Category Archives: Government

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
Foreign Affairs, Government, History, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

The US Secretary of State faces challenges, but is John Kerry sufficiently supported?

US FOREIGN POLICY

John Kerry has illuminated the paradox of current American foreign policy. No where is this more embodied than in the Middle East, the region that continues to consume so much time and effort for the US Secretary of State. Rarely has the diplomacy and energies spent been as active and as bold as they are today. But flamboyant charges that the US is enfeebled and in retreat are also accusations that are running in parallel.

Mr Kerry is tacitly involved on three immensely challenging and overlapping fronts: his efforts to end the bloody civil war in Syria; the continued search for a nuclear deal with Iran that might end more than three decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran; and, the renewed and engaging process to secure a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestinians that has eluded negotiators since 1948.

An analysis of the progress being made will reveal a mixed picture. Encouragingly, the best advances have been made with Iran, with an interim deal that parts of the country’s nuclear programme have been frozen for a period of six months. This deal could yet unravel, but the U.S. and Iran are engaged in a process of constructive dialogue.

To the other extreme, Syria constitutes a total failure. The recent Geneva conference which could not even deliver an agreement on bringing humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of civilians, trapped by the savagery of the conflict, epitomises this rank failure. Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues to arm and supply the regime, while progress on securing Assad’s chemical weapons and stockpiles is, at best, described as being limited. More accurately, it would not be amiss to say that progress in removing Assad’s arsenal has been brought to a stuttering halt.

The current state of play in dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is less clear. Whilst Mr Kerry has been doggedly determined in keeping talks going, his indefatigability may be perceived from different angles of thought. For those who support him, this involvement and persistent diligence is proof of resolve. It is also recognition of his courage by placing his prestige on the line in a way that many of his predecessors never did. For the detractors, though, the US Secretary of State is merely on an ego trip, driven largely by the naïve belief that hope will triumph over experience. The more impartial may wonder whether Mr Kerry’s goal of a ‘framework’ plan – an agreement by the two sides on the shape of the final agreement with the details being worked out later – is really any different from the other diplomatic formulae’, such as the ‘road maps’, that have littered nearly seven decades of futile peacekeeping.

Underpinning Mr Kerry’s efforts on all three fronts is the ‘damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t’ scenario faced by the US in the Middle East. Most expect America to lead, even if its ability to shape and bend the region to its will is often grossly exaggerated. When the U.S. has taken decisive action, as in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has been accused of being a blundering warmonger. Following on from these two long and costly interventions, Americans will have no appetite for another. Yet, when it steadfastly refuses to robustly intervene in Syria (or to a lesser extent in Egypt), it is denounced for abandoning its responsibilities, and of condoning and supporting human rights abuses. It can hardly wave a magic wand and expect all to be well.

American history tends to suggest that the most effective Secretaries of State tend to be those that have been closest to their respective Presidents. Henry Kissinger, for instance, under President Richard Nixon, or James Baker who held post during the reign of President George HW Bush, spring to mind. Secretary of State Kerry is barely a year into his tenure, and so it is too early to say whether he will join this company. Success, however, on one of the three major challenges he is faced with would amount to a distinguished and noteworthy achievement.

Standard