The invisible takeover

Thursday, September 25, 2008

The invisible takeover

On matters of trade, and especially WTO affairs, Ronald Stewart-Brown is one of the commentators worth reading. In this month’s edition of The European Journal (no link), he writes about the failed Doha round. What stands out from his piece is this section:

… it needs to be emphasised, the UK no longer has any meaningful existence in the world of international trade negotiations as it has ceded Brussels controls of most aspects of its trade relations with third countries apart from currency and trade promotion. While she retains nominal WTO membership, it is now in reality little more than a region of the EU in trade policy terms, with the periodic right to nominate one of its nationals as EU trade commissioner.

In the early days of UK membership, when EEC decision-making on trade policy was primarily inter-governmental, the Department of Trade and Industry was a leading and respected player in EEC trade policy matters. But as EU trade policy decision-making became more supranational so DTI trade policy expertise gravitated to the commission in Brussels. The dropping of the word trade from the department’s title when it was renamed last year as BERR (the department of business, enterprise and regulatory reform) says it all.

Stewart-Brown thus highlights something very few people understand or appreciate. Not only has much of our government moved to Brussels, so has much of the expertise in policy-making and development. The best and brightest no longer work for Whitehall. In trade as in other areas, the British government does not "do" policy – it merely reacts to and then implements policy developed in Brussels.

The same goes for academia. Traditionally, the intellectual reservoir of the nation, contributing much to the development of policy in many areas, the money no longer comes from Whitehall but from Brussels. If a department is to attract research funding – the lifeblood of most universities – it is absolutely pointless offering national policy solutions. Unless the work has a "European dimension" – often tied in with other European "partners" – it will remain unrewarded.

Thus has an important facet of public administration been hollowed out. But, because it was never highly visible, its loss is hardly noticed – except in its insidious consequences. EU policy dominates because we have lost much of the capability of making our own.

So continues the invisible takeover, one which is all the more dangerous for being unseen.

COMMENT THREAD

A done deal

Daytime Running Lights are back on the agenda. No one particularly wants them. The British government was opposed to them, the cyclist and motorcycle groups are emphatically against them. Furthermore, the safety benefits are equivocal. Until LED lights are perfected, they will increase fuel consumption and they will add cost and complexity to vehicle construction.

But never mind all that, in a bland statementyesterday, we were told that, "the European Commission has decided to introduce dedicated Daytime Running Light (DRL) on all new types of motor vehicles from the year 2011 onwards."

So that's it, then. The European Commission has decided, so we're going to have them.

Actually, although the announcement was yesterday, it was a done deal in November 2007. Then, as we are now informed, the Commission delivered a positive vote in the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) regarding DRL. 

This is reflected in the draft directive and the Commission has declared that, "In order to avoid divergent vehicle requirements, which would be detrimental to the needs of European citizens and the European industry, today's decision is technically a proposal to align Directive 76/756/EEC with UN/ECE Regulation No 48."

We dealt with this, and the involvement of that shadowy body, UNECE, in a previous post and again a few weeks later.

Essentially, technical regulations are being made out of sight with no audit trail and no democratic accountability whatsoever. And when they emerge into the daylight, they come – as in this case – "as a proposal to align Directive 76/756/EEC with UN/ECE Regulation No 48". We cannot refuse to accept this as the deal was made those many months ago and we cannot possibly have "divergent vehicle requirements".

What is particularly disturbing, however, is that UNECE is technically an intergovernmental body, at which its member states (including the UK) are represented, each of whom have a vote. But here, it seems, the "Community" cast a – or even the – vote. Since when has the EU been represented on UN bodies and been able to cast votes?

As of now, The Daily Mail is hyperventilating about the proposal. "Drivers face paying up to £160 a year more for fuel," it screams, and all, "because of an EU directive forcing them to keep their headlamps on all day.".

As always, it misses the point completely. The proposal concerns specially fitted lights, not headlamps and, by the time the law comes into force, they will mostly be LED fittings. Energy consumption is only about ten percent of a normal light.

Conservative MP Greg Knight is saying that: "This idea was being pushed by Scandinavian countries and it's absolutely ludicrous that it should be imposed in a blanket fashion across Europe." Stephen Ladyman - a transport minister during earlier discussions and now a backbencher - said: "This directive will kill a lot of motorcyclists. They use daytime lights to make them easier to see but if cars are using them as well, motorbikes will blur into the background." 

In the EU parliament, Conservative transport spokesman, Timothy Kirkhope,is objecting to the lights, also on safety grounds, and is calling independent assessment of the benefits "before any EU legislation on vehicle running lights was approved."

But all these worthy "lawmakers" are too late. They do not seem to understand that, because the agreement has been made at UNECE level, the EU is obliged to "normalise" its own laws by implementing the regulation. Their job is to rubber-stamp the agreement, move on and collect their salaries and expenses.

We expect no less of them.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

A market solution?

When The Guardian resident eco-freak(REF) takes time out – albeit not a lot – to have a swipe at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), then something must be going on that is worth looking at.

And indeed there is. Today, the Institute published a pamphlet under the title, "Climate Change Policy: Challenging the Activists", which concludes that "climate policy has become subject to a quasi-religious mindset, driven by the desire to maintain consensus and defend its dogma, rather than seeking the best policy for the future."

You can see, therefore, why the REF takes such umbrage, complaining that most of the authors – six in all – "must be over 70". Remarkable, even by IEA standards, for its dullness and scientific illiteracy, storms the REF, it wonders if the authors should “rethink their outrage at society being asked to fork out about $25bn a year to tackle climate change, when it's costing governments several trillion dollars to tackle the dodgy bankers.”

It is interesting that the man should cite the figures in dollars and doubly interesting that he – like so many of the warmists, from Stern onwards, seek publicly to downplay the costs of dealing with their obsession.

Yet, the whole essence of green taxes, carbon trading and the rest, is to price fossil fuels out of the market by making them so expensive that "green" substitutes become more attractive. A "mere" $25bn a year, therefore – or whatever the obsession is actually costing us – is only a down payment. Costs will increase because they are designed so to do.

Anyhow, the thesis expressed by the "IEA six", admirably expressed in the press release - which will save idle journalists having to read the pamplet – is that the policy focus "should shift to market-based adaptation, not hairshirts and witch hunts."

Government intervention, say the authors, is likely to harm our economy and unlikely to save the planet. Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol has already caused economic damage and a government-led approach "would impoverish us economically, damage individual freedom" and, paradoxically hamper our ability to deal with climate change.

Thus, in classic IEA style, the response should be left to the markets, which can be left to exploit future technological advances and respond to the situation as it develops. As a long-stop, however, the authors concede that there is a role for "modified" carbon taxes which would be used for an insurance-based "climate catastrophe fund" to pay for remedial geo-engineering projects if the need arose.

One must admire the constancy of the IEA and its faith in markets. However,recent experience would suggest that the markets' main concern is to get into bed with government and devise ever more ingenious mechanisms for ripping-off the consumer/taxpayers and enrich themselves on the proceeds. 

On this, unfortunately, the IEA has little to say, which is a pity. When so much money is up for grabs from rigging the markets, few are going to be interested in the IEA's idea of a truly free market response.

COMMENT THREAD