EU politics: Whitehall likes EU shock!
Tuesday 23 July 2013
 There is lots of meat for eurosceptics and europhiles alike, he says. Each can choose what they wish to further their arguments. But that is all. The debate may be more informed but it has not changed. The problem is, reviewing these reports is like paddling in a septic tank. The next one I've been looking at Animal Health and Welfare and Food Safety Report, which covers areas in which EU policy density is particularly high. It is turgid beyond extreme. Mercifully, the report is "only" 69 pages. With this and the energy stuff, I've looked at over 300 pages of officialese in one slug over the lest 24-hours. No one can really absorb this – and they don't. You dip in, fillet it and move on. But this is no way to run a railroad. One interesting bit we pull out is in the introduction of this current report, from which we e learn that consumer survey data suggests that UK consumers are largely unaware of the role the EU plays in making food law. Only 11 percent preferred food law to be made by the EU, although this figure rose to 23 percent when people were given some information about EU legislation. And there you go: in Europe and run by Europe, but most people don't actually realise. Yet, we sort of knew that from the horsemeat fraud. But if people don't even recognise an EU failure when it happens, it is difficult to get informed comment. In fact, that one thing – horsemeat fraud – illustrates the fatuity of this entire review. We could write (and effectively have written) hundreds of pages on evaluating just this one aspect of EU law. Thus, for all the length, 69 pages in this report can only glide of the issues. It cannot and does not do justice to them. This we see especially in page 50, headed "International issues". Half a page is devoted to Codex, and the other half to OIE, and then another page looks at these organisations and the WTO. Look at how many pages on this blog we've devoted to Codex, and you immediately realise just how thin this report really is. In six short paragraphs, the issue of "Global standards rather than EU competence" is rehearsed. Some respondents such as attendees at the Brussels Workshop, we are told, questioned whether or not being locked into an EU position at Codex served the UK's national interest. The Agricultural Industries Confederation was also concerned that UK interests were diluted by EU representation at Codex. And then respondents such as Dundee City Council argued that the EU has a more powerful voice than the UK as it speaks as one united bloc of 28 different Member States. Similarly, Cefas argued that the EU was highly influential when negotiating within the OIE. Look at three pieces we have done, here, here and here, and there is far more argument and relevant detail than you will find in the entire report, much less these trivial little snatches. What emerges is that the civil service, with the backing of the FCO, is reporting what it wants to find. According to the Financial Times, a senior government official says: "In none of these areas did the balance of evidence suggest the balance of competences was not broadly appropriate". The exercise is actually a complete waste of time and effort. By the time the EU referendum debate gets under way – if it ever does – this exercise will be gone and forgotten. The two reports we have so far looked at have settled nothing, and the others are unlikely to deliver anything of significance. COMMENT: "REVIEW OF COMPETENCES" THREAD Richard North 23/07/2013 |
EU regulation: review of competences
Monday 22 July 2013
 Reviewing the Single Market report, we always expected it to be a propaganda exercise - anything organised by the FCO could never be anything but. And we are not disappointed. To absolutely no-one's surprise, it finds that: … integration has brought to the EU, and hence to the UK, in most if not all observers' opinions, appreciable economic benefits. It has also spread the UK's liberal model of policy-making more widely across the EU. But it has brought with it constraints on policy-making of varying kinds, and a regulatory framework which some find difficult to operate within or find burdensome, even if the obligations are not necessarily any greater than would have been imposed nationally. Is that trade-off, between cost and benefit, between economics and politics, of overall benefit to the UK? … Most observers, and indeed most of the evidence received for this report, answer positively. They do so, not without qualifications or reservations, but with a focus on the economic benefits already achieved… and on those potentially available in the future.Within the report, you will see corporate Britain listed, with the European Commission also giving evidence. The emphasis is on the economic benefits. The word "democracy" in the whole 84-pages, is used once. That rather tells you what you need to know. By contrast, the word "democratic" actually appears twice. The first is on page 36, where the Centre for European Reform tells us that the Single Market is: ... a continuous bargaining process between member-states, who want both the growth in trade that arises from integration and also regulatory sovereignty – but must choose. The degree of integration reflects how far nation-states are willing to go. Negotiations between nation-states will not arrive at a magic formula that perfectly balances national regulators' knowledge of local markets and firms, democratic accountability, and trade opening. Trade-offs and deals, based upon member-states' perceptions of their interests, predominate.Effectively the CER is telling us that, at best, "democratic accountability" is but one factor taken into account in when framing regulation. The illogically of the position evidently escapes the authors, that either democracy is absolute, or it isn't democracy. But, for real comic effect, we have to go to page 53, where we are told that the President of the European Council "is leading a process to look at what further measures may be needed in the area of economic coordination and to ensure the ongoing democratic legitimacy of the EU". This is in a supposedly serious government publication, one which, by page 76, is resorting to the tired old lie, that EEA members "have no say on the Single Market legislation by which they are bound". And this is not only a lie – the FCO knows it to be one. The civil servants of the FCO were never going to play it straight, but you do wonder at their arrogance, when they are so disdainful of the truth and so easily insult our intelligence. Yet these are the people for whom our taxes are paid to support. We would sooner see them starve. Go to page 44, and you will get a taste of why. These civil servants happily cite evidence from Heather Grabbe, of the laughably-named Open Society European Policy Institute. She is allowed to tell us that the Internal Market "has given the EU extraordinary standard-setting power internationally that has also benefited UK firms. Other regions and countries have followed EU standards and norms, from bottle sizes in Japan to car-exhaust emissions in China". Notwithstanding that China is still trying to come to grips with auto emissions, the many international agreement on vehicle emissions are funnelled through the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations. And as for the Japanese and their bottle sizes, don't tell anyone, but I think they still have their own standards.
This really is a terrible document, and we have another five to plough through. Eighty-four pages of propaganda in this one somehow makes one feel dirty. But there is no sense in doing a structured review. The people who wrote this, or contributed to it, are neither honest nor honourable, and it is not a pleasant experience reviewing their work. But it was ever going to be thus - this is propaganda for effect.
These people can never win an honest debate. They lie because they have to. And that, at least, is some small comfort.
COMMENT: "REVIEW OF COMPETENCES" THREAD Richard North 22/07/2013 |
Energy: drowning in paper
Monday 22 July 2013
 This is especially when one is confronted with green propaganda masquerading as news, the like of which graced the Independent this morning, telling readers that we are about to subsidise "dirty" coal. Actually, this is picking up on the energy market reform, which is being brought in by the Energy Bill, and we are beginning to confront the practical implications of the Capacity Market (see page 15), which is now a central part of government policy, part of the Electricity Market Reforms. These reforms are going to have a direct and very significant effect on the level of our energy bills and, in a grown-up world, we would have the media – and especially the national newspapers – explaining the implications. But you will struggle to find any detail outside the specialist media, and then you would have to know what you are looking for – plus much of the comment hides behind the paywall. This government report report helps, but there is still a lot of reading to do. We are drowning in paper. The most recent "hit" is in a DECC press release from last week, introducing the consultation on the "draft Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan", another 78 pages for you to read. And if you missed it, don't worry, so did I – as did all of the popular media. And you won't learn much from the jargon-ridden specialist media either. Nevertheless, I know enough to recognise in the foreword by Ed Davey, pure government spin, but you will have to work very hard to dissect the detail. The report, for instance, says that "Electricity Market Reform is expected to reduce annual household electricity bills by an average of £62 (9 percent) over the period 2016 to 2030 (real 2012 prices), relative to achieving the same level of decarbonisation using existing policy instruments". Compare and contrast with the Register which says we'll be paying £3,250 extra for gas and 'leccy in coming years, but then that piece doesn't make any reference to the Capacity Markets, nor any of the recent developments - to say nothing of Mr Daley's wondrous savings.
What the government actually means when it claims a "reduction" – I think - is that, relative to the huge increases that we might have expected, the Capacity Markets are reckoned to reduce the increase by £62. This is like waking up from an operation to hear the surgeon tell you he has amputated your leg, but managed to save the top two inches of your thigh.
So where does that put us with the Independent story? Well, the point seems to be that coal-fired power stations are going to be allowed to bid in the 2014 Capacity Market auction - an innovation that we are going to have to write about more. Whether they succeed is anyone's guess, as they will be having to pay the carbon price floor, and other taxes, which will probably make them uncompetitive. A far more interesting story is that all your small diesel generators (<2MW) that will go to making up your Virtual Power Plants (and thus put lucrative bids in for the Capacity Market) seem to be exemptfrom Climate Change Levy, the Carbon Price Floor and excise duty. If I have understood this correctly, this means that the "dirty diesel" needed to keep the wind back-up going, is getting huge tax-breaks, as well as the £1 billion-a-year subsidy just to be available. You might think that the Independent could run that as a story – or any other newspaper – except that we must now reconcile ourselves to the fact that newspapers don't do news any more – only propaganda and entertainment. If you want to know what is going on these days, you have to do your own homework. Richard North 22/07/2013 |
EU regulation: a bundle of burdens?
Monday 22 July 2013
 The Financial Times is also running the story, telling us that the competences review has turned into a technocratic stocktaking exercise rather than a flashpoint for further Tory demands. It is, the paper says, to be presented by Lady Warsi, Foreign Office minister, in a written statement to the House of Lords today, while MPs are away from Westminster. I think the FT "take" is closer to reality than the line offered by the DT - which is doing its usual drum-beating for the europlastics - although I note that both papers rely on a "comfort quote" fromOpen Europe to tell them what to think, as if this organisation has any better insight than the rest of the ill-informed commentators that we have to suffer. Their input, however, gives Autonomous Mind his own entry point, observing that Open Europe is the media's "go to" source, while UKIP – which should be dominating the play, is nowhere to be seen. This is perfectly valid comment, as the idea of excessive EU regulation is meat and drink to UKIP and it should be very visible, explaining to the media the significance of the findings to come. But, although the Japanese have contributed to the process, I don't think UKIP even put in a submission. If they have, they have kept very quiet about it. Largely, the party seems to reply on Tim Congdon to produce the sort of thing I would have been saying about ten years ago, but have since had second thoughts about. While we are assailed by endless complaints about the cost of regulation, what we so very rarely hear is the other side of the coin, where regulation saves money or – as indeed it does – facilitates trade. Trade agreements are, essentially, built on regulation, to the extent that it becomes the lubricant which makes international trade work. This, of course, is why the Hague exercise is being called the "balance of competences", purporting to show the net outcome of regulatory exercises, assessing the benefits against the costs. But what is limiting the utility of the exercise is the extraordinary ignorance exhibited about the nature and source of our laws. For instance, in the comments section of the Telegraph piece, we saw a reference to this reportretailing the views of the CEO of Ford of Europe, Stephen Odell. This man is complaining that current EU regulations "make an average car approximately twice as expensive as it otherwise would be", an assertion which has to be extremely questionable. Yet, of all the sectors of economic enterprise, vehicle regulation is the one which is most absorbed by international standards-setting agencies. Increasingly, the responsible body is the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, administered by UNECE. The cost of regulation is certainly there, but it cannot be attributed wholly to the EU. One therefore has to ask though whether the European CEO of a global vehicle manufacturer can be so ignorant of the sources of regulation affecting his industry? And, I am told at the highest level, the answer is an unequivocal "yes". This ignorance is a disease prevalent throughout Europe. Elsewhere in the world, there is an acute consciousness of the role of international standards-setting bodies, but in Europe, under the stifling blanket of the EU, the unchallenged assumption is that trade regulation and much else necessarily emanates from Brussels. So pre-eminent is the EU in the field that no-one even thinks to ask for the source of EU regulation. The point is of very great significance when one is assessing the respective costs of EU membership, and the costs (as well as the benefits) of belonging to the global trading community. The regulatory costs of the EU are probably substantially less than we think, but then the EU is most certainly less important than we think – so much so that in many respects, we could do without it. So impoverished is the debate about regulation though that very few if any of the studies we have seen are of any value. And it is likely that the "competences" exercise that we are to see later today will also be fatally flawed. Speaking personally, as one who has spent a lifetime enforcing and then studying regulation, I am struggling to understand the complexity of the issues. But even in my ignorance, I think I know enough to understand that we are extremely poorly served by the pundits who would seek to instruct us. And, by the end of this day, I have a horrible suspicion that we will be none the wiser. COMMENT: "REVIEW OF COMPETENCES" THREAD Richard North 22/07/2013 |
Media: descent to the bottom
Sunday 21 July 2013
One would like to think that UKIP's many deficiencies could be addressed at a political level, with a searching evaluation of its policies, and commentary on its almost complete absence from the debate on leaving the EU.
Instead, The Sunday Telegraph devotes a page to this and this - low grade tittle-tattle which embodies the worst of the personality politics in which the paper so loves to indulge. Such political debate as there is, one finds in the letters page - poor contributions which add little to the sum of human knowledge. But, as long as supposedly serious newspapers are more inclined to devote the bulk of their space to allegations of low-grade sexual impropriety – claimed to have happened ten months ago without even the substance of a formal complaint to the police - there can be little premium in pursuing a serious political debate. That the paper uses Robert Mendick, its chief reporter – and no stranger to falsifying evidence - as its front man on the story, says more about The Sunday Telegraph than it does UKIP. This is quite obviously a smear of the lowest order, gleefully repeated by the Independent. Quite obviously, the Telegraph group is rattled by UKIP – presumably on behalf of its political fellow-travellers, the Conservatives - witness the intervention yesterday by Iain Martin. Even then no attempt was made to address the political issues. The attack was on personalities rather than substance. But Martin got his 1,000+ comments, so his purpose was served. It comes to a pretty pass though when newspapers throughout the land are going to such lengths to avoid political discourse, and can only offer such low-grade material. If we're not yet at the bottom, we cannot be very far from it. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 21/07/2013 |
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Posts
