TaxPayers' Association of Europe - Home

European Parliament approves environmental measures that will damage economic growth

The EU has decided to give the planned economy another chance. Bureaucrats in a room in Brussels wish to decide how much carbon the European economy can produce. They then plan to sell pollution permits to producers. I seem to remember a few other countries tried this approach to the economy. I don’t remember it being a success. This measure will lead to a massive increase in electricity bills for families struggling to survive the credit crunch. It will also drive European firms out of business causing unnecessary job cuts. The European Emissions Trading Scheme needs to be put out of its misery now.

The EU is to cap the amount of carbon that can be emitted. The EU Parliament’s Environmental Committee backs plans for a 20 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 (on 1990 levels). Their plan aims to ensure 20 per cent of Europe’s energy needs are generated from renewable by 2020. Carbon permits will be created and auctioned from 2013 onwards. A proportion will remain but this will decline each year until 100 per cent of the permits are auctioned. This plan will impose massive costs on EU producers. The effect will be to endanger European firm’s ability to compete with third world producers. In some sectors jobs could be exported to less efficient third world producers whose costs are now lower than European companies. Europe could lose jobs for no environmental gain.

Some of the biggest polluters are those companies which produce our power. These companies are unlikely to absorb the costs in full themselves. Instead consumers can expect higher electricity prices to be charged. Thereby, when the EU Environmental Council Meeting occurs between the 20^th and 22^nd of October 2008, we must hope the members do not vote to increase electricity bills and force more Europeans out of work. We must hope a solution is found to deal with climate change in a sensible and constructive manner. 

Poland leads charge against EU Emissions Trading Scheme

European politicians are being distracted from the battle against climate change by national interests and the need to save our European economy from collapse. Governments across Eastern Europe are concerned at having to rely on Russian gas imports after Russia’s aggression in Georgia. European taxpayers are worried about keeping their jobs and maintaining their standard of living. The heating up of the planet is, for the moment, off the political agenda. Consequently, politicians across Europe are seeking to water down their commitment, under the EU emissions trading scheme, to cut emissions levels by 20 per cent (from the levels that prevailed in 1990) by 2020.

Six EU member states have signed a declaration warning that the EU emissions target will cause a “significant increase” in Europe's reliance on imported gas. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece have all witnessed Russia use the energy weapon against the Ukraine. Russia has increased gas prices massively, for her former colony, in order to apply political pressure. The signatories of this declaration have taken note. They do not want to increase their dependence on Russian energy because this will give Russia greater political power over them. Consequently, Poland, soon to be home to America’s missile defensive shield and reliant on coal to produce 90 per cent of its electricity, is leading the case for a review of this target. A target agreed only eighteen months ago. It needs 91 of the 345 votes on the EU Council to delay the EU emissions trading scheme. The Polish Government say they have them. Thereby, it seems this regulation will not be introduced for some time.

EU consumers should welcome any legitimate measure which delays or defeats the implementation of the EU emissions trading scheme. Consumers are already struggling with rising prices without the EU applying more pressure by increasing power costs to facilitate a green conversion. Climate change may be a serious problem. Action to deal with it is warranted. However, European politicians should be aware that measures that increase the burden on hard working families will not be appreciated at this time. The security and prosperity of Europeans is, at the moment, more pressing to many of Europe’s citizens and her national politicians than the increase in the global temperature.

EU Regulation harms the job prospects of young women

The European Union (EU) is drafting plans to massively increase small businesses costs. The EU plan to extend women’s right to full maternity pay from six to eighteen weeks. A grand move you might say. How could anyone disagree? But consider it in more detail and its effects are more pernicious.

This move will lower the incentives for small businesses to hire women of child bearing age further reducing womens career prospects. It will also endanger the future of many small businesses struggling to survive during the current recession. In short, it is the wrong move, at the wrong time and must be stopped.

Currently UK maternity leave standards exceed the EU minimum. British mothers are entitled to a years leave, whereas the EU only requires its member states to give mothers a right to fourteen weeks leave. In the UK, over nine months of maternity leave, is paid provided the woman has worked at the company for six months or more. Six weeks of this leave are paid at ninety per cent of full pay with thirty three weeks then paid at a rate of £117.18 a week. This thirty three week period is called Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP). The remaining thirteen weeks are unpaid. Under the new EU proposals mothers would be entitled to eighteen weeks at full pay. In addition the British Government is looking to increase statutory maternity pay to fifty two weeks as of 2010. So what will be the effects of these policy changes?

There will be four main effects brought about by these changes. Firstly, small businesses face an increase in the amount of pay they have to provide mothers with and the duration of such payments i.e. a mother’s current right to ninety per cent of full pay for six weeks will be increased to a right to one hundred per cent of full pay for eighteen weeks. Furthermore, as a spokesman from the Federation for Small Businesses said, we should also consider that “Not only would they have to pay the employee; they also have to pay for a replacement." These replacements are temporary by nature and thereby often cost more than the rate the existing employee was earning. In the current recession increasing costs on struggling small businesses is not the best idea. The EU should in fact be looking for ways to reduce such costs.

Secondly, the Government subsidises statutory maternity leave so it will now face a higher maternity leave bill. While under current treasury rules firms can reclaim some of the costs of SMP from the Government it is unclear whether this arrangement will continue if the EU extends the amount of statutory maternity leave. If the Government insists on implementing its proposed increase in the amount of maternity leave to fifty two weeks, it will have to finance an additional thirteen weeks of SMP. In addition if the current entitlement to full pay is tripled from six to eighteen weeks then the Government will either have to subsidise this which means high taxes or pass the costs off on to businesses which means higher costs for consumers. Either way many ordinary Britons will be worse off as a result of these changes.

Thirdly, employers are fighting back by refusing to hire young women as full time employees. Instead employees are hired on fixed term contracts which are then renewed as and when necessary. This means the employee can be sacked more easily and has less employment rights then their full time equivalent. Further reducing the job security of young female Britons will not be welcomed.

Fourthly, some employers are beginning to refuse to hire women of child bearing age at all. Sir Alan Sugar, a British entrepreneur famous for starring in a successful British television series called the apprentice has said that many employers put the cv’s of women of child bearing age into the bin. A view also put forward by the head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Nicola Brewer.

So the proposals of the EU and the British Government increase the cost to businesses, consumers and taxpayers. They also reduce the career opportunities for young women. These proposals need to be abolished and replaced with sensible measures to ensure both adequate maternity leave and the small business development and economic growth we all need to get through the current recession.

EU fails to abolish biofuel targets as food prices soar

The EU Parliament's Industrial Committee has restructured the EU biofuels target to account for its impact on food prices but still refuses to call for its abolition. This target must be abolished now as it serves little purpose. It raises food prices, causes greater pollution and will not be achieved.

The current EU target for increasing the use of biofuels in transport is to make it 10 per cent of fuel by 2020. This general target remains. However, the Industrial Committee has altered the interim target to 5 per cent by 2015 with 20 per cent of this to be made up of "new alternatives that do not compete with food production." This means either electricity from renewable sources, hydrogen fuel cells or biofuels that are made from algae, waste or other nonfood forms of vegetation. Therefore the commitment has been restructured – not reduced and not abolished. This is a step in the right direction but far too timid.

No Committee has the power to abolish the target on it's own. Abolition would require a debate in Parliament and the agreement of the EU members now signed up to it. However, after the report of the Parliament's Environment Committee in July we could have expected a little more. The commitment had already been watered down when in July 2008 the European Parliament's Environment Committee recommended a lower medium target of 4 per cent rather than 10 per cent and a review of the target in 2015. The time is ripe for a committee to recommend its abolition because biofuels pollute more and increase food prices for EU consumers.

Many biofuels pollute more than the forms of energy they replace. The World Land Trust an international conservation trust described the promotion of biofuels as a disaster stating that “Whilst there may be short-term economic arguments for biofuels like gasohol and biodiesel, let us not be taken in by the green-wash. For climate change and for biodiversity they are a disaster” see here.  The Trust has also published an extensive report on how biofuels are set to increase emissions see here.

Growing biofuels is also acknowledged to increase food prices for European consumers. This is because they take land out of agricultural production. High food prices affect all EU citizens but the poorest most. The World Bank estimates that 75 per cent of the increase in food prices between 2002 and 2007 is due to the increase in biofuels see here. UK consumers have experienced an 8.3 per cent increase in food prices in the last 9 months according to a BBC study.

European Consumers will welcome any moves by the EU to abolish this unnecessary target which creates more pollution and increases the costs of our groceries.  It would cost the EU nothing to take this step but it would benefit all EU consumers. The European Parliament must abolish this target now. This does not mean we want it restructured or reduced. We, European TaxPayers want it abolished now.

Nous sommes en retard d’une Europe!

An interview of PH d’Argenson (published by Le Cri du contribuable about Europ)

Haut fonctionnaire et énarque, il explique à quel point des fonctionnaires français sont mal préparés à la compétition européenne.

Vous opposez dans votre livre deux conceptions de l’Europe…

 

Oui. J’oppose l’Europe idéalisée par les élites françaises, dans laquelle les institutions jouent le rôle qui leur a été assigné, imperméable aux lobbies, et où les grands Etats conservent une part déterminante dans la prise de décision, et l’Europe réelle, qui compte 27 Etats-membres et qui fait la part belle aux batailles d’influences et de compétences entre les institutions. La France a du mal à admettre cette Europe-là, qui n’est plus l’Europe des 6 ou des 9. Au nom d’un projet idéologique exclusif, on s’aveugle sur le fonctionnement quotidien de l’Europe, quand une approche pragmatique s’impose. Nous sommes en retard d’une Europe !

Pourquoi ?

Entre autres, parce que nos hauts fonctionnaires ne sont pas préparés à l’Europe. Ils apprennent à raisonner « européen », au lieu de raisonner français dans un espace européen. Contrairement aux Britanniques, qu’on a grand tort de considérer comme des eurosceptiques et qui ont compris tout le parti qu’ils pouvaient tirer de l’Europe. Ils se sont parfaitement intégrés à la construction européenne et ils en maîtrisent les rouages.

Les Français n’ont pas compris comment on défend ses intérêts au niveau européen. Ils en restent à une logique institutionnelle, celle de la diplomatie classique. Or aujourd’hui, pour défendre ses intérêts, il faut passer par le système de l’influence, des lobbies, comme à Washington. Nous avons une méfiance instinctive, voire un certain mépris, à l’égard de ces acteurs non étatiques ; nous n’arrivons pas à croire que leur action soit déterminante.

En admettant que les Français comprennent comment défendre leurs intérêts, encore faudrait-il qu’ils en aient la volonté.

Il y a un certain malaise, c’est vrai, avec l’idée de défendre les intérêts français au niveau européen, dans la mesure où l’on a estimé que l’idéal européen devait primer à tout prix. Et on finit par considérer que les sacrifices nationaux sont le signe heureux que cet idéal est en train de s’imposer. On se méprend ainsi gravement sur le sens de la construction européenne.

Comment les Français espèrent-ils faire prévaloir les intérêts de l’Europe dans le monde, s’ils ne sont pas capables d’y bâtir les réseaux de leur propre influence ?

Comment fonctionnent les Français ?

De deux façons : soit on attend que la norme européenne sorte et on définit une position française, au dernier moment, quand il est trop tard, soit on arrive avec un grand projet qu’on présente à nos partenaires, en espérant qu’il suscite une adhésion générale. Or ce n’est pas comme ça que ça se passe ! La norme européenne se construit très en amont. Elle se construit aussi, comme savent le faire les Britanniques, par le suivi très attentif des législations au sein même des institutions européennes à travers le placement et le suivi des fonctionnaires au sein des institutions.

Les Français sont convaincus que pour influencer une institution, il faut être à sa tête : Trichet à la BCE, Strauss-Kahn au FMI, Lamy à l’OMC… Et on se désintéresse des « petits » fonctionnaires. Or ce sont eux qui font tourner la boutique au quotidien et qui élaborent les normes et les directives qui concerneront 450 millions d’Européens !

En clair, vous ne trouvez pas très stratégique d’arriver dès le départ avec un grand projet sur la table, avec lequel on dévoile ses batteries.

Oui, Aujourd’hui, on ne peut plus seulement s’appuyer sur un processus diplomatique qui consiste à dire : j’ai une idée, qui m’aime me suive ! Dans une Europe à 27, il faut à la fois réunir une coalition d’Etats et faire en sorte que le projet, quand il sort de la commission, soit validé comme étant conforme à l’intérêt européen. Il faut que les Français comprennent qu’avec 27 Etats-membres, le poids de la France est fortement diminué, on ne peut plus s’appuyer sur le seul poids démographique et économique de notre pays.

Dans ce livre, je me suis justement attaché à formuler des propositions pour retrouver les voies de notre influence perdue.

Chez les Anglo-Saxons, il semble qu’il y ait entre le privé et le public une alliance naturelle.

Les passages du public au privé sont importants au Royaume-Uni. En France, seules les grandes entreprises sont bien représentées par les pouvoirs publics. Pas les PME. En résumé, l’osmose entre l’Etat et le monde économique est meilleure chez les Anglo-Saxons qu’en France.