Showing posts with label European Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Commission. Show all posts

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

European Commission Backs Madrid!

 from 'Politico' today:
STRASBOURG — The Spanish government’s “proportionate use of force” in Catalonia was necessary to uphold the rule of law, the European Commission declared on Wednesday.
As the European Parliament opened a debate on the Catalonia crisis, Commission First Vice President Frans Timmermans sided unequivocally with the Madrid government.
Timmermans minced no words in condemning the effort to hold an independence referendum as a violation of the Spanish constitution and, therefore, as a threat to the rule of law in all EU countries.
His comments were met by the continuing fury and disbelief of Catalans who insist the referendum was intended as a democratic expression of free speech and self-determination.

The debate in Strasbourg was allowed to proceed only after Parliament leaders agreed to narrowly define the subject as “the rule of law and fundamental rights in Spain in light of the events in Catalonia” — a demand made by the European People’s Party, the largest political group, which includes Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s Popular Party.
 
Timmermans, in the opening address, said, “We have shaped our democratic societies based on three principles: democracy, respect for the rule of law and human rights … The three need each other, they cannot exclude each other.” He continued, “If you remove one pillar, then the others will fall too.”
“The regional government of Catalonia has chosen to ignore the law in organizing the referendum of last Sunday,” he said.
Perhaps most strikingly, Timmermans defended the use of force by the Spanish police on Sunday. The police action resulted in jarring images of voters, including women and elderly citizens, being dragged away from polling stations — a stunning scene of unrest in a large Western democracy.
“Let me be clear: Violence does not solve anything in politics. It is never an answer, never a solution. And it can never be used as a weapon or instrument,” he said.
“None of us want to see violence in our societies,” Timmermans went on. “However it is a duty for any government to uphold the law, and this sometimes does require the proportionate use of force.”
 
Continuing his speech, he suggested that the Catalan authorities were demanding greater respect for their rights than they were willing to afford others in Spain.
“Freedom of expression is a fundamental right of all European citizens and thus for all Spanish citizens,” Timmermans said. “But one opinion is not more valuable than another opinion only because it is expressed more loudly.”
The debate was arranged in such a way that only group leaders — none of whom are Spanish — could speak. But during a separate session earlier on Wednesday, MEP Jordi Solé from the pro-independence Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya turned to Timmermans to say: “If European institutions keep saying that it’s all about the law, and nothing else than the law, and that it’s an internal matter, you will deserve the world record for turning Catalan pro-Europeans citizens into Euroskeptics.”
Ryszard Legutko, a Polish MEP who is co-leader of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, used the Catalan debate to slam Timmermans and the Commission for hypocrisy.
 
“The European Commission repeatedly resorts to moralistic language, we just heard it,” said Legutko, whose country has been in a running battle over the rule of law with the Commission.
“When we view the action of the Commission in the handling of this particular situation in Catalonia, it looks more like a union of selective values. The double standards of the Commission is something that leaps to the eye. All are equal but some are more equal than others.”
“Let’s be honest,” he added. “If it was another member state, not Spain, the consequences and the rhetoric from the Commission would have been far harsher.”
At a briefing for journalists in Strasbourg, a senior Spanish diplomat pleaded for support for Madrid, describing the situation as a “coup” and warning that Catalan regional leader Carles Puigdemont may be “contemplating war.” The diplomat repeated Madrid’s flat rejection of an international mediator, calling it “out of the question.”
The diplomat said Madrid was open to dialogue with the regional Catalan authorities provided there was respect for Spanish law.
 
The leader of the center-right EPP, Manfred Weber, called the Catalonian government “irresponsible,” and said it was “splitting the country.” He called for dialogue, saying the conflict “can only be solved by the Spanish people themselves.”
Weber echoed the Commission’s warnings that Catalonia, even if it found a legal way to separate from Spain, would find itself outside the EU with no guarantee of returning. “Leaving the internal market, leaving the Schengen area and leaving Eurozone: is this really the Catalans’ best interest?” he asked.
Gianni Pittella, the Italian leader of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (SPD), dismissed the referendum as “useless” and urged Catalan authorities not to declare independence, warning that “it could trigger new confrontation and new disasters.”
Belgian MEP and former prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, leader of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, urged both sides to meet at a negotiating table. “The future of Catalonia as in my own Flemish region lies not in brutal separation,” Verhofstadt said.
 
So far, however, Madrid has indicated no willingness to negotiate with the Catalans and has effectively demanded a complete surrender.
Support for Madrid was hardly unanimous in the Parliament, though leaders sought to limit the debate in part to restrict the number of pro-Catalan speakers.
Patrick Le Hyarric, a French MEP from the far-left GUE group, criticized EU countries who “turn a blind eye” on Catalonia while “the nation is ripping itself apart.”
“The EU must condemn the violation of the fundamental rights,” Le Hyarric said. “This crisis is not unfamiliar to us. We can’t accept politics based on violence in the EU.”

Monday, 5 September 2016

'ROTTEN BOROUGHS' in Greater Manchester


  Greater Manchester Combined Authority's 'investments'
In the current issue of Private Eye on the ROTTEN BOROUGH'S page is an assessment of some recent 'investments' by an 'arms-length' unelected body the GMCA.

GREATER Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), comprises of the bosses of the 10 local councils in Greater Manchester area.  It has of late, according to 'ROTTEN BOROUGHS' in Private Eye (1426), made some strange investments 'with the money it receives from central and local government and the European Commission, which to date has contributed £356m to its coffers (though not for much longer, thanks to Brexit)'. 

Number 1 odd investment:  £1 million in the Black Dress Company, of Ardwick Green, last May.  This company, which makes black dresses, a present has a net worth of £69,000 and combined losses of £230,000.

Number 2 odd investment:  £3 million in the sofa manufacturer Sofology of Wigan.  A company forced to change its name on being found guilty of breaching the copyright of DFS.  According to Private Eye the company's 'Chief exec. Jason Tydesley trousered a pay rise of £74,000, up to £349,000 from £275,000, on the change of name.'

Number 3 odd investment:  £1 to Zuto (formerly Car Loan 4U0... a motor finance company in Macclesfield.

The GMCA, which consists of the leaders of the ten councils that compose Greater Manchester, has 'invested' £165 million of public money into more than 90 companies since 2011.  At the same time most, if not all, the local councils have pushed through cuts in front-line services like libraries etc.  What a life!

Friday, 27 May 2016

Trade Unionists Against EU

Another Europe inside the EU is impossible.


There are two strange arguments in the pro EU Labour Movement campaign. Both hold no water. In one we are told that all of the EU workers' rights as well possibly as some of our own, will disappear as soon as we leave. We have dealt with this in a previous Newsletter and will return to it again.

The other is that in order to prevent World War Three the 'Left' must follow capitalist scion Yannis Varoufakis with his long track record of helping to impose misery on the Greek people on behalf of the EU and IMF and instantly transform the EU into a socialist paradise.

This might sound a nice idea, but it is actually impossible, a delusion fostered by pro EU fanatics. Forget the lurch to the right in most European countries, forget the dominance of the unelected Commission and ECB by right wingers and forget even the dominance of the toothless EU Parliament by the right wing parties, as Tony Benn consistently pointed out the EU constitution is unique in the world in that it enshrines a commitment to capitalist politics and economics.

To change this constitution the simultaneous approval of 28 member states is required. Some hope! Not even Varoufakis could write a book and give such an after dinner speech that 28 governments would agree with him and put the EU's 23 million back to work and restore collective bargaining and workers' rights. For some the idea provides book sales and the press limelight they crave.

Professor Danny Nichol, a constitutional specialist, is much closer to the truth when he writes:

"Even the dogs on the streets know that David Cameron’s EU “reforms” are pitiful.  Indeed, even he no longer mentions them.  So why assume that reforming the EU into a “real Social Europe” is any more feasible?   It’s when one examines the constitutional obstacles to reform that one realises that the whole idea just doesn’t stack up.

A Social Europe should exclude the TTIP. It is hardly necessary to repeat the arguments against the TTIP and how it will accord companies the right to sue governments to invalidate measures which harm their profitability.  Let us assume TTIP is ratified before we secure a Labour government.  The EU Treaties contain no provision for denouncing the EU’s agreements with non-EU countries. How, if at all, TTIP may be terminated will depend on TTIP’s own detailed terms. In all likelihood, remaining in the EU means having TTIP for good.

A Social Europe should respect trade unionism. EU law prohibits industrial action which “disproportionately” obstructs the free movement of goods, services, capital and workers – see the Viking and Rüffert rulings of the EU’s Court of Justice. Overriding these rulings would require Treaty amendment, needing common accord of all Member States.

A Social Europe should permit state aid.  Thankfully Labour is now an anti-austerity party. As part of its public investment programme, Labour should be able to support domestic industries in order to promote full employment and greater equality. However, EU Treaty provisions mean that the European Commission must approve all state aids for their compatibility with the single market.  This includes state aids to the public sector.  The system also allows corporations to challenge grants of state aid on competition grounds.  Reforming the state aids regime would require Treaty amendment, needing common accord of all Member States.

A Social Europe should respect public ownership.  Member States should determine the size of their own public sectors.  However, EU legislation consolidates privatisation.  Nationalising sectors such as gas, electricity, telecommunications and postal services is unequivocally forbidden by EU liberalising directives, which accord rights of market access to corporations.  New public enterprises have to compete with private firms in a capitalist market.  Similar legislation on railways is presently going through the EU institutions.  Repealing these directives would require a proposal by the Commission – the very instigators of EU “liberalisation”.

Any such Commission proposal would require unanimous approval by the EU Council and the consent of the European Parliament. Furthermore EU Treaty provisions grant companies the right of freedom of establishment – they have the right to establish branches and subsidiaries in other Member States.  The EU Court of Justice would almost certainly deem nationalisation of branches and subsidiaries of companies based in other Member States a disproportionate limitation on freedom of establishment. For good measure the Treaties also give corporations the right to sue governments whenever any public monopoly infringes EU competition rules – including within the NHS.  These Treaty provisions could only be repealed by common accord of all Member States.

A Social Europe should permit non-racist immigration policies.  The EU free movement of persons discriminates against non-whites.  EU citizens, overwhelmingly white, enjoy a constitutional right of free movement: non-EU citizens don’t. The refugee crisis shows this systemic discrimination in action.  Reform would necessitate Treaty change, requiring the common accord of all Member States.

A Social Europe should allow Labour Party democracy.  The supremacy of EU law, first proclaimed by the EEC’s Court of Justice in 1964, remains its foremost constitutional principle.   The doctrine means national courts and tribunals must give priority to EU law, setting aside any incompatible national measure however framed.   Supremacy drives a coach and horses through Labour party democracy: any policy decisions of Conference which contravene EU law (such as renationalisation for example) may as well be thrown in the bin.  To overturn supremacy would require Treaty amendment, and therefore the common accord of all Member States.

To sum up, EU Treaties provide no means of discarding the TTIP; and the other reforms would require a complete absence of neoliberal governments throughout the EU.  Sadly these policies are so heavily protected against repeal that a “Social Europe” is in practise impossible to achieve.  No doubt “another Europe is possible” – but outside the European Union."

Danny Nicol was Assistant Secretary of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s.  He is Professor of Public Law at the University of Westminster and author of The Constitutional Protection of Capitalism (Hart, 2010).
Reply Reply to All Forward More
    
See our website for further information about all aspects of the EU and why we should leave.

Published by Trade Unionists Against the EU, PO Box 71625 London E17 0RJ

http://tuaeu.co.uk