EU » A Northern Perspective

Not quite with it

Nov 222008

Swedish MEP Lars Wohlin, first founding member of the anti-EU “June List”, then “Christian Democrat”, now “Conservative” (?) in an advertising campaign in the leading Swedish newspapers, today (22/11), urges us not to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Sorry Lars, a waste of money, it’s already done.

Lars’ speciality is the difference between the short and long-term interest rates which, as we all know, is the source of all sorts of evil. Also he is of the opinion that the EU should not bother about various things. In most of his speeches in the Parliament he is trying to explain why he doesn’t want to vote. Unfortunately it is not very likely that the next EP will provide a platform for this profund wisdom since no party is likely to include Lars on their list. A pity, really, since it might mean his return to domestic politics.

The Swedish Parliament ratifies Lisbon Treaty

Blogging, Sweden and the EU No Responses »

Nov 212008

Against our expectations the Parliament approved the proposal to ratify the Treaty with 243 yes, 39 against, 13 abstentions and 54 absent (!). We will come back to some very interesting results of the voting. (For Swedish speaking readers information on the voting of the individual parliamentarians is available here. Point 9, click on “Visa ledamöternas röster”.) There will be reasons for coming back to this, for the moment we only note that those members of the government parties who had announced their opposition to the proposal apparently lost their courage since only one of them actually voted “no” whereas others abstained or were conveniently absent. With a somewhat wry smile we note that Marita Ulvskog, designated top Continue reading »

Killing the monster?

EU policy in general, The Institutions No Responses »

May 052008

In our previous posting we reported on the rather gloomy outlook of Swedish researchers on the possibility of fundemental reform of the way the EU budget is financed. The present post will review a contribution to the Budget Review from the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies where researcher Sándor Richter not only reviews the development of the infamous net financial positions as well as the various reform proposals that have been tabled but also presents a radical proposal of his own. In contrast to the attitudes displayed in the surveys undertaken by Swedish Sieps, Richter neither joins those who pretend that the problem will go away of its own nor those who, shrugging their shoulders accept the impossibility of changing the attitudes of the member states.

The study “Facing the Monster of ‘Fair Return’” starts by a review of the actual development of the “net positions” over the period 1997 - 2006. The so called major net payers (Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Austria) achieved a relief in their negative net position as of 2002 through an ad hoc decision that they only would have to pay 25 % of their share of financing the budget shortfall caused by the British Budget Rebate. Whereas this led only to minor positive adjustments for the Netherlands and Germany, Sweden and above all Austria could enjoy substantial reductions in their deficits: the net position of Sweden improved from -0.40 % of GNI in 2001 to -0.28 % in 2006 and that of Austria went from -o.21 to -0.12 % of GNI over the same period. Since the budget shortfalls created by these adjustments had to be covered by other member states, the net positions of Denmark, France, Finland and Italy deteriorated correspondingly. The British net position, which amazingly was positive in 2001 fell to -0.11 % of GNI in 2006. Continue reading »

A preview of national positions on EU Budget reform

EU policy in general, The Institutions 2 Responses »

Apr 162008

In the previous post we presented 5 recent studies by the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. In this posting we will have a closer look at document 2008:02 The EU Budget Review: Mapping the Positions of Member States.

The study basically consists of two parts, the first one based on a survey with responses from 167 experts, decision makers and business persons in 23 Member States, the other on country papers, reviewing more or less official positions of 8 member states.

The authors are, of course, very well aware of the lack of representativity and other statistical fallacies of the sample survey. Nevertheless, some very interesting information can be gleaned from the results.

To start with, dissatisfaction was great with present System of Own Resources (the way in which the EU budget is financed). Transparency, autonomy, fairness and efficiency were rated as poor – only “sufficiency” received a somewhat higher rating. The expenditure structure was rated even more harshly.

Interestingly enough, more than 20 % of the respondents would prefer a considerably larger EU budget than 1.5 % of the GNI (the present ceiling is 1.24 % – the actual budgets are as a rule lower than 1 %). Figures in a range of 2 to 15 (!) % Continue reading »

A Better Budget?

EU policy in general, The Institutions 1 Response »

Apr 142008

The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (SIEPS) two days ago published no less than 5 different studies as a contribution to the ongoing EU budget review. It is a truly European undertaking with contributions by experts from several countries. The project leader was Mr. Jonas Eriksson, M.Sc.Econ. of SIEPS.

SIEPS has the good sense to publish their reports on-line. Titles and links are given below and we will revert in the coming days to some of the studies, in particular, “The EU Budget Review: Mapping the Position of Member States“, a report which is based on a unique enquête of experts as well as country papers.

2008:01 The Purse of the European Union: Setting Priorities for the Future.

2008:02 The EU Budget Review: Mapping the Positions of Member States

2008:03 Can Reforming Own Resources Foster Policy Quality?

2008:04 Turning the EU Budget into an Instrument to Support the Fight against Climate Change.

2008:2epa A Better Budget for Europe: Economically Efficient,
Politically Realistic

(Full disclosure: Your blogger has worked with SIEPS latest with the study From Policy Takers to Policy Makers.)

God save Austria (and the Swedish Greens)

The Institutions 1 Response »

Apr 092008

A few hours ago, the Austrian Parliament, ratified the Lisbon Treaty as the 8th member state of the Union. The 155 votes of Social Democrats, Conservative/Liberals and Greens stood against the 28 votes of the post-fascist FPÖ and BZÖ. The leader of the non-voters ended his speech with the words “Gott schütze Österreich” (God save Austria) which was a direct quotation from Chancellor Schuschnigg’s speech in 1938 when he cancelled a referendum on the national independence of Austria and left the doors open for the German army which marched into Austria two days later, the beginning of a 7 year Nazi rule of the country.

Needless to say both the leaders of the Social Democrats and the Conservatives were very upset by this allusion. The most forceful rebuttal, however, came from the leader of the Green Party. This Party without hesitation endorsed the Treaty but at the same time made it very clear what kind of changes in Europe they were going to work for.

Even the extra-parliamentarian and activist group “Attack” presented an alternative policy for Europe but did in no way demand that Austria should leave the Union.

All this throws a sharp light on the policy of the Swedish Green Party. As we have reported before, the two spokespersons (they are “chairmen” really) are advocating a change in the EU-policy of the party in order to be able to use the EU cooperation and institutions as a platform for their policy. They are not likely, however, to get the support of the upcoming Party Congress (the official name is more “grass-root” like, but for the moment we have forgotten what it is). The Steadfast Tin Soldier of this blog (SW) still represents the silent majority of the party. It’s a pity since Sweden would need a modern European friendly party, basically endorsing free markets and in particular small enterprise but with a strong social engagement and, of course, an emphasis on environment and climate change. There would be a great voter potential for such a party, like for instance for the Austrian Greens, whereas the sectarian tendencies of the Swedish party only will marginalize them even further.

(Also, it is an irony, that those who want Sweden to leave the EU, would vote against a Treaty that for the first time would include a procedure for exit.)

Where have all the free traders gone?

EU policy in general 2 Responses »

Mar 052008

A wave of new protectionism is sweeping through the Western World and through the EU. The failure of globalization and unbridled competition to provide new jobs and increased welfare everywhere has slowly but certainly created a backlash. And the climate change debate will provide a perfect alibi and may even lead to an Ehrenrettung for the generally detested Common Agricultural Policy.

Economists question time-honored truths

There has been no lack of theoretical backing also from the most liberal of quarters. Already in 2004 Paul Samuelsson published a paper, in true academic style called “Where Ricardo and Mill Rebut and Confirm Arguments of Mainstream Economists Against Globalization.” His paper (not on-line) was summarized the same year by Robert Kuttner in the Boston Globe under the heading Rethinking Free Trade.

“Free trade is not always a win-win situation,” Samuelson concludes. It is particularly a problem, he says, in a world where large countries with far lower wages, such as India and China, are increasingly able to make almost any product or offer almost any service performed in the United States.

If we trade freely with them, then the powerful drag of their far lower wages will begin dragging down our average wages. Our economy may still grow, he calculates, but at a lower rate than it otherwise would have.

In 2006 Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and the Director of Studies at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Jacques Sapir, joined in. Stiglitz argued the case of the developing Continue reading »

The paralyzing veto

The Institutions No Responses »

Mar 022008

Swedish MEP, Åsa Westlund, PSE, makes an interesting reflection in a blog posting under the heading “Förlamande vetorätt.” Her starting point is a meeting with the Deputy Chairman of the Swedish delegation to the Council of Europe. The Chairman tells her about the paralyzing impact that the right of veto of each of the 47 member states has on the work of the Council. The main task of the Council is to safeguard human rights but even countries which are severely lacking in this respect can block the work of the Council on specific issues.

Ms. Westlund or her colleague from the COE do not mention any names. But it may not be coincidental that Le Monde simultaneously carries an article called Malaise au Conseil de l’Europe where the problematic position of Russia is highlighted. Among other things Russia has blocked a change of statutes for the European Court of Human Rights that would have simplified its handling of around 40000 complaints annually, the majority of which concerns Russia. Continue reading »

A Climate Change?

Sweden and the EU No Responses »

Feb 272008

On Feb 5 this year we wrote about the Swedish and European Green parties and expressed our view that the former would never change their anti-EU stance:

In a time where environmental and climate issues are high on the international agenda the Swedish Greens – in contrast to their European sister parties- are rapidly marginalizing themselves into an insignificant sect

To our great astonishment we read today in Dagen Nyheter (SW) that one of the two spokespersons of the Green Party (well, they are chairpersons really but like to call themselves ‘spokespersons’) has changed her attitude: “Our reasons for being against membership are still relevant in my opinion but there are now additional arguments speaking for membership. Those reasons have to do with the climate issue and with the enlargment of EU that has taken place in later years” (our Continue reading »

Yet another voice on Kosovo

Foreign Policy No Responses »

Feb 252008

EUObserver carries a comment by Peter Sain ley Berry, editor of EuropaWorld. Well worth reading. We quote:

I have still to hear a convincing reason why the status quo could not have been maintained until such time as the whole region joined the European Union.

Which might have been the case had not the Kosovars learned that the USA and its principal European allies would not only back a unilaterally declared independence but would actually throw money at it as well. At that point all hope of a negotiated outcome went out of the window.

The more time gives us a perspective on what happened in Kosovo and the reaction from EU countries, the more difficult to understand the haste. As ley Berry writes: “We Shall All Pay For Kosovo’s Independence.” The price yet to be determined.

Older Entries

A Northern Perspective