Defence: BAE Systems-EADS merger
Thursday 13 September 2012
 And now they get this - the surprise merger talks between aerospace and defence giants, BAE Systems and EADS. In separate press releases, the two companies declare that the potential merger would "create a leading international company in the fields of aerospace, defense and security with material production and technology capacity in France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the US". But none will be more delighted than the "colleagues" who see the integration of defence contractors as central to underpinning their European Defence Industrial Policy, creating a truly Europeandefence giant, to match the power of the US. A European defence identity is still very much a priority in the EU. We saw this yesterday in the Barroso speech`, where he happily declared that "the world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying military missions to help stabilise the situation in crisis areas". Thus, he stated, "We need to launch a comprehensive review of European capabilities and begin truly collective defence planning". Detaching the major equipment suppliers from their national anchors, taking the "British" out of BAE Systems, is a very good start. The Emperor Barroso must have gone to work with a song in his heart this morning. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/09/2012 |
Dutch election: holding onto nurse
Thursday 13 September 2012
When you are a small country with a relatively large population, and your economy is dominated by your much larger neighbour, it is very hard to take a truly independent political line.
Such is the fate of Holland, invaded and occupied in the last century and still dominated by Germany, albeit mainly economically, it has remained a staunch, if sometimes not wholly enthusiastic European partner.However, when in the Spring, prime minister Mark Rutte (VVD) tendered his Liberal government's resignation after Geert Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV) blocked talks aimed at cutting €16 billion from the budget, there was some thought that, in the subsequent general election, the Freedom Party would do quite well. Furthermore, there was some good sense in thinking this might happen. The budget crisis had, after all, been triggered by a decision in 2011 that all EU member states should present their preliminary budget plans for 2012 to the EU Commission before the end of April. This was supposedly to prevent a repeat of the "situation in Greece", made worse by a provision that the commission could recommend "adjustments" to the plans announced by states, if it thought the budgets too lax. But, in fact, Wilders was only the proximate cause of the government collapse. Even without his intervention, the ruling coalition in the Netherlands no longer had a parliamentary majority and there had been some real "show stoppers" on the table that had already threatened the bring the coalition down. One was the long-disputed issue of tax deductability on mortgage interest where, on the one hand, everyone was sick of the system being abused by the "rich", while on the other hand many middle and low income earners would face severe financial problems if it was removed. And all of this was in the face of a slowly collapsing house market, where prices have fallen in some areas by as much as seven percent in two years. Anyhow, despite media appeals to press ahead, the government lacked a mandate to produce a budget, and its collapse brought us to the current situation where, yesterday, a general election was held, the dead hand of the EU being, to an extent, responsible - but only to an extent. For other reasons too numerous to mention, the population had other reasons to be unhappy, but not a little of that unhappiness was also directed at the EU, making "Europe" an electoral issue – not a major one but enough for a popularist opportunist like Wilders to exploit. Wilders might have felt he was helped by the leading parties losing popularity. Not least, the PvdA (labour party), under Diederik Samsom, haemorrhaged support by embracing mass immigration and multiculturalism, the resultant very large Turkish and Moroccan populations giving rise to an increasing sense of unease. This sentiment was certainly giving Wilders a considerable boost. However, under its charismatic leader, Emile Roemer, the Socialist Party (SP) had been storming ahead as well. A likeable, teddy bear of a man with a big smile, he had offered middle-of-the-road socialist policies, giving socialism an acceptable face. On the day, though, caution seems to have won through. Early polls, on a mere 48 percent turnout,indicated that the Dutch had stayed with their mainstream parties. The fight remained with Mark Rutte's Liberals and the centre-left Labour Party of Diederik Samsom. The Socialists came a poor third and the Freedom Party had faded to a poor fourth. Rutte, with the strongest international profile and the most seats, will doubtless remain premier. Handelsblatt, which also sells in Holland, triumphantly proclaims the "good news" that "clumsy Euro-bashing does not pay". Even the socialist Emile Roemer, who was a few weeks ago seen as a potential winner, fell back in the polls to third place after a dismal showing in televised debates. But, says the paper, he had also called the Maastricht stability criteria "idiotic" and had asserted that the Netherlands would give fines to Brussels for deficit breaches "over my dead body". But the real loser seems to be Wilder. He had led a "radical anti-European campaign" with the slogan "Your Brussels, our Netherlands", apparently alienating many party members. He called for complete withdrawal from the EU and even called back the "Dutch" star on the EU flag.  But what Handelsblatt calls "political stunts" has seen Wilders' party drop to 12.3 percent of the vote, 3.2 percent less than in the previous election. The party was expected to lose nearly half its seats, dropping from 24 to just 15. Its participation in a new government seems unlikely. "Dear, what a weird night", says Wilders. With the "eurosceptics" out in the cold, Rutte's party is expected to gain 41 seats, with Labour on 39. Despite having only 40 percent of policies in common, the two together command a "pro-european" majority in the 150-seat parliament, and will meet later today to discuss forming a government. A famous victory seems to have been won by the political élites. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/09/2012 |
Bovine TB: an awkward alliance
Wednesday 12 September 2012
On Sunday last, Booker made great play of the difficulties Owen Paterson, the new environment secretary, would have in running his department. Staffed as it is by rabid europhiles and warmists – to say nothing of the bunny-huggers – and existing largely to implement EU law, it is a complete nightmare for a eurosceptic minister.
However, not everything handled by Defra is yet dictated by Brussels, and one important policy area is the control of bovine TB. Of this, Paterson had some experience in 2005, when he was shadow agriculture and fisheries minister. By some strange irony, this is now re-emerging as a high-profile issue, with the need for action becoming more urgent by the day, as this article makes clear.And how things have changed. The year Paterson left office as shadow minister, Defra killed 23,500 cattle and 5.6 percent of herds were under restriction. In 2011 that figure had almost doubled with over ten percent of GB herds under restriction and 34,617 cattle slaughtered. Back in 2005, the strongest possible evidence pointed to the crucial role of infected badgers in the spread of the disease, helped by the parliamentary record of 600 questions placed by Paterson on the subject. But, with a department in thrall to the sentimental animal rights lobby, it has only been recently that the government has summoned up the nerve to propose a limited badger cull. Even then, animal rights lobby has fought this very limited measure every step of the way, and it was only this week that an application for a Judicial Review mounted by the Badger Trust was rejected. This has cleared the way for the start of badger culls in parts of Gloucestershire and Somerset, except that the bunny-huggers haven't given up and are now looking to the the Council of Europe'sBern Convention on the protection of wild animals. As alternative to slaughter, the animal rights lobby would prefer to see a programme of mass vaccination of badgers, even though there is no prospect of an effective vaccine materialising and, in any event, the strategy is fruitless when large numbers of animals are already infected. But, if the Council of Europe has the potential to cause problems, in seeking to keep the cull on track, Owen Paterson has acquired an unlikely ally. This is the EU commission, in the form of DG Sanco, specifically their Veterinary Unit G5, which made a visit to the UK this year to assess the efficacy of British bTB controls. Revealed by one of our partner blogs, their veterinary unit has now issued a corruscating report, basically telling Defra to get on with eradicating the disease. Observing that, "there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that badger vaccination will reduce the incidence of TB in cattle", and further noting that, "there is considerable evidence to support the removal of badgers in order to improve the TB status of both badgers and cattle", it roundly declares that: UK politicians must accept their responsibility to their own farmers and taxpayers as well as to the rest of the EU and commit to a long-term strategy that is not dependent on elections.This is a piece of "friendly" advice that Paterson could do without, but the irony is inescapable. In the first major challenge that he has to deal with in his own department, his biggest enemy has turned out to be his staunchest ally. Life really should not be this complicated. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 12/09/2012 |
Eurocrash: the march to a banking union
Wednesday 12 September 2012
Had the Karlsruhe judgement gone the other way, it would have been important. But, as widely anticipated, it has largely confirmed the status quo. And while the small print may have some implications for the future, the "colleagues" have lived to fight another day.
That clears the way for the longer term, the eventual destination being a new treaty. But an essential stepping stone to the new "federation of nation states" that Barroso says he wants is a full banking union. And an important precursor to that are "new ECB powers for banking supervision".And today is the big day when the commission unveils its proposals. These start with a press release, moving on to a Communication and thence to a proposal for a regulation establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) and another proposal on the prudential supervision of credit institutions. On top of that, there is a dedicated website on financial supervision, with multiple links, including one to "frequently asked questions". And buried in all this, but far from explicitly stated, are Basel III requirements, which were going to happen anyway, some of which have absorbed into the new initiative. However, with hundreds of pages of dense technical detail and only hours after publication, it would be fatuous to suggest that we are anywhere near absorbing the finer points of the proposals. Thus, the lurid tales of London banks being shut down by Brussels, or forced into taxpayer-funded bail-outs, are somewhat wide of the mark. One should also note in this context that the proposal to extend the functions of the ECB comes under Article 127(6) of the TFEU, which requires unanimous approval of all 27 member states.
Using this as leverage, the UK has plenty of scope to block the proposals - if wishes to do so, or is forced to do so by parliament. And nor are we on our own in having concerns. The Germans have already expressed grave reservations about the commission proposals.
Nevertheless, the EU commission wants to put this issue to bed by the December European Council, with Barroso stating that he wants the ECB to make its first moves by 1 January 2013, with central supervision of all eurozone banks in place by 1 January 2014. This has all the hallmarks of the commission trying to railroad member states, and Barroso might find he encounters stiff resistance, not least from Germany. Schäuble, while welcoming the proposals in principle, is calling for a realistic timetable, stating that, "quality has to come before speed". The fun, it would seem, is only just about to start. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 12/09/2012 |
Posts
