the opening battle of Aston Villa's current journey to mid-table mediocrity and still less thoughts about the Euro, the Reform Treaty or the workings of comitology.

But perhaps that's the point. It's right that on holiday political issues seem a million miles away, but the challenge for European politicians is to create a Europe that works, that is easy to understand and which means something to all our lives - something like “EasyJet Plus Europe”.

This means promoting a true people's Europe. a Europe which does what matters most to citizens - freedom to live in, work in/look for work in, travel to, save money in, retire to, buy property in, start businesses and trade goods and services etc other EU states.

It's no use begging....

2007-08-23T07:55:00.000-07:00

for the ECB not to raise interest rates

Could anything better make the case for a country keeping control over its interest rates than today's headline in the Daily Telegraph ("Cancel rate rise, German industry pleads")? And France's finance minister also said as much

But if you join the eurozone, you can't set your own interest rates...

Another example of why "one size doesn't fit all" - or, as economists would put it, even six years after the introduction of the euro, why the Eurozone isn't an optimal currency area.

NATO in Afghanistan - a "Yes, Prime Minister" farce?

2007-07-21T09:53:00.000-07:00

Or is it a real reflection of European defence policy?

There was a scene from an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" in which the contribution of NATO nations are being discussed and Bernard says that the "Dutch, Danish and Belgian armies go home at the weekend" and Jim Hacker says that "So, on the whole, it would be better if the Russians invaded between Monday and Friday"

Is it fair comment or pure parody?

Judge for yourself - not only is there a sharp disparity between the contribution of US, UK and Canadian forces in the south and the contribution of other NATO partners in the quieter north, but even there the mandate of some European NATO countries does not allow for patrolling at night (because, of course, the Taliban don't attack at night?)

More seriously, for Europeans to regain their self-respect, we need collectively to make a proportionate contribution to our own defence

This means a real choice either to work through NATO – the proven option - or create a fully fledged EU equivalent (with a similar command structure, proper resources etc). But “do nothing” – undermining NATO by ill co-ordinated, ill resourced gestures, creating an economically prosperous but militarily vulnerable/dependent EU, and lack of will to take military action (only UK and France have the real will to take military action at the times when, regrettably, it is sometimes necessary - is too dangerous. In any event, as a first step EU Member States should make commitments to spend more on defence (a set % of GDP, higher than now), commit to joining NATO and remove barriers to contributing to military action where needed as opposed to just peace keeping and post conflict reconstruction (ie resurrecting the so-called “defence convergence criteria”)

"Britannia rules the wave"

2007-07-18T08:18:00.000-07:00

In which national anthem do these words appear?

Not that of the UK, but in the second verse of the Australian national anthem, selected by popular vote in 1977

When gallant Cook from Albion sail'd,
To trace wide oceans o'er,
True British courage bore him on,
Till he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England's flag,
The standard of the brave,
With all her faults we love her still,
"Brittannia rules the wave!"
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"

A very stirring reminder of the sentiments our nation used to inspire - I remember having similar warm feelings when I first went to Gibraltar in 1979, moved by their affection for a distant country which at that time was in economic decline.

Our own pride in our nation has become old fashioned now - and do we really inspire such affection beyond our shores?

"Once you interfere in the internal affairs of another country

2007-07-10T05:40:00.000-07:00

you are on a very slippery slope. Even the Foreign Secretary has grasped that one” - a scene from “Yes Minister”, reminiscent of the long prevailing culture of the Foreign Office in the UK

But has experience proved them right? Has well intentioned intervention in Iraq without a post conflict reconstruction plan really improved regional stability in the Middle East?

More generally it underlines the difficulty of establishing agreement on what are and are not fundamental human rights, because the logic of establishing them is that you will then enforce them.

Where should the line for intervention be drawn? Genocide in Rwanda and Darfur? Gross violation of the democratic process in Myanmar or Zimbabwe?

Even in Europe there is disagreement. The Portuguese Presidency thinks it is acceptable to invite Robert Mugabe to the EU-Africa summit in December.

So it is hardly surprising that there is no consensus on what constitutes fundamental human rights in Europe – and thus every reason to exclude the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the “Treaty of Lisbon”. In European democracies the way to decide what are fundamental human rights is democratic debate in national parliaments and courts. A Charter based on vague declarations of principle and without specific exclusions would bring the EU into the same disrepute as the European Court of Human Rights, which was designed for a world of dictatorships, but has often been abused in democracies by those unable or unwilling to win the democratic argument at national level.

Who are the real eurosceptics?

2007-07-04T06:50:00.000-07:00

According to a recent Eurobarometer, a survey of European public opinion, not Britain but Austria, where only 36% of the population think that Austria's membership of the EU is good for the country

How can this be explained, when the country is stable and prosperous? On a recent visit there, I was told that there was a disconnect between the people and the government, that the Austrian government rarely insisted on red lines in EU negotiations

A good enough reason to continue to fight, as a member of the club, for the type of Europe that we want to see and not to heed any threats that we should not

A million Muslim march?

2007-07-04T06:44:00.000-07:00

In 1995 Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam organised in Washington DC what he called a "million man march" to demonstrate the strength of community of black Americans

It was a very powerful statement and, maybe, an idea which has value in the UK at this time of great uncertainty

What would be the effect, the signal to the world, if a million Muslims were now to march in the UK to assert their support for democracy and diversity and against terrorism and religious exclusivism?

What's in a name?

2007-06-18T11:20:00.000-07:00

I'm just back from Thessaloniki, so that, to my Greek friends and colleagues, I've finally been to Macedonia

But, according to my friends and colleagues in Skopje, I worked Macedonia (officially called FYROM in EU nomenclature) 11 times between 2004 and 2006....

Is this debate irrational or irrelevant? Or was I right to get irritated recently when I flew with the Spanish carrier Iberia whose route map calls the Falkland Islands the "Islas Malvinas" and Port Stanley "Puerto Argentino" which were the names given by the Argentine occupiers in 1982

The struggle to liberate the Falkland Islands ended 25 years ago this week, a war to assert the democratic right of the Islanders to exercise their right to choose how they should be governed. It was not just an argument over a name

But more than 1000 service personnel on both sides lost their lives in this war - so now is a time for reflection, not just for the families who still grieve but also for any politician thinking of committing troops to a war which comes with a grave responsibility to ensure that, if undertaken, it is proportionate, done only when unavoidable and with a clear end game

Cheap flights and Englishmen...

2007-06-02T08:34:00.001-07:00

seek out the winter sun (with due apologies to Noel Coward)

But are cheap flights only about holidays and leisure travel?

I have a confession to make - when I did the Independent's recent carbon footprint test, I came out at six times the UK average!

Why? Because I am one of the half million Brits who at present work in another EU country. I could not do the job I'm doing if I didn't fly back to UK most weekends to be with my family and they cannot be with me in the Netherlands because my wife has her teaching job in Solihull and my son is also there at secondary school

What I do would not be affordable without budget airlines, which give practical reality to freedom of movement

So should I give up my job, even though I am exercising one of the four core freedoms of the EU Internal Market?

Many of our MEPs are also weekend commuters, travelling regularly between Brussels, Strasbourg and the UK - are we to make them feel uncomfortable about splitting their job between their role of standing up for British interests in the EU and being in the UK at weekends to stay in touch with citizens?

There are no easy answers to this - just a debate with many sides

Turkey's fragile democracy

2007-05-27T13:23:00.002-07:00

The recent bombings in Ankara and the political crisis over the presidency have brought Turkey again into the spotlight and there is no doubt that stability in Turkey is crucial to regional and, arguably, European stability

Turkish EU membership is the the trickiest of the "what is Europe" questions - much more so than Ukraine and Belarus where the issues are of fitness to enter rather than any doubt about their European-ness

Turkish entry to the EU was a factor in France's no vote on the European Constitution and Nicolas Sarkozy has been elected pledged to opposing Turkish membership

Istanbul feels like a European city, Turkey has been a long standing member of NATO and some see Turkey's 70 million citizens as the solution to Europes' demographic crisis, even though it is dwarfed by India's 1 billion and China's 1.2 billion. Most of its trade is with the EU. And whenever Turkish participants come to conferences here in Maastricht, they always come with a sharp knowledge of European law and practice and a keen interest in it

But the north-western triangle around Ankara and Istanbul is only a small part of the country...

But will Turkey ever be admitted to the EU?

For years the EU hid behind the Cyprus and Kurdish issues and ducked the question - with a lack of honesty which has caused alienation in Turkey

The proposed Treaty of London is based on the principle of stating very clearly what Europe is ie which states are potentially eligible for membership and which are not and what to do with those who are not

But let there be no doubt that this is a serious and difficult question - Turkey's membership will change the character and orientation of the EU more than any other enlargement

To try to answer the question, try these sub-issues....

Is the EU ready for the admission of a large and predominantly Muslim state? (ie on a totally different scale from Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo)
Is the EU ready for a situation where it has borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria?
Will those borders be secure?
Will the EU be prepared to finance the economic development of a large, relatively poor country with a large agricultural sector?
How would Turkish membership impact on institutional balance in the EU - votes in Council, MEPs in the European Parliament, distribution of Structural Funds?
Is there a form of limited EU membership available ie one which allows free movement of goods, services and capital but restricts free movement of peoples not just to work but also to live?
Is there a status short of full membership which would bring benefits to Turkey?
What would be the consequences for the European political landscape if Turkey - in or out of the EU - became an Islamic Republic?

Those who forget history...the holocaust remembered

2007-05-20T02:23:00.000-07:00

Budapest has changed dramatically in the 12 years since I've been there but behind the new commercial, retail, housing and infrastructure investment is still the pain of economic transition

But the visit was also a reminder of another kind of pain - the images in the museum attached to the large and ornately decorated Budapest synagogue of Hungarian Jews transported to Auschwitz-Birkenau

Especially haunting are the faces of children about to be killed - not for what they had done or even who they were as individuals but for what they were

Is this all history?

Maybe yes in Europe but certainly not today in Darfur, Africa's latest tragedy in a line from Biafra in the Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s, Matabeleland in Zimbabwe in the early 1980s and Rwanda in the 1990s - people dying for what they were

And Ken Bigley died horribly not for what he had done or even who he was as an individual but because he was a Westerner working in Iraq

The lesson of history is to believe evil doers when they say they mean evil - a mistake once made with Hitler from which we all need to learn

The Eurovision song contest - the "people's Europe"?

2007-05-13T02:23:00.000-07:00

What is Europe?

Entering the Eurovision Song Contest or UEFA football competitions may not be conclusive proof of being European, because it's hard to argue that Israel is part of Europe, though the Eurovision does include countries which are unarguably European such as Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.

Serbia may now be poor, may have had a troubled recent past and may have had some recent difficulties putting together a government coalition. But Belgrade feels like a European city and, like the rest of former Yugoslavia, Serbia's values, culture and history are, fundamentally, European.

When the new Member States joined in 2004 the cry was "Together again Europe" - but Europe will not be truly together until it brings the Western Balkans home.

We just need to make sure that decisions in the EU are not based on votes won in the Eurovision Song Contest....

Are we too afraid of ideas?

2007-05-06T06:43:00.000-07:00

The French presidential debate - a real battle of ideas - was one of the most enjoyable spectacles for me of recent years.

Nicolas Sarkozy has won the presidency - and he showed that it's possible to win from the right and win even though, unfashionably now for English politics, he is unashamedly one of the "men in grey suits". Segolene Royal enhanced her stature - she came over both as presidential and as someone who believes in what she is saying. Sincere but wrong - a compliment which has gone out of fashion in our politics - a victim of the pollution of politics by New Labour.

If we have learned anything from the last ten years, it is that politics is about leadership, not just followership. Leadership and choice, and not tinkering with voting mechanisms, will put politics back on the map and make voting fashionable again. Ask our French neighbours - when given a real choice, 85% of them voted in both the first and second rounds of the presidential elections.

Scotland and Wales have constitutional issues which provide spark to the recent campaigns.

What will be the big idea(s) which will uplift politics in England, the idea(s) which will give citizens something to vote for, not just something to vote against? Perhaps Nicolas Sarkozy's ideas provide a guide when says he wants to "rehabilitate work, authority, morality, respect and merit".

Tony Blair - the man who wrecked the Union?

2007-04-27T06:58:00.000-07:00

What will be the real impact - if it happens - of the separation of England and Scotland?

After talking to Czech colleagues recently about the peaceful separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the 1990s, I'm still not sure. Their answer was in essence that Slovakia wanted to go and relations are happier on both sides now that they have. They couldn't really identify any loss to them in financial, economic or cultural terms. But many people who were married to Slovaks faced dilemmas about where to live after the separation - the languages are very close but would the job opportunities be equal?

But there are some things in life whose value is not appreciated until you don't have them. Will a Union of 300 years prove to mean more than one which lasted 75 years, much of which was spent under Nazi and then communist oppression?

Enoch Powell was wrong

2007-04-21T06:17:00.000-07:00

An interesting conference here in Maastricht - a chance to discuss the shape of new Europe and the creation of alternative vision to the model of the old elite who want a country called Europe

What's clear is that there is a groundswell of discontent about the way Europe runs - in Slovakia (about tax harmonisation), in the Czech Republic (about possible bans on some local alcoholic drinks) and in Slovenia for example. But there's no coherent alternative vision even from Slovenia, who have the recent experience of escaping from the disparate federation called Yugoslavia and creating a state

Actually, I kept asking the question "what's your alternative?" enough times to move the debate away from particular complaints to creating a reform alternative - a serious debate in which we should not be shy to take the lead

Which brings me to why Enoch Powell was wrong - in fact, on two counts

He thought we should leave the EEC. He was wrong about that, like UKIP are wrong. How do they think we could operate in a world of emerging heavyweights of the 21st century such as China, India and maybe a resurgent Russia? How would we have credibility and weight in trade negotiations with the US?

But he was also wrong when he said, in the context of the Common Market, that no alternative was required to a failed policy - on the contrary, failure to create an alternative vision of a reformed Europe will leave the field open to those who favour a European state

Will it be easy? Of course not - winning support for a new concept of a reformed Europe will take time and effort

Is it unfashionable to ask who as a nation we are and want to be? Definitely not - it's the question that Quebec has just answered and on which Scotland will be voting next month

Do we have the right to ask the question? Of course - it's our club and we have the right to propose changes to the club rules

Can we succeed? - Remember the old adage "If you think you can, you might, if you think you can't, you're right"

Enterprise Europe in Greece

2007-04-05T02:47:00.000-07:00

Landing at the new modern Athens airport was an encouraging first step to show how enterprise Europe is taking off - and a good example of how early wins are crucial.

In Greece when people think of public-private partnership they think of the airport - and it's clear that so much more is to follow. In fact I haven't seen so much enthusiasm for public-private partnership amongst senior officials and political leaders for a long time - and it spans the political divide. Several road, hospital and port renovation schemes are planned

In fact, the only danger there is too much enthusiasm - they may be at risk of repeating the mistake made by Labour in trying to spend too much money too quickly and not getting value for money

Where will be next? Maybe Luxembourg who are looking at the idea of public-private partnership, or Flanders, which has a new unit to promote public-private partnership.

Progress indeed in "old Europe"!

The EU at 50 and European Constitution - again

2007-03-20T06:45:00.000-07:00

So now we await the Berlin declaration at the summit later this month to mark the 5oth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome

This will be Germany's attempt to relaunch the European Constitution - all the more reason for tabling a British alternative (see earlier "Treaty of London" post, 9 February 2007)

Some people have said to me that we should do nothing and keep saying no, and in a sense they are right because the EU has continued to function without the Constitution. But those who have a vision of the EU as a fully fledged state - a country called Europe - will not rest and are actively trying to revive the Constitution

Speeches are not enough, and just saying no will do nothing to build an alternative European coalition

The need for action is urgent

Keeping the pound - a political or an economic decision?

2007-03-12T10:37:00.000-07:00

We had some visitors here in Maastricht last week from the European Central Bank - and of course we got round to the inevitable subject...

As I told them, when people ask me in UK what I think of the Euro I tell them that I love it - it's a very useful foreign currency! When you are only a couple of miles from Belgium and less than 15 from Germany, of course it's convenient.

None of this changes the reality - there has never been a free nation in history which has not had its own currency and the Euro is a political project to build a United States of Europe.

Europe could have the benefits of the Euro from a common currency - the Euro could be used for business to business trading and international trade but keeping national currencies - without nations giving up control over their economy in a single currency (interest rates, budget balances and exchange rates now, tax rates, levels of spending and total levels of taxation to follow in future) Where does that leave democracy? In national elections you could change the government but then not be able to change the economic policy.

What does this choice mean? To Sweden, who voted to keep the Krona in 2003, it meant the right to vote for high taxes and high spending.

Is this economic freedom the freedom to be irresponsible? No, because global capital markets quickly punish irresponsible governments

In this month when the EU celebrates its 50th birthday, maybe we should declare a new anniversary, September 14th, when Sweden showed us the way in 2003

Enterprise Europe forges ahead

2007-03-06T07:39:00.000-08:00

Are we winning the battle for an enterprise Europe?

I'm pretty sure that we are. Last night I was in Brussels at a meeting organised by the German regional authority of North Rhine Westphalia about public-private partnerships ie how to get the private sector to deliver major infrastructure projects. More than 75 people attended for a very lively debate with presentations of successful examples

Germany has been quite slow so far in launching PPP projects but now has more than 80 such projects in the pipeline. Budget pressures are pushing this trend right across Europe.

Expect more successes soon - Italy, Spain and Portugal are also very active in PPP and I''ll be in Athens later this month to see how Greece's new PPP law is promoting enterprise

New faces in the EU?

2007-03-02T01:45:00.000-08:00

What will Romania's entry to the EU really mean?

The British Council has been playing its part to promote good governance there. For the past two years they've been funding a scheme to train bright young civil servants with training and internships in both Romania and the EU - and it worked well here for us at EIPA with the three interns who came here at the end of last year

This national initiative - one of many by EU Member States as countries approach EU membership - fits alongside the many EU parallel capacity building initiatives

They can be very satisfying to support - four years ago I went to Romania six times to run 20 seminars and workshops for civil servants in public procurement on an EU PHARE project and can now see our Romanian co-trainers from that project starting to make a difference in that field of EU law

Afraid of identity cards?

2007-02-21T03:19:00.000-08:00

Should we be against ID cards in UK in principle?

Here in the Netherlands I carry a locally issued, non-digital, low cost card (€28) which is conclusive proof of identity in so many ways - and it also acts as registration to vote

To get it you have to turn up in person at the local council and show your passport - so it's not given out too freely

There's an automatic fine for not carrying it - but it quickly becomes a habit even when I go out walking or cycling

A true EU Internal Market?

2007-02-15T00:44:00.000-08:00

Had an interesting discussion with European Commission officials earlier this week about bidding for government contracts

In spite of new EU laws, less than 20% of government contracts which could be advertised EU-wide are actually advertised - and the UK is no better than other countries

Again it shows that what is needed is not more EU law but proper implementation of existing laws to give our businesses a chance to compete in the internal market

A new Treaty of London for 2007? – The alternative to the European Constitution

2007-02-09T01:05:00.000-08:00

Why do we need an alternative to the European Constitution?

If we believe that we are in the EU club and thus free to argue for the club rules we want to see, we need to seize the moment and propose a new vision of Europe, not merely react to ideas of those who want to create a “country called Europe”.

If we don't, those who oppose the Constitution will have no alternative plan to support and thus, if past experience is a guide, will reluctantly acquiesce in it.

What is the Treaty of London?

It would be a comprehensive and defining document, replacing all previous EU Treaties (and substantially reducing the amount of EU law). In essence, it would re-create the vision of Europe as a partnership of nation states, bringing powers back to Britain

We don’t need to fear “Treaty creep”, if we’ve got the Treaty right in the first place.

How would we present it?

As a “declaration of principles” initially – in a style to work downwards from ie the way in which the EU works. We shouldn’t be afraid of adopting this style - because of the importance of presenting and winning the argument for an alternative vision of the EU – though it goes against the grain of the way we often conduct our politics. It will help us advocate what we are for, not just what we are against.

What is the vision?

Firstly a “freedom to do” agenda. ie the vision of “EasyJet Plus Europe”, a “Europe for citizens not a Europe of elites” This means promoting the Europe which matters most to citizens (freedom to live in, work in/look for work in, travel to, save money in, retire to, buy property in, start businesses and trade goods and services etc other EU states). Actions should be tested to see if they achieve at least one of the above objectives.

Secondly, do less but do it better. The EU has too many supposed “priorities” and doesn’t give enough time, effort and resources to making them happen - it needs to reduce them.

Thirdly, an agenda which reflects the new priorities of EU citizens in the 21st century not the old priorities of last century ie away from agriculture and towards training, research, border controls, internal security, external security, energy security, promoting competition, promoting the internal market, promoting enterprise and maintaining competitiveness and meeting common environmental challenges.

What would it mean in practice?

1. Power should shift towards democratically elected politicians and towards Member States

The institutions should reflect the fact that more power ought to lie with democratically elected politicians at national and European level so that:

§ The Council of Ministers should set the priorities for the EU
§ The Parliament should have complete co-decision on the EU budget
§ All new EU law should require the consent of national parliaments – sounds slow, but it accords with “less but better” and in reality if there is a Council of Ministers driven agenda it should be easier for Member States to obtain domestic Parliamentary approval
§ The Commission should be as a secretariat of the Council of Ministers ie only to do what it is directed to do by them and not pretend to be independent. As I found when I was on secondment to the European Commission, it is not – it was my impression that all the senior posts are political appointments (they look homewards to their next job/old allegiances), Commissioners often can’t/don’t manage their Directorates-General and as a result there are turf wars within the Commission (“planting flags” – ie fighting for new responsibilities - to claim territory). So the Commission’s role should involve much more monitoring of implementation and in some areas (especially in the internal market) enforcement of agreed policies
§ Some areas of action eg external security and combatting terrorism and organised crime need lots of delegated authority to an Agency and a small Command Group of Member States who could act quickly if needed
§ All EU legislation should be subject to proper and independently verified regulatory impact assessment to check if they are really needed, what they will cost to implement and how it will affect those responsible
§ All EU legislation should have “sunset clauses” ie dates on which they lapse unless they are renewed.

2. The EU budget should reflect the new priorities and not the old ones

A budget is an important statement of what matters to an organisation. The resources of the Commission would be reorganised to fit the new priority areas, and towards supporting the freedom vision and implementation of the new priorities, not policy making.

In addition, it is necessary to reform the Structural Funds regime so that:

§ More of the EU Structural Funds budget is spent on the poorest countries/new Member States. Poor regions and restructuring sectors in rich countries should become national responsibilities
§ Structural Funds are time limited to the first ten years after joining. Permanent “solidarity” as it is called - ie subsidies - undermines enterprise in the EU and creates the moral/political hazard of the welfare dependency mentality
§ Structural Funds are directed to projects which promote the Internal Market, such as investment in transport and energy networks.

None of this would prevent Member States from spending money to support their agriculture and poor regions/restructuring sectors if they chose to .

And, of course, better control of EU spending is needed - the EU needs the effective use of the “Accounting Officer” concept and effective means of monitoring whether or not the budget is spent on what it was voted for and spent efficiently. Then it might be possible for the accounts to be signed off by the auditors!

3. What should this mean for EU policies?

New policies are needed for a new century because the EU has failed to respond to the pressing needs of its citizens.

Security is the most pressing issue facing the EU. This has three strands ie defence, the threat of terrorism and organised crime and energy security, of which the first is most pressing. Those who advocate the formation of a “country called Europe” miss the point that the first duty of a state is self-defence.

Defence - the EU should put up or shut up ie work through NATO – the proven option - or create a fully fledged EU equivalent (with a similar command structure, proper resources etc). But “do nothing” – undermining NATO by ill co-ordinated, ill resourced gestures, creating an economically prosperous but militarily vulnerable/dependent EU, and lack of will to take military action (only UK and France have the real will to take military action at the times when, regrettably, it is sometimes necessary - is too dangerous. In any event, as a first step EU Member States should make commitments to spend more on defence (a set % of GDP, higher than now), commit to joining NATO and remove barriers to contributing to military action where needed as opposed to just peace keeping and post conflict reconstruction (ie resurrecting the so-called “defence convergence criteria”).

Terrorism and organised crime - Of course Britain should keep and strengthen its own border controls but the EU should create a well-resourced border police for EU borders to support countries with difficulties in policing the EU border. It should also simplify extradition restrictions for terrorism/organised crime offences, should have a rapid reaction homeland security group not just to share intelligence on terrorism/organised crime offences but to act on it when needed in a co-ordinated way, again to support countries with difficulties in responding to internal threats.

Energy security – the need for a well co-ordinated policy to maintain energy security is clear. This has implications for external policy (towards countries which are our suppliers), liberalisation of energy markets, trade policy (again towards countries which are our suppliers), development of energy networks (so that energy can flow), maintaining supply capacity (in case of crises) and energy efficiency (to reduce external energy dependence and the economic growth/energy demand growth link).

End piece... but still important

A common currency should replace the single currency (achieves all the economic objectives without the surrender of democratic control). In other words use the euro for business and for international trade but keep the pound so we keep control over our economy.

If we believe that issues are important enough eg environmental protection, we should not be afraid to say that the EU shouldn’t just make policies and pass ill-verified implementation costs to Member States – it should allocate budgetary resources to them.

We should state very clearly what Europe is ie which states are potentially eligible for membership and which are not and what our relationship will be with those who are not.

A reminder of why alternative proposals are urgent...

2007-02-08T04:56:00.000-08:00

Just back from a meeting at the European Institute of Public Administration - discussed the new powers which the EU will have if the Constitution is agreed

A lively debate - the idea of reviving the Constitution is alive and well!

A Treaty of London? - the alternative to the EU Constitution

2007-02-08T02:26:00.000-08:00

For too long in the UK we have let things be "done to us" in the EU - so we are always fighting to stop things - like the European Constitution

The point is that we have never proposed a comprehensive alternative, making it difficult to attract support

I'm convinced that it's time to seize the initiative ie to propose an alternative vision of how the EU should work - a British vision. Hence the title of the "Treaty of London"

Watch this space for more coming soon