Ireland is the last bulwark against a European superstate

pietercleppe

The Lisbon treaty will dramatically centralise government in Europe. That, apart from all kinds of other valuable considerations, is the core of it all.

Only Irish voters get a chance to stop this, and because of that they are the last bulwark against a European superstate that cannot be trusted, as the current problems of the EU already show (democratic deficit, corruption and overregulation).

Therefore I urge the Irish people to stand up for democracy and vote no to the Lisbon Treaty on 12 June 2008.

Pieter Cleppe
West-Flanders, Belgium

Dinner

Well that's me convinced. I've always wanted a Belgian guy to tell me how to vote.

sink

Thanks for the heads up. Your word certainly carries more weight with me than sneaky democratically elected representatives.

Gadjodilo

Is it true we'll all be sold as sex-slaves if we vote 'yes'?

The_Minister

Did anyone else hear that parent will be forced to have sex with their children?


Those filthy Europeans with their sex basements.

Gadjodilo

pietercleppe wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty will dramatically centralise government in Europe. That, apart from all kinds of other valuable considerations, is the core of it all.

Only Irish voters get a chance to stop this, and because of that they are the last bulwark against a European superstate that cannot be trusted, as the current problems of the EU already show (democratic deficit, corruption and overregulation).

Therefore I urge the Irish people to stand up for democracy and vote no to the Lisbon Treaty on 12 June 2008.

Pieter Cleppe
West-Flanders, Belgium

Mag ik misschien voorstellen dat u "opsta" voor de democratie in uw eigen land? Dit is uw verantwoordelijkheid, niet die van mij.

(May I suggest that you stand up for democracy in your own country. That's your responsibility, not mine.)

pietercleppe

Everybody can vote what they want. I can understand Irish get bored of foreigners engaging in the debate, but that's just proof of how important this vote could be. Well: it is only going to be important if it is a no.

My point is just that the focus of the discussion should be that more powers are to be awarded to this organisation that has already proved it is not worth to be trusted.

As I said:

- democratic deficit
- corruption
- overregulation

All things generally agreed upon accross the political spectrum and all in itself good arguments for a big fat NO.

sink

If you feel that there is a 'democratic deficit' in the EU the lisbon treaty goes someway to proving more democracy not less. Corruption exist to some extent in all governments and more often than not EU funds are mis-spent by local government officials and not the EU itself. The EU is a bullwark against corruption in places like Italy, Bulgaria and Romania.

pietercleppe

sink wrote: »

If you feel that there is a 'democratic deficit' in the EU the lisbon treaty goes someway to proving more democracy not less. Corruption exist to some extent in all governments and more often than not EU funds are mis-spent by local government officials and not the EU itself. The EU is a bullwark against corruption in places like Italy, Bulgaria and Romania.

If you make cosmetic or minimal changes to a fundamentally very unaccountable organisation, that is definitely not sufficient to transfer huge powers to it.

As for corruption goes the same: even the "anti-corruption agency" OLAF has come under fire.

No doubt that member states have corruption and waste issues as well, but that is no excuse for the EU, which is maybe relatively more corrupt, although that would be tricky to measure. However think about www.oneseat.eu . Even in Belgium we don't waste to that extent, and that is a reference, I guarantee you.

Sending huge subsidy funds to immature democracies in Eastern Europe is certainly NOT going to help improve corruption over there, and that is what the EU is doing. True: the foresight of entering the EU may have done a lot of good things in Eastern Europe, but now that era is definitly over.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006030.html

Contemplate, then, the case of Hans-Martin Tillack. Mr Tillack is a respected German reporter who has written extensively about the Eurostat scandal. This convoluted affair really deserves a column to itself but, briefly, it involves allegations that millions of euros have been diverted from the budget by Commission officials. More recently, Mr Tillack had started to investigate the broader failure of EU authorities to act on tip-offs. It was this that triggered the reaction. Last month police swooped on his flat. He was questioned for ten hours without a lawyer, while his laptop, files and address book were confiscated. Even his private bank statements were ransacked.

The raid was ordered by Olaf, the EU's anti-corruption unit. Needless to say, no such treatment has been meted out to the alleged fraudsters. In the looking-glass world of Brussels, it is those exposing sleaze, rather than those engaging in it, who find themselves in police custody. Mr Tillack was implausibly accused of having procured some of his papers by bribery. No formal charges have been brought, and he is now planning to sue. In the meantime, though, the notes he had built up over five years of meticulous work have been seized and his sources put at risk.

bogwalrus

If there was reason to suspect involvement in corruption then the olaf acted according to protocol. And it seems they acted thoroughly and efficiently.

As for the so called alleged fraudsters. The accusation that it was commission officials obviously did not hold weight when analysed by the olaf. The olaf are no puppets of the EU commissioners. Your just paranoid and probably someone who believes most conspiracys that are thrown around the place.

When money goes missing you do not automatically think corruption. Accounting/auditing errors and bad communication are most likely the cause.

pietercleppe

"thoroughly and efficiently". Or maybe better: "disproportionally".

Tillack WON his case, by the way.

I don't want to engage in any kind of conspiracy, to which I'm really allergic. But you can't deny the light of the sun.

Or better said in the case of the EU: sunlight is the best desinfectant. The more you talk about it, the more it comes clear it's not trustworthy.

http://www.nujcec.org/brussels/?page_id=153


Tillack wins case at European Court of Human Rights


Update. 30/01/2008. Hans-Martin Tillack, the Stern investigative journalist who was taken from his apartment and detained by Belgian police early one morning in 2004 after he published articles on suspected fraud at Eurostat, has been exonerated by the European Court of Human Rights.
The court awarded Tillack €30,000 for legal expenses, plus €10,000 for moral damages. The award is against the Belgian police, despite the fact that they were acting on files passed to them by OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud department (a Belgian law was subsequently introduced in 2005 to provide improved protection for journalists’ sources).
The judgment is seen as a victory for the journalist in his long-running case against the European Commission, which has repeatedly distanced itself from any responsibility (in a press release commenting on the ECHR case, the Commission described OLAF as “entirely independent”).
The ultra sensitive issue over Eurostat, the EU’s statistics department, dates back to alleged irregularities between the 1990s and around 2002. So far, nothing more solid has emerged than continuing investigations.
Tillack had his documents, computers and mobile phones removed by the Belgian police as part of their investigation. Any of them may have revealed his information sources. According to Tillack’s legal counsel, Ian Forrester, “the right of journalists not to reveal their sources is not a privilege, but part of the right to information”.
The financial award to Tillack by the ECHR has to be paid by the Belgian Government, that is, by the Belgian taxpayer.

bogwalrus

Well of course he won the case as he was not found guilty of anything. And justly, he got compensated. Now it was the belgium authorities that acted on Hans, not the olaf. The olaf have no control to give orders of interrogation or detainment of property. They could work in conjunction with and then analyse the findings but methods of engagement are up to local task forces etc. These were all undertaken by Belgium police and as you say it was them that had to compensate hans not the olaf.

I am really struggling with a reason for why you bothered bringing up this incident as it does not explain anything other than try to attempt to undermine Europes commissioners in some way or form. Was that your initial reason because it is weak.

I really think you have been gobbled up by a conspiracy.

pietercleppe

Well, Bogwalrus, I think not.

One could bring up so many incidents and this is one of them. Actually some people enjoy writing about it: http://www.eu-corruption.com/ .

I guess a really good defense of the EU would be to acknowledge there is a problem, as some people have done in the past (as for example preceding the founding of OLAF).

However the naked fact that the auditors for the EU have refused to sign off the bloc's financial accounts for the 13th year in a row speaks for itself. It's a mix of fraud, neglect and poor governance.

Nothing wrong with the people, which are often very qualified, but it is in the nature of a similar bureaucracy not to be trustworthy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7092102.stm


EU accounts failed for 13th year

The EU's accounts have failed to receive a clean bill of health

The auditors for the EU have refused to sign off the bloc's financial accounts - for the 13th year in a row.
A report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) criticises nearly every major area of the EU's expenditure.
The auditors say there are weaknesses across the board and complain of neglect and presumed attempts at fraud.
The European Commission has blamed member states for audit failings, and says it has suspended £1.2bn in payments to English regions.
Errors persist
Errors of legality and regularity still persist in the majority of the EU's 106bn euro annual budget (£75bn), according to the Court of Auditors. Its President, Hubert Weber, calls on the commission to lead by example in making improvements.
HEAD TO HEAD
The auditors have concluded every year since 1994 that the accounts are reliable


Terry Wynn, ex-head of European Parliament budget committee



There has been a lot of window-dressing but essentially the auditors' criticism has not changed


Marta Andreasen, former Commission chief accountant



Are the EU books a scandal?
Euroblog: Extra Virgin con?


The report explains that much of the misspending is caused by poor knowledge of complex rules but presumes that fraud also exists.
On the plus side, the auditors say that there has been a marked reduction in the estimated overall level of error in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), responsible for some 40% of all EU expenditure.
The commission is responsible for overseeing the handling of the budget and the auditors praise the "considerable efforts" made to address the weaknesses in its management of risk to EU funding.
Payments to UK
But the second biggest slice of the budget - regional development funding (32.4bn euros in 2006) - is said to have seen little improvement. The Court estimates that at least 12% of the total paid out was affected by errors, and complains of poor control by member states.
READ THE REPORT


European Court of Auditors 2006 annual report [2.7MB]

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here


The commission says it suspended 1.7bn euros (£1.2bn) in structural payments to the UK in April 2007 although that figure has now fallen to 326m euros (£229m).
In response to the report, the Vice-President of the European Commission, Siim Kallas, says he's "glad to see the Court now gives its green light to over 40% of total payments".
He points out that around a third of the budget was approved last year and only 6% three years ago.
Interpreting figures
Marta Andreasen, a former European Commission chief accountant who now works for the United Kingdom Independence Party, says 80% of the budget is still suspect.
AUDIT FINDINGS

The IACS system, which covers 70% of agriculture spending, "is effective at limiting the risk of irregular expenditure"
At least 12% of regional development aid was affected by errors, including money paid out to ineligible claimants
Significant errors were found in internal spending, mainly due to claimants inflating costs

She arrives at this figure by including the whole of the agriculture budget, even though a large part of it - 70% - has now been cleared by the auditors.
Mr Weber describes Ms Andreasen's analysis as "the more orthodox approach", but says Mr Kallas's statement that 40% of payments get the thumbs up is also valid.
The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Brussels says it is clear is that huge strides have been made in controlling the way that money is spent by the EU. "There is now a determination, bordering on desperation, in some quarters, to show that the commission is not handing out cash willy-nilly to greedy famers and the like," he says. He adds that commission officials complain that there is little they can do when money is disbursed by the governments of member states, as 80% of it is.

dlofnep

I will vote no for you sir.

bogwalrus

If i take what you say is true do you not think that the lisbon treaty will tackle some of these issues by setting up a more efficient commission with less commissioners and more control over how funds are given out?

ALl it seems is that money gets put here and there in the current system because so many sectors need to be satisfied consistently in each individual country. It must be very hard to audit the budget when so many departments and sectors are invloved thus meaning irregularities. The goals of the EU are obvious. I believe you are classifying the difficult current management of the EU's budget as being corrupted and not considering that even the smallest governements mess up in relation to funds.

The EU is not perfect and it takes time and positive progress to get to a stage in which it can be called some what ideal. There is no point in haltering progress based on speculation of corruption amongst commissioners where not only are these commissioners representatives of the many countries in Europe but are supposed to be our elected members expressing our views and needs. In saying this you tackle that problem nationally and dont blame Europe.

Gadjodilo

Pieter,

You need to spend a little more time examining the treaty and learning what it's about. It's not good enough to say the-EU-is-bad-so-vote-no.

Do you anything at all about these things which will be passed if the treaty is approved? It sounds like a move AWAY from a superstate to me!

1. Fewer Commissioners.
The size of the European Commission is being cut back from 27 to 18. It was getting crazy; every country wanted its own commissioner so they were inventing jobs just to keep every country happy.

2. Citizens' Initiatives
For the first time, people - independently of parties, their national parliaments, the EC or the EP can put forward proposals to influence EU policy directly. Yes, I know, it's not binding and the EC will only consider it but since when has one million people every had the power to decide policy for over 300 million people? Politically, it would be impossible to ignore. Imagine if one million people declared that all future changes to EU treaties should be put to a vote in all countries? If they ignored that one, there'd be uproar.

3. More power to the European Parliament.
We all know how the EP elections can be a bit of a laugh. At the moment, it has so little power, that it tends to be ignored. Now, it'll get more power - nowhere near enough in my view but it's a step in the right direction.

4. More power to national parliaments.
Again, the unelected ones are giving up power. If the Dáil or Seanad (or the Belgian Houses of Parliament) objects to something, it can voice that objection. Either of our two houses of parliament would be equal to the House of Commons, the Bundestag, the Spanish Cortes, the Polish Sejm etc. Now, there is no guarantee that the objection would be taken on board but if a number of parliaments object, politically, the proposal would be a dead duck.

7. More Transparency
The European Council of Ministers will be forced to conduct its proceedings in public when discussing and framing laws. At the moment, it's mainly behind closed doors.

pietercleppe

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Pieter,

You need to spend a little more time examining the treaty and learning what it's about. It's not good enough to say the-EU-is-bad-so-vote-no.

Do you anything at all about these things which will be passed if the treaty is approved? It sounds like a move AWAY from a superstate to me!

1. Fewer Commissioners.
The size of the European Commission is being cut back from 27 to 18. It was getting crazy; every country wanted its own commissioner so they were inventing jobs just to keep every country happy.

2. Citizens' Initiatives
For the first time, people - independently of parties, their national parliaments, the EC or the EP can put forward proposals to influence EU policy directly. Yes, I know, it's not binding and the EC will only consider it but since when has one million people every had the power to decide policy for over 300 million people? Politically, it would be impossible to ignore. Imagine if one million people declared that all future changes to EU treaties should be put to a vote in all countries? If they ignored that one, there'd be uproar.

3. More power to the European Parliament.
We all know how the EP elections can be a bit of a laugh. At the moment, it has so little power, that it tends to be ignored. Now, it'll get more power - nowhere near enough in my view but it's a step in the right direction.

4. More power to national parliaments.
Again, the unelected ones are giving up power. If the Dáil or Seanad (or the Belgian Houses of Parliament) objects to something, it can voice that objection. Either of our two houses of parliament would be equal to the House of Commons, the Bundestag, the Spanish Cortes, the Polish Sejm etc. Now, there is no guarantee that the objection would be taken on board but if a number of parliaments object, politically, the proposal would be a dead duck.

7. More Transparency
The European Council of Ministers will be forced to conduct its proceedings in public when discussing and framing laws. At the moment, it's mainly behind closed doors.

Dear Gadjodilo, that is not how I defended my position, if you'd read my posts.

Again: these changes are cosmetic, and will not change the nature of the problem.

The nature of the problem is that the central bureaucracy, disregarding which branch of it, will receive more powers thanks to the treaty and will be able to go on with its already proven record of waste, fraud, neglect and over-regulation.

That problem can only be solved by reducing the central bureaucracy that is by no means needed to have an open market.

Benfatto

“Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001

Dinner

Benfatto wrote: »

“Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001

So, what he's saying there is that he wants the EU to be a power on the international political stage and not just a 'local' union?

Is that a bad thing?

oscarBravo

Benfatto, at this point you're just soapboxing: repeating slogans and pasting quotes out of context.

Engage in the debate or stay out of it.