Tag Archives: David Cameron

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
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Syria, United Nations

Syrian refugees in need of much better support…

Intro: With Syria’s troubled neighbours being forced to cope with unprecedented levels of refugees crossing their borders, the time has come for the West to do more

The sheer scale and numbers of people fleeing Syria’s civil war is an exodus that requires repeating.

Estimates of refugee movements vary, perhaps for obvious reasons, but many more than two million people have left the country since the conflict began.

Many in the West often assume that it is our countries that routinely absorb the largest numbers of refugees, but a glimpse of the facts reveals a far different reality. Undoubtedly, it is Syria’s closet neighbours that have borne the greatest burden – countries that, politically, already have enough problems to deal with.

Consider Lebanon, for example. It has taken more than 800,000 refugees displaced as a result of the civil war, a figure that is almost a fifth of its entire population. In relative terms, that’s the equivalent of the UK experiencing 12 million starving and impoverished people – men, women and children – flowing across its borders. Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq (including the autonomous Kurdish region in the north) have taken substantial numbers, too. To date, the most generous destination for Syrian expatriates has been Sweden, with more than 15,000 given safe haven.

The UN’s plea that the West accommodates an additional 30,000 has to be seen in the context of this vast and escalating humanitarian catastrophe. Anyone who has read the first-hand accounts, or seen media pictures of these desperately beleaguered people seeking to find shelter, and the basic necessities of life, will come to understand the scale of the tragedy that has affected so many families and individuals.

Estimated refugee movements in Syria.

Estimated refugee movements in Syria.

Aid agencies and charities working in the field have written to the British Government asking that the UK accept a proportion of the refugees. The plea clearly has a moral underpinning that is overwhelming. Though families in the UK may well be feeling the effects of austerity, most would find the suffering that many of these innocent civilians have undergone difficult to comprehend. Taking in our fair share would only amount to a small proportion of the total. More important, however, has to be the provision of fuel, food, water, shelter and sanitation to those tens of thousands struggling to survive in camps across the near east.

As we have come to realise there are many arguments, both for and against, about international aid. In the recent past, for example, there has been the issue over the Indian space programme and the substantial amount of British taxpayers’ money that goes towards it. Resisting that has been the vocal minority of Conservative MPs who would like to see aid given to that project drastically cut. Yet, both the Prime Minister and Chancellor have resolutely stood firm against the instincts of those on the Tory backbenches.

But we have an opportunity now for them to once again to show moral leadership by impressing on the country and international community. By demonstrating magnanimity of outlook and common humanity, the British Government should be forthcoming and welcome a fair quota of Syrian refugees who are in desperate need of help and assistance. It should also consider allocating more funds for the requisitioning of necessities for the refugee camps, as part of a co-ordinated international effort.

As peace talks over Syria will be held this week in Geneva, the Western partners at these talks should surely be able to collaborate and agree on such a plan of action. It is unlikely the war being waged by Bashar al-Assad on his own people will end anytime soon.

Like the conflict that prevailed in Lebanon, the bloodshed in Syria could drag on for many more years. The desperate plight of many Syrians needs to be supported for as long as it takes.

Standard