EU Referendum

Showing posts with label commission. Show all posts

commission[i-commission]
Never mind, said Lord Willoughby de Broke, whether the Commission is doing the right thing or the wrong in meddling with the control of our banks (the wrong, as it happens), concentrate on whether the action is legal. On Tuesday he asked Her Majesty's Government

what assessment they have made of the legality of the European Commission’s decisions on the future of banks in the United Kingdom owned or partly owned by the Government, in the context of the expiry of the present Commission’s term of office on 31 October.

Speaking on behalf of said Government, Lord Davies of Oldham explained in a kindly fashion:

My Lords, the Commission may act in a caretaker capacity after the expiry of its mandate on 31 October to protect the interests of the EU, to fulfill its obligations under the treaty and to ensure the continuity of public service. The Government have agreed packages of measures in principle with Commissioner Kroes in respect of the restructuring of Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland. These are now subject to state aid approval by the college of Commissioners.

In parenthesis let me note that there was very little mention of Commissioner Nellie Kroes in all the announcements about the restructuring of those state-owned banks. Could it be that the aforementioned Government does not like people to know that its decisions are taken at the behest and direct instruction from some Commissar or other in Brussels, who no longer has the right to give those instructions?

Lord Willoughby de Broke chose to disagree with the Noble Minister:

My Lords, while I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, I am afraid that I am not satisfied by it. Nowhere does the treaty, under any article for the reappointment of the Commission, allow for reappointment in a caretaker capacity; there is simply no legal basis in the treaty for that. It therefore follows that, in all its actions since 31 October, the Commission has been acting beyond its powers. That includes the restrictions that have been put on the Royal Bank of Scotland in relation to the payment of dividends, for example, which disadvantages shareholders and pension funds. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Commission has not been legally reappointed according to the procedures laid down in the treaties and that, therefore, its actions are ultra vires?

The Noble Minister then informed the House that the Commission need not be legally reappointed and could just carry on in a caretaking capacity, presumably indefinitely. Lord Kinnock agreed with him, citing Article 216 though Lord Willoughby de Broke suggested that the Welsh Windbag (referred to somewhat more politely in Hansard) was not entirely accurate.

Well, let us see. Actually, I think the Noble Lord Kinnock meant Article 215 of the Consolidated Treaties (as the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force).

ARTICLE 215

Apart from normal replacement, or death, the duties of a Member of the Commission shall end when he resigns or is compulsorily retired.

A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the Member's term of office by a new Member appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority. The Council may, acting unanimously, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled.

In the event of resignation, compulsory retirement or death, the President shall be replaced for the remainder of his term of office. The procedure laid down in Article 214(2) shall be applicable for the replacement of the President.

Save in the case of compulsory retirement under Article 216, Members of the Commission shall remain in office until they have been replaced or until the Council has decided that the vacancy need not be filled, as provided for in the second paragraph of this Article.

According to Lord Kinnock this implies that the whole Commission "stays in office unless and until a replacement is appointed through due process, and that consequently the decisions taken by the Commission since 31 October are completely within the law".

I don't think that is what this Article says but the fact that it can be interpreted that way by ex-Commissioners who do not have to declare their pecuniary interests, tells one a great deal about the EU's contempt for its own legal structure.

As of October 31 there is no Commission as a new one has not been appointed. That needs to be remembered.

COMMENT THREAD

Margot.02[i-Margot.02]Our readers will possibly recall the story of the fragrant Commissar, Margot Wallström deciding to do a spot of moonlighting from her highly paid job. In March the new leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin welcomed Margot back into Swedish politics. The fluffy fragrant one was going to be part of a committee that would decide on the party’s foreign and EU policies before the next European elections in 2009 and the next Swedish elections in 2010. (Not that elections matter in the European Union as the legislation just goes on and on according to a multiannual plan.)

Hmmm, we said at the time, how is this possible? Are the Commissars not legally bound to be independent? The UKIP MEP for London, Gerard Batten, put down some written questions in the Toy Parliament. This was Written Question 1717/07:

Subject: Commissioner Margot Wallström and national politics

When members of the Commission take office they swear to ‘perform their duties in complete independence in the general interests of the Communities’, and ‘to refrain from any action incompatible with their duties’.

According to 'The Local', Sweden’s news in English, the new leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, announced that EU Commissioner Margot Wallström is to sit on a working group committee to develop the party’s foreign and EU policies.

Mrs Wallström is reported to have said, 'Yes it is (true), but I cannot take on a formal position and sit on a board. But everyone in the Commission is politically active and I think that only enriches our work. I will continue my work with full impartiality'.

1. Is this report accurate? Is Mrs Wallström taking up a position, even part-time, on, or advising, a committee of the Swedish Social Democratic Party?

2. If so, how is this compatible with the undertaking given by Commissioners when they take office?

3. Are any other Commissioners 'active in politics' as alleged by Mrs Wallström? If so, who are they, and what is the nature of their involvement?

4. If the Commission answers positively to question 3, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Commissioners comply with their undertaking to act only in the interests of the European Union during their time of office? Or, does working within national politics to promote the European Union comply with that undertaking?

Although he asked the question two months ago, the response came only today. To say that it is evasive is to understate matters somewhat. Mr Batten tells me that this is the fate of all his questions. The answers he gets, when he finally receives them give nothing at all. In fact, he sees little point to asking questions in the Toy Parliament unless some particular issue needs to be brought out.

Gerard+Batten[i-Gerard+Batten]I am encouraging him to go on asking questions. Then we can publicize questions and answers on this blog. Anyway, here is the response, for what it is worth.

Apart from Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty, which provides for the general obligations of independence incumbent on Members of the Commission for the protection of the general interest of the Community, the Code of Conduct for Commission Members contains a number of specific provisions relating to their political activities and their involvement in election campaigns .

Commissioners may be active members of political parties or trade unions, provided that this does not compromise their availability for service in the Commission.

As the Commission has said so often, Members are political men and women. In the performance of their duties they are required to work for the general interest of the Communities and are not allowed to take any instructions, but they are free to attend political meetings provided, of course, that this is not detrimental to their availability at all times as Members of the Commission.

Well, well, well. Let us have a look at Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty, the latter being the fons et origo of all EC/EU legislation.

The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties.

In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 216 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.

Ahem, what is that at the beginning of the third paragraph?

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.

Would that occupation include writing national policies for one’s party back home? “When I use a word,” – said Humpty Dumpty, - “it means what I want it to mean.”

COMMENT THREAD

Michel_Castro[i-Michel_Castro]One of the most boring points that is always thrown at active eurosceptics is the grand assumption made usually by people who have never been outside this country except on holiday that we are all now Europeans rather than British, French, Germans or whatever. It is an easy point to dispose of but it is dull beyond belief.

Another category of people who are preoccupied with being “European” are the eurocrats and, sad to say, would-be eurocrats, the youngsters who have already planned their career in transnational bureaucracies.

It is, therefore, of some interest to discover that, as it happens, the most pre-eminent eurocrats of all, the Commissioners, think more highly of national politics than of European.

We can all recall Romano Prodi all but retiring from being Commission President (though not, one suspects, giving up the handsome salary and even more handsome perks) when the siren song of Italian politics began to sound.

Not so long ago we wrote of the fragrant Margot deciding to do a bit of moonlighting as a Swedish politician, having avowed as a Commissar to serve the interests of the European Union disregarding all national ones.

She is not alone. Louis Michel (he is the one not in uniform in the picture) is going on a month’s sabbatical in order to take part in the Belgian elections. The European Parliament, we are told, is not happy about it but, hey, who is listening to them?

It seems that Commissar Michel will be on unpaid leave (can this be true?) from May 12 when the electoral lists are submitted until June 10 when the election takes place. Any campaigning he might do before that will be strictly at the EU’s expense. No need to declare it.

According to the Rwanda Information Exchange (no, I don’t know either why they bother with this, except that, of course, Commissar Michel is source of aid funding):

The President has decided on Commissioner Olli Rehn as a temporary replacement for Mr Michel. Mr Rehn will provide continuity and good management for Mr Michel's portfolio.

Whatever that last phrase might mean.

Commissar Michel says that he agreed to stand on his party’s list for the Senate on condition that his name is the lowest-placed on the list. Why do it at all, one asks oneself, except for the nagging suspicion that national politics matters a good deal more than European even to the über-eurocrats.

COMMENT THREAD

concentration_camp[i-concentration_camp]The move to make Holocaust denying illegal across the EU seems to have acquired legs, with the Commission supporting the German proposal and the egregious Justice Commissar Franco Frattini (he, who got his job because the original Italian candidate Buttiglioni was a devout and practising Catholic) announced somewhat pompously that he "very much welcomed and fully supported" these proposals.

I shall not bother to rehearse all the arguments against the ban, which have nothing to do with the horrible aspect of the event and of the need to know about it and to study it (though there are other things in history to study as well).

It is, however, gag-making to hear this sort of commentary:

While freedom of expression is part of Europe's values and traditions, its democratic societies also allowed to fight racist speech through penal law, the commissioner added.

Those European values and traditions (that, of course, include Nazism and the Holocaust as well) seem to be infinitely flexible. What Commissar Frattini should be dealing with is the fully acknowledged growth in anti-Semitic attacks across the whole of western Europe in the last few years. Most of these member states, including Italy, routinely post police guard outside synagogues because they are afraid of attacks that come from one or two barely acknowledged directions.

Compared to that, the denial of something that happened some decades ago, a denial that is, moreover, not taken particularly seriously by any respectable historian or commentator, is hardly of paramount importance. Is this another effort on the part of all our lords and masters to go for displacement activity rather than trying to deal with existing and growing problems?

As we have already said on this blog, should such a ban be proposed for legislation in the United Kingdom, we shall start campaigning for legislation that would make the denial of Communist crimes illegal. Alas, we have not enough space in courts or prisons to accommodate all those who have been and still are indulging in this activity.

Pic courtesy of: bigfoto.com

COMMENT THREAD

Rosella[i-Rosella]A delicious conflict is emerging over the fate of the Finnish passenger ferry, Rosella, setting two supposedly core principles of EU law at odds with each other.

This arises, according to the Financial Times, because the ferry, operated by the Viking Line on the three-hour crossing between Finland's capital, Helsinki, and Tallinn, the Estonian capital, is crewed predominantly by Finnish nationals and the owners want to re-flag the ship and replace the crew with cheaper Estonian labour.

Predictably, the Finnish Seamen's Union – with the backing of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) - is threatening industrial action and Viking is seeking an injunction to prevent this.

It is that which is pitting the core EU principles against each other. On the one hand, there are the "freedom of establishment" rules invoked by the shipping company, allowing businesses to set up wherever they wish in the EU. These are embodied in Article 43 of the Treaty.

On the other stands the EU's social policy which the unions are claiming conveys a fundamental right for workers to take collective action, including strike action.

The issue has already been to the UK Courts, where Viking's application for an injunction was first heard and it is now in front of the European Court of Justice, where there are to be oral hearings today in front of an unusually large panel of 13 judges.

The issues at stake go far wider than the shipping industry, and could affect businesses wherever they seek to replace existing workers with cheaper staff from another EU member state.

Because of this, the ECJ is simultaneously considering another dispute, this one referred by the Swedish courts concerning a Latvian construction company called Laval un Partneri.

Through its Swedish subsidiary, it won a contract to refurbish a school at Vaxholm, Sweden, but the company sought to use cheaper Latvian workers, a move blocked by the union.

Irish%2520ferries[i-Irish%2520ferries]This same problem almost came to a head last year, over Irish Ferries, but the EU commission ducked the issue and a dispute between the Irish union Siptu and the ferry operator was resolved without commission intervention.

However, the Financial Times reports that the UK is seeking to rain on the unions' parade, arguing that there is no principle of EU law that gives social policy rights any primacy over other provisions in the EC Treaty, and that taking collective action does not, in itself, even amount to a fundamental right protected by Community law.

If that is the case, then it is not beyond the ECJ to invent such a fundamental right – or find that it existed all along – which the ITF wants it to do, thus making "a judgement to be made on the relationship between human rights and economic rights".

It will be some many months before the ECJ rules on this but, whichever way the answer falls, it is bound to be entertaining. At stake claims the ITF is "what kind of EU we are going to have in the future". "Will it be one that gives priority to the rights of companies," asks the Union, "or one that supports the rights of workers to defend their interests?"

Not for the first time, the EU is going to find that it cannot have it both ways.

COMMENT THREAD