Category Archives: European Union

Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Addressing corruption in the EU is an urgent matter…

EUROPEAN UNION

Intro: Corruption throughout the EU is endemic. It needs urgent and effective attention

In southern and eastern European countries corruption is much more widespread than it is in Britain.

Cecilia Malmström, the EU’s Home Affairs commissioner, estimates that across the EU, the amount of money paid in bribes and racketeering may add up to more than a £100 billion.

This is a staggering sum of money. The estimate given is based on surveys of people who were asked whether they knew about specific cases of having to pay a bribe and what their general perceptions of the problems of corruption in their country were.

In the UK, less than 0.5 per cent of people had either experienced, or knew of, an instance of bribery, the lowest percentage in the EU’s member states. This compares extremely favourably to respondents in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece, where between 6 and 29 per cent of those questioned indicated  that they were asked or had been expected to pay a bribe in the last 12 months.

Yet, the perceived rates of blackmail and extortion related activities in the UK compared to others in the EU are much closer. Even in Britain, where the actual rates are deemed low, 64 per cent of people think corruption is widespread. Across the EU, an average of 74 per cent believes this is the case. In Greece, the perceived rate rises to an astonishing 99 per cent.

The gap between actual experience of corruption and perceptions of it can be accounted for by the widespread publicity which is given to instances of political corruption and the attention which is drawn to interest and exchange-rate fixing scandals still emerging from the financial industry (such as LIBOR, the price of oil and, more worryingly, the true value of gold).

In those countries with the highest experience of financial bribery, most instances relate to healthcare. This has stemmed from the inadequacy of public health provision which has led people to bribe and blackmail doctors to secure early treatment of illness.

Ms Malmström, a Swede, asserts that stamping out corruption is not the responsibility of the European Commission. Rather, she says, that responsibility lies with national governments, on whom she is calling to do more. She is certainly right to argue that instances of bribery is not just draining resources from legal activity and feeding criminality, but that such activity is also undermining the trust that the public has in democratic institutions.

What is more, however, is that in the UK the report’s findings may well have the unintentional consequence of further eroding the fragile belief in the EU. Whilst this report makes clear that the Commission’s own anti-corruption unit is under-resourced and has a vast swathe of fraud allegations in EU spending it will never likely investigate properly, the unit has long been the subject of reports of incompetence and irregularities in the management of its own budget.

Rectifying this situation should be an EU priority. But the EU’s bribery report may well have the effect of colouring the view that many Britons already have – that it is even more corrupt than they ever thought. It is right to ask if British taxes which flow to the EU are being wasted or, worse still, whether they are being harnessed to feather criminal nests and extortion rings.

The possibility exists in the UK for an in-or-out referendum on British membership of the EU in 2017, following the pledge given by the Prime Minister since he has held office. But, this recent EU report will only confirm Eurosceptical prejudices. For Europe to be cleansed of endemic corruption, the European Commission must act with a degree of urgency and effectiveness in dealing with the issues that underpin it.

Standard
Britain, Business, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

UK firms need direction over EU reform…

EU REFORM

Since the start of the year the row over Europe has intensified.

From speeches to signed letters, the Europhiles and Europhobes have played out and made known their disagreements in front of the press and media.

There is no doubt that renegotiation and reform of the EU is necessary. The majority of businesses are determined to see a revamped relationship.

But it has been a year now since the Prime Minister first announced his intentions on Europe, and UK firms are no clearer as to what this means in practice.

Maintaining the status quo and tinkering with some of the existing bureaucracy might seem attractive for some, but it is simply not realistic.

The eurozone, for one, is rapidly moving off in a direction of its own making. Through inter-governmental agreements – fiscal, banking and ever-greater political union – the single currency bloc is set to leave out other EU countries. Specific trading blocs between EU countries within the eurozone are likely to emerge, dismantling the free market as we understand it.

Such an outcome is hardly desirable for British firms. In a survey of over 3,000 businesses last September, only 7 per cent felt this would offer a positive future. Some 57 per cent said that re-calibrating the UK’s relationship would have the most positive impact on Britain’s business and economic interests.

On this basis, the Prime Minister has a clear mandate from business to try and rebalance Britain’s relationship with the European Union.

Even though companies are trading with the wider world, the cold hard truth is that the EU remains a significant trading partner. EU membership grants Britain advantageous access for the sale of goods and the movement of capital and people across national borders.

Firms want to remain in the single market and see it widened and strengthened, to include, for example, the services sector.

So if the Government is to succeed in reform it is vitally important we seek allies within the EU who have a similar desire for change.

It is equally important, too, that the EU knows that the UK is prepared to leave by taking its chances with faster-growing economies. A cacophony of doom regarding the consequences of exist is both irresponsible and misleading, and would undermine the negotiating position of those seeking to enact reform.

Leaving the EU is certainly not the preferred outcome for most businesses and would be very disruptive, but disruption creates opportunities as well as threats. Our ongoing trading relationship with the EU would be influenced positively by the exist negotiations, not least given the massive current deficit the UK has with the EU.

Regulations from Brussels have long been a millstone round the necks of British firms, in spite of the recent reduction in red tape.

Some will want to see action on areas such as employment law, health and safety, and regional development. Others will be hoping for changes in areas like justice and home affairs.

Whilst the Government has indicated that it is serious in its intentions, what remains in doubt, though, is what will constitute a win for the British people. So long as the Government fails to specifically announce what areas it will seek to renegotiate and what the reforms will look like, the government’s rhetoric will be perceived as an act of political opportunism right through to the 2015 general election.

UK business needs as much certainty as possible to provide the landscape on which to build long-term, sustainable growth. This is needed if a revival of our economic fortunes is to be realised.

Standard
European Union, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine

Ukraine, Russia and the wider issue of morality…

TUG OF WAR

Many Ukrainians are now so desperate to join the European Union that they are prepared to protest in ways not seen before in the country. They run the risk of brutality from President Viktor Yanukovych’s security forces, for whom the concept of community policing remains alien and an anathema. Mass anti-government protests in Ukraine have brought large swathes of the country to a standstill, largely prompted by Moscow’s strong-arm and bully-boy tactics aimed at halting Kiev’s attempts to improve the country’s trading ties with the EU. This fervour stems from a particular theory of Ukrainian nationhood, where many of its electorate believe the country should be an equal partner in the European Union, rather than remaining little more than a Russian satellite.

International opinion has, at times, questioned the morality of Russian decisions, such as that in 2009 when Moscow turned off the gas supplies to Ukraine in the middle of winter to dissuade it from forging closer ties with Brussels. The arrogance of Russian ambitions towards Ukraine could hardly have been laid barer. Continued threats over the continuity and supply of gas, as Russia continues to apply its power over Ukraine, underlies more cynical Russian ambitions. Mr Putin’s plan is for Ukraine to join Belarus and Kazakhstan in a political trading bloc to be known as the Eurasian Union.

For many Ukrainians, though, that is not only a poor substitute for the EU, but also an uncomfortable reminder of Ukraine’s position as a member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Russia is seeking to capitalise on how Eurasian integration will likely generate increased interest from its other neighbours through the usual warm rhetoric of international diplomacy. But, in truth, the West would be right to assume a more menacing aspect to it. As Mr Putin is the dominant partner in this new Eurasian Union, it is worth examining and putting into perspective some of his recent comments and actions. For example, what of his attitude to the legitimate interests of other nations in the Arctic and his unnecessarily harsh treatment of those seeking to preserve the environment there? Russia is motivated by the rich new oil wells recently located in the Arctic and the huge benefits that exploration will bring to the Russian economy. Mr Putin’s rather indifferent attitude to human rights doesn’t bode well, either, for the Eurasian Union becoming a model template of tolerance and openness.

However, not all people in Ukraine are worried over Russia’s attempt to wrest control over its affairs. Many Ukrainians do support President Yanukovych’s decision to ditch his negotiations with the European Union and seem undisturbed about the record of human rights in their own country or in Russia.

The tragedy of Ukraine being forced to choose between traditions and that of regional power blocs is its nemesis. Geography dictates that fate, at least to some degree, is inevitable. Ethnic, economic and cultural ties do naturally tug in the opposite direction when a country is caught between two bigger powers. Yet, in all practicalities Ukraine should not have to make such a choice and would not need to if Russia would allow her to develop her links with Europe.

Conceivably, Ukraine could do that as well as being closely aligned to Russia. Ukraine should be allowed to maintain her trading and other relationships, but as part of a wider settlement between the EU on one hand and Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus on the other.

Mr Putin’s stance between his own nation and that of his close neighbours is generally perceived and accepted as a zero-sum game – the EU’s gain, for instance, must be Russia’s loss. But persisting with such a position will leave Ukraine at best in a state of uncertainty or limbo, and at worst a target for permanent bullying.

..

DURING last week’s annual state of the nation address, Vladimir Putin emphasised his belief that Russia takes a morally superior world-view to the West. It is hard to credit Mr Putin with that surprising claim considering the level of violence taking place on a daily basis in countries such as Syria and Ukraine.

Moscow’s staunch and unrelenting support for the dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad has been a prime reason why diplomatic efforts to stem the bloodshed have been thwarted in a raging civil war that has now claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people and displaced millions more.

Mr Putin claims that there is a clear moral compass behind his government’s domestic policies. But where is the evidence? Modern day Russia is a country where political opponents are killed or dispatched to Siberian labour camps, where gangsterism is rife, and where free speech is actively discouraged. Widespread and endemic corruption has persuaded Russian businessmen to flee the country in their droves to escape the constant threat of state-sponsored violence and extortion.

Mr Putin’s personal ambition of reviving Russia’s fortunes as a world power is a self-evident prophecy. He may well believe that, by resisting the tide of what he refers to as the West’s ‘non-traditional values’, his aspirations will be realised. In truth, so long as the Russian President remains intent on crushing political dissent at home and intimidating his enemies abroad, no one is going to be endeared to his sense of moral teaching.

Standard