In order to widen the debate about the future of the EU, Open Europe will be organising events across Britain and Europe. To receive information about future events please sign up to receive our fortnightly bulletin.
Galileo - is it worth it? 9 October
Open Europe hosted a debate on the EU’s planned satellite navigation programme in the House of Lords on 9 October: “Galileo – is it worth it?”
Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, who is a Member of the Defence Select Committee and a former Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, kicked off the debate arguing that “Virtually everything the Commission says on its website [about Galileo] is pure fantasy”. He said the system will have almost no effect on the operation of the transport system of the EU, it will not be available by 2008 – the PPP the Commission envisaged has all but collapsed. According to the head of the Galileo project the costs are expected to be in the region of €10 billion – 150% more than the original estimate of €4bn. He said the project is “Massively behind schedule and way over budget.”
He said, “The commercial case simply does not and will not ever stand up”. He argued that it does not offer additional value for money than GPS on performance, because the original accuracy advantages to be brought by Galileo are no longer relevant because GPS has since moved on. Because GPS is free, “the only places that Galileo is likely to attract is a few publicly funded projects from national EU governments desperate to prop up the latest EU white elephant.” Bernard said the number of jobs Galileo will be nowhere near the 150,000 predicted by the Commission.
Moving on to the strategic arguments for Galileo, he said: “Here we come to the real agenda behind Galileo: it is as much a European defence project as it is a transport project.” He argued, “The strategic argument is actually damaging to the British national interest and also misconstrues the interests of the other member states.”
Bernard explained that the Commission wants Galileo and other European space projects to be brought within the European Security and Defence Policy. The European Space Agency will be subsumed into ESDP in the same way the WEU was – Galileo will then, as the Commission’s website states: “underpin the common European defence policy.” He argued that it’s no use ministers saying such a thing will never happen, because they gave the same guarantees about the WEU.
He argued that the strategic military argument for Galileo – the idea that the US would switch off or corrupt the signal – is flawed in two major ways: the GPS system is now too linked into the US and global economy for them to do something like that. He said that even when in 2004 the US military discovered that al-Qaida in Iraq was using GPS against US troops, there was no attempt to switch off or corrupt the system. The White House announced only last month that GPS 3 will no longer have the capability for selective availability.
Bernard said that the second flaw is in thinking that US-Europe relations would ever sink so low that the US would not allow Europe access to GPS. If things ever got that bad, then GPS would be the least of our worries.
He concluded, “It is an EU vanity project”, and that the EU does not need a strategic satellite system independent from the US system, because it will never have to depend on it. He said, “Galileo is part of an agenda which aims potentially to decouple the EU from NATO and ultimately from the US in the quixotic hope that the EU will somehow emerge as a geo-political counterweight to American power. This is the primary reason why Galileo is not just pointless, but potentially damaging. It contributes to the undermining of the supremacy of NATO and to the destabilising of transatlantic relations.”
He also said it was particularly irresponsible for the EU to involve the Chinese in Galileo, saying, “The idea that Europe’s interests are more closely allied to those of China than the US is quite bizarre.” He said they could penetrate Galileo security systems for military purposes if they have any access at all to the project.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman, former Minister of State for Transport, argued, “Galileo is, certainly was, a great concept. There is absolutely no question in my mind that if, when we first proposed Galileo, we had gone about managing it in the right way… if we had kicked ass and got on with it at the speed that we originally intended, there would have been huge economic and scientific benefits for the European Union.” He said, but that was then, and this is now; is it still a great concept?
Stephen argued that creating a project on the scale of Galileo is something that only Europe can do; we cannot do it as individual member states. But, he said, “Europe is at its worst when it engages on a project like this and then allows national self interest to divert it”, instead of what is in Europe’s best interests, which, he argued, is what happened with Galileo, “and I plead as guilty to this as anyone else.”
He said, “We broke all the rules of good business in the way we put this project together, so, frankly, we shouldn’t be surprised that we’ve got to the position we’ve got now. We’ve allowed ourselves to be diverted from the path of good science, from the path of good business, by the way we’ve allowed politics to make decisions about the project. And that is something the EU desperately needs to learn from.”
He said that we could take the view that we should now scrap the project, “and I’m not saying that that would not be at least partly justified. But in my view we haven’t reached that position yet. There is a position where we can rescue Galileo, and if we can convince the rest of the EU to adopt that position then maybe it still has benefits.”
He said, “We have to revisit the business case”, and outlined things in the original business case that we now need to start disregarding:
- Galileo is intended to provide a better quality signal, an independent signal. “If those things had been true, then clearly Galileo would have had an advantage, but as Bernard has said, they are not true anymore, with GPS 2 being available, with GPS 3. The independence argument to some extent has gone away because there’s also the Russian system, potentially the Chinese system, so the likelihood of GPS-type technologies not being available for people to use in the future has become very slim. So we need to re-examine that argument, and if that benefit has gone, then we need to discount it in our business calculation.”
- The idea that Galileo would not be too expensive – “the Commission compared it with some other projects, saying, look, Galileo only costs the same as these, so it’s cheap. One was terminal 5 at Heathrow. When it opens, terminal 5 will be, by itself, the 3rd biggest airport in Europe. 6,000 will work there, 65,000 people will help build it, and it will guarantee 1 million jobs in West London. If that is the measure of whether Galileo, at the price of Galileo, is providing good value for money, I have to say it doesn’t measure up to what terminal 5 at Heathrow is going to provide in terms of job security. So that argument is gone – we need to develop a better test for whether Galileo is providing us with a business return."
- The argument that Galileo was not commercially viable was rebutted by the Commission by saying the concessionaires are willing to put their own money into Galileo – “well, now we know they’re not – so we have to re-evaluate that part of the business case as well.”
- The idea whether Galileo should be a military service or not. The Commission says that some nations’ militaries around Europe will make use of it – and why not? Stephen argued that that doesn’t mean we’re breaking away from NATO – “so maybe we need to re-evaluate that argument as well.”
Stephen said, “At the end of the day, if what we are relying on to go ahead with Galileo, is that business case, then I have to say I will come down on the side of Bernard and say, it needs to go, it cannot be justified at this cost for that business return, because those business returns have disappeared. We need to be asking ourselves where is the new business return.”
He asked what can we make Galileo into that would give it “a unique competitive advantage” over GPS and the Russian and Chinese systems? If they can do that, then because of the scientific and technological benefits, then it might well be worthwhile going ahead with Galileo – “but only if they can do that. And that I hope is a piece of work which the Commission is trying to get on with at this moment. If it is not, then Galileo is doomed.”
The British Government should now be setting out two criteria: “tell us what the unique business case is, make it work as a business argument and a scientific argument, and then let’s work out how to make sure that we’ve got all the advantages of competitive tendering driving down the costs of delivering this project. And if we get the right answers to those two things, then we stay with Galileo and it’ll be a great project. If we don’t get the right answers, the worst thing we could do for the EU would be to persevere with it and provide ammunition to people like Bernard to attack the European Union.”
During the Q and A session, he said that we need something that is higher quality than GPS, but whether GPS or Galileo can produce it is the question. He said “We cannot wait until 2014 for this”, but said if we need another 6 months to identify the business case then that would be preferable to spending another €2.1 bn now on the current business case that might not work.
Peter Brookes – Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, began by saying that Galileo has not had much play in the US for a while, with several people saying Galileo is “off the radar.” He said, “Is Galileo worth it? I would say no, but that’s coming from a conservative fiscal orientation and a concern about how Europe spends its money.”
He said there are three primary security concerns about Galileo – which haven’t changed much since Galileo was talked about in the US in 2003, 2004:
- Potential impact on the transatlantic relations. Peter said that some in the US are alarmed about the military aspects of the Galileo – it was denied for a long time that it had any sort of military aspect, but a number of officials seem to make it quite clear to us that it does have a defence side to it as well. These critics of Galileo see the push for the system as symptomatic of some in Europe that are pushing Europe to pursue its own security and defence identity, separate from the US and NATO. He said some in the US are not at all keen on the idea of the EU’s common foreign and security or the ESDP. He said, “It could be argued that the militarisation of the EU – Galileo being part of that – marks one of the greatest geo-political shifts in the transatlantic alliance since the second world war. In the eyes of some the ESDP embodies some of the worst elements of European animosity towards the United States.” In addition in the eyes of some it would fundamentally undermine the NATO alliance and the Anglo-American special relationship. Some think that these moves are evidence of Europe’s efforts to not only act independently of the US, but also as a counterweight to it. He said, “I think the US would like to see Europe take on more security and more defence responsibility, but they don’t want to see new policies dividing the transatlantic relationship. I fear that a revival of Galileo could be an accelerator for that sort of effort.”
- Potential impact on European defence spending Stephen questioned why Europeans are spending all this money on Galileo when only 5 out of 21 EU NATO members are now spending the required NATO benchmark of 2% GDP on defence, and when many European troops need airlift and high-tech weaponary in Afghanistan, for example.
- Potential impact on Chinese defence modernisation and military capability Peter explained that China is a great concern to the US, with its military build-up, fast-growing defence budget etc. He said that Galileo will have important military applications, and implications, especially for the US. It will improve the precision of weapons guidance systems – this is incredibly important for the military. He said that China is currently developing a range of advanced land attack, ballistic missiles etc all of which can be aided by satellite navigation. “If the US and China wind up in military confrontation over Taiwan, Galileo could improve China’s precision, strike capability against US forces in the pacific.” He said that Galileo, while unintentionally, could be used against US forces. “The US does not want to give China more options than is necessary – such as access to Galileo.”
Peter concluded by saying that despite all this, Galileo’s fate is actually more likely to be determined by Franco-German rivalry and the bean-counter, more than the security concerns of the transatlantic alliance.
Richard Peckham, Business Development Director (UK) EADS Astrium argued that Galileo has significantly more performance than GPS – it has more advance signals that will work better in built up areas. He said there are lots of reasons why Galileo will be better than GPS, and that the next generation of GPS is running two to three years late – it will be a long time before a useful number of satellites are up.
On rivalry with GPS, he said that since 2001 things have changed dramatically, putting rivalry between the two to bed. He argued that having two lots of satellites with the same signal would be good for users and manufacturers.
Richard argued that because we are becoming increasingly dependent on satellite navigation, it would be irresponsible for European governments to allow that much dependence but with no control, not because the US might switch off GPS, but because it is not infallible, and is vulnerable to terrorist attack, earthquakes etc. He said, “The economic consequences are huge such that we should be thinking about a second system.”
Talking about why Galileo has so far stalled, Richard said that the money was never an issue – the banks were prepared to lend the money to the concessionaires – but that ultimately the whole thing fell apart on squabbling.
He argued that there is a lot of demand for a new system, because lots of people are saying they cannot use GPS for what they want to do, and that satellite navigation is an important new growth area, where the industry expects real business potential.
Open Europe book launch and discussion: “Life of a European Mandarin” - 5 September
With: Derk-Jan Eppink
Derk-Jan Eppink spent more than seven years working as a senior official behind the scenes in the European Commission.
At an event to mark the launch of his book - "Life of a European Mandarin: Inside the Commission", Derk-Jan talked about his experiences in the Commission and outlined his ideas for reform. Copies of his speech are available from the Open Europe office.
Open Europe discussion: The new EU treaty and the future of Europe - 15 June 2007
Brendan Donnelly, Director of the Federal Trust, kicked off the debate arguing that the proposed constitutional treaty is by no means the most revolutionary document in the history of the EU. He argued that the most “integrationist” treaty is the Single European Act, which was signed by Margaret Thatcher. He argued that “Any argument that says that the constitutional treaty is wholly unacceptable is de facto an argument that the EU is wholly unacceptable. Now that’s a perfectly coherent and logical point of view held by many people in this room, but I think we should call things by their name”.
He argued that the EU will never be a mirror image of the UK. There is an argument in this country saying “I’m all in favour of the EU, I just want it to be fundamentally reformed. That strikes me a little bit like saying I’m a Catholic but I don’t believe in Papal infallibility…you must accept in good faith the institutional structure of the EU and the community method”.
In regards to give the public a vote on the constitutional treaty, he said that referendums are not the most authentic forms of democracy: “I find it particularly strange that some people who would regard that the cardinal sin of the EU is that it undermines the role of the national parliament, then seek to undermine the role of the national parliament further by being an enthusiastic advocate of a referendum on the constitutional treaty.”
Neil O’Brien, Director of Open Europe, responded to Donnelly’s argument on the UK not having had previous referendums, saying that “the problem is exactly that, we didn’t have referendums on these previous steps, and discontent with the EU, and the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency has been building up for a long time. In a sense this is an overdue referendum”.
He went on to look at what will be in the new treaty, arguing that three key items from the original text will be in the revised treaty: an EU President, an EU Foreign Minister and changes in the voting system.
Speaking about the EU President, Neil pointed out that “This will be a powerful post because not only will this man or woman have 3,500 civil servants in the Council Secretariat at his or her disposal, which will be a really strong powerbase, he will also have an incentive to increase his powers over time… in the longer term this is seen by a lot of integrationists in Brussels as a stepping stone to US-style President of Europe”.
On the Foreign Minister he said that “One is the question of the Foreign Minister itself and whether he or she would speak on our behalf in international meetings. Another question is whether in the new draft the Foreign Minister will be accompanied by a move to QMV in foreign policy as was the case in the original text.” He also said that the idea of an EU diplomatic service would risk sending mixed messages to the world.
The new voting system, Neil argued, “Makes it a lot easier to pass legislation and cuts the UK’s ability block legislation by 30%, which means inevitably that the EU will produce even more regulation with even higher costs for business”, noting that the EU is already regulating pretty hard with the cost of its regulation, according to BCC being £40 bn.
Neil argued that the UK Government is digging itself into a hole on a referendum on the Constitution: “Gordon Brown has talked of a new form of politics, a humble politics involving the public…All of that rhetoric will just be cut off by their knees if the Brown spends his first couple of days in office going on TV explaining why voters are too stupid to have a say on this new text”.
Sir Stephen Wall, former Europe Advisor to the Prime Minister, argued that “My perception of the Constitutional treaty is that it is not the next step towards a political union such that had been perceived in the 50s, 60s 70s and to some extent the 80s, but if you like the last expression of a rhetoric that was no longer born out of the reality. And I think the reality of today’s EU is much different. It is a much more – and I personally don’t think this is good for our future – intergovernmental organisation than it was”.
On the new EU treaty, Sir Stephen argued that there will be a President of the Council, but it will be a limited role reflecting the wishes of some member states. Similarly, regarding the so-called Foreign Minister, he said there’s “no question” of this person replacing member states in terms of a single seat and voting for example in the UN Security Council. He argued that no UK Government will accept that a Foreign Minister will be able to command QMV.
On Justice and Home affairs, he argued that the UK will insist on an opt-out, and that the Government will also seek “to strengthen the extent to which it is clear that foreign policy remains a prerogative of the governments”.
Sir Stephen argued that it is “quite difficult to predict” which way the changing voting weights will go, since “on the one hand the threshold is lower, on the other hand Britain’s weight in the system actually increases,” and “Britain is actually one of the member states who want to see decision taken by majority voting”, outlining a number of issues such as reform of the CAP or liberalisation of the financial sector in which majority voting could serve Britain’s interest.
He argued, “Europe is now in the lead…in tackling two of the most crucial issues that we face. One is the whole question of energy security…and the other is climate change.” He said “ I hope that we will not lose sight of the very, very big British interest in terms of cooperating very closely with our allies and partners within the EU”.
Derek Scott, former Economics Advisor to the Prime Minister criticised Tony Blair for caricaturing those critical of the EU’s current direction. He argued that, “given its geographical position and history, the notion that the UK can disengage from Europe is fantasy. The question, as ever, is how.”
He argued that today’s EU’s institutions offer “the worst of all possible worlds – a mixture of the supranational and the intergovernmental which is giving us a bureaucratic organisation accountable to no one.”
He argued that it is possible to talk about cooperating “on a whole range of areas” but that “Having established that basis for cooperation you don’t need to infill afterwards and have common policies or harmonisation. And frankly given the evidence of the Common Agriculture Policy and the Common Fishery Policy, the notion that what Europe needs is a common energy or a common policy to deal with climate change strikes me as being completely bizarre”.
He said, “What we have had is more and more powers going to the centre from the member states…this has happened almost by accident. But what we can’t have is a process that is proceeding by stealth.”
He continued , “To say [as Brendan did] that it’s not possible to challenge the EU Constitution without wanting to come out the EU, is to fly in the face of what actually happened ahead of the previous Constitution. The balance of power between the centre and member states was the agenda at the Laeken Council and was supposed to be the agenda for the Convention, but Giscard D’Estaing simply chose to ignore it”.
“The democratic case for a referendum seems to me pretty clear cut. Can you imagine what would have happened if the votes would have gone the other way in Holland and France and those of us who were opposed to the Constitution said that they were not really voting against the Constitution. They didn’t know what they were doing. We must have another go. You’d be laughed out of court.”
He noted that in all EU member states there’s a majority in favour of referendum on any new treaty that would mean a further transfer of powers to the EU. He argued that the absence of referendums before Maastricht and the Single European Act was a mistake that should not be repeated.
He argued that “Gordon Brown should have the confidence to say no to any new treaty that further enhances the power of the centre against member states and if his declared intention to involve people in decisions is anything other than hot air, I can’t think of any better decision in which to involve people than that of the new treaty for the European Union”.
Iran, Britain and Europe: Post hostage crisis, what can we expect next? - 22 May 2007
Patrick Mercer MP began the discussion with a briefing on Iran’s involvement in Iraq, arguing that arms, expertise and possibly personnel were being supplied by Tehran with the aim of killing coalition forces. Weapons caches linking back to Iran have been found in Iraq. Iranian involvement has contributed to a greatly increased potency of the insurgency movement, with Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) “manufactured to a commercial, factory grade standard” being used to successfully target armoured vehicles.
Mercer believes there has been a “definite surge” in Iranian activities in Iraq in recent months, and hinted that Iran could even be supporting al Qaeda – raising the prospect of an “extremely sinister” association between Sunni and Shia terrorists. He also said there was mounting evidence that Tehran was beginning to support the insurgency in Afghanistan, despite the previous animosity between Iran and the Taliban. Mercer concluded that “we are already involved in military operations with Iran”, and that in view of this “constant and serious threat” it is essential that the EU, the UN and the UK make “unequivocal statements” over how to confront Iran. He argued that US sanctions needed to be backed up by the EU, and that the EU should try to encourage “rapprochement” between the US and Iran.
Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Non-proliferation at the State Department, spoke on the threat level posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. Fitzpatrick said that Iran was guilty of “systematic violations” of IEA rules, and that whilst many countries use nuclear power, it is quite another matter to enrich uranium domestically – in fact only one third of nuclear power using countries do this. He said that in a best case scenario, Iran could be expected to have enriched enough uranium for nuclear weapon capabilities by 2009/10. In terms of delivery systems for nuclear warheads, Iran currently has the Shahab 3 medium-range missile at its disposal, capable of hitting Israel, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran is looking to develop longer range missiles capable of reaching western Europe.
Fitzpatrick argued that Israel “has real reason to see an Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat”, but noted that there were other reasons to oppose Tehran’s proliferation. Risks include a leaking of nuclear expertise to terrorists or other parties, and the triggering of proliferation amongst Iran’s regional rivals. A nuclear armed Iran would mean the increased regional power of an “antagonistic, autocratic regime”, destabilising the Middle East.
Claude Moniquet, Director of the European Strategic and Intelligence Centre argued that there was a danger of terrorist attacks in Europe if military action is taken against Iran. He said that the Iranian secret services – which are integrated in Iranian embassies – had already deployed people in Europe and had carried out reconnaissance missions. Possible targets include nuclear power stations. Moniquet compared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, likely to be at the vanguard of such efforts, to the Nazi SS, as an “ideological and military tool, fanatically devoted to protection of the regime”. Moniquet argued that revolutionary Iran has always used terrorism as a political tool, having launched around 200 attacks since 1979, and caused 1000 deaths. Hezbollah has been one of the prime agents for launching such attacks. He said that “Iran was a terrorist state for 23 years. We have no proof this has changed. Iran is working hard to organise terror in Europe,” targeting the UK in particular.
Moniquet said that military action should not be taken off the table, and a global sanctions policy would be necessary if Tehran is to begin to take the position of the West seriously. He said that the opposition People’s Mujahaddin of Iran should not be taken off the EU terror list, as it is still a terrorist organisation, and has only broken with the regime for strategic reasons.
Nazenin Ansari , Diplomatic Editor of Persian language newspaper Kayhan spoke on the domestic situation in Iran, arguing that the “Achilles heel” of the regime was opposition from within the country itself. She characterised the regime in Tehran as “not a nation state, but a non geographical ideological force” aiming to “export theocratic revolution”. She argued that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, as guardians of the state, had established strong influence over the Iranian economy, with all government contracts going to the IRG, effectively marginalising the private sector. Iran accounts for 1% of the world’s population and 7% of the world’s resources, yet has experienced steady economic decline, with unemployment and inflation both running at over 20% and a ‘brain drain’ of 400,000 per year. She described systematic human rights abuse in Iran based on “gender, ethnic, religious apartheid” which began right after the revolution.
Ansari argued that “diplomatic negotiations are flawed, as they are based on the assumption that Iran wants a solution”, as the regime in Tehran, not acting as a conventional nation state, is not sensitive to the incentives and sanctions being proposed. She said that “conventional diplomacy will not work unless in conjunction with the Iranian people”. When asked on why the People’s Mujahaddin of Iran is still proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the EU, Ansari said that before this situation changes, the movement will have to change its charter, as it is currently far from being a pro-democracy movement.
The EU, Trade and Development: Are Economic Partnership Agreements the right way forwards? - 26 March 2007
By the end of this year the EU is due to replace its preferential trade arrangements with African,
Opinion is divided. Some believe that EPAs are the only way for these countries to join the modern global economy. Others argue that by pushing developing countries to liberalise their economies too far and too fast we risk making their problems worse, not better.
With the deadline looming and negotiations stalled, we brought together leading economists and negotiators to discuss the way forwards. The seminar was chaired by Larry Elliot, Economics Editor of the Guardian, and Simon Cox, Economics Correspondent for the Economist.
Patrick Messerlin, Professor of Economics at Sciences Po argued that the ideal trade policy to be adopted through EPAs should involve a uniform, moderate tariff, with the same level applied to all goods. He argued that the current EPAs do not satisfy this need, as they cut the lowest tariffs, risk exacerbating the strength of lobbies at a political level, whilst restricting developing countries’ policy space by reducing fiscal revenues. He concluded that EPAs are “exactly the opposite of the ideal trade policy”.
View presentation here.
Sophie Powell from Traidcraft criticised the way in which aid was being tied to acceptance of free trade agreements, and spoke of the importance of boosting trade facilitation. She argued that complex Rules of Origin requirements were a major restriction on
View presentation here.
Sanoussi Bilal from the European Centre for Development Policy Management suggested that there could be a danger – in delaying agreement on EPAs – of shifting responsibility to the next generation. However, he urged that good EPAs, rather than EPAs simply agreed to comply with deadlines, should be the objective for negotiators.
To view ECDPM’s overview of the EPA debate, click here.
To view ECDPM’s update on negotiations, click here.
Paul Brenton of the World Bank predicted that developing countries’ share of world trade would increase as global integration intensifies. He suggested that
View presentation here.
Chris Stevens from the Overseas Development Institute argued that the EU Commission had drastically raised the stakes in negotiations with developing countries, threatening them with higher tariffs if they did not sign EPAs by the assigned end-2007 deadline. He suggested that in reality it was already too late to complete well negotiated, balanced EPAs, and said that it was very uncertain that the deals would help regional integration. Stevens cited ODI research showing that if the deadline lapsed, and African countries became subject to tariffs, some exports would collapse – in the case of
View presentation here.
Stephen Karingi, Chief of Trade and International Negotiations Section for the Economic Commission for
Francis Mangeni, Regional Trade Policy Advisor for the Commission of the African Union, said that the European Commission is not recognizing the concerns of
View presentation here.
The seminar concluded with a question and answer session. In response to a question on the end-2007 deadline for EPAs, Chris Stevens commented “this will not do… in the real world of trade you can’t leave purchasing decisions to 31st December and then make your pricing decisions. Goods are ordered up to a year in advance. The people buying them have to take a view on what the tariff will be in January. I can assure you that Kenyan horticultural exporters and the Namibian beef exporters are under no illusion that they can trust
In response to a question on regional integration, and the apparent anomaly of South Africa being subject to differential treatment vis-à-vis its regional trading partners,
He argued that WTO compatibility “is driving the agenda, but it is not the only element that is driving the agenda. [Regarding
Chris Stevens intervened, branding the Commission’s stance “topsy-turvy… apparently it’s completely unreasonable for the EU to charge a high tariff on imports of bananas from Guatemala and a low tariff on Belize, but it’s only political common sense to know that you’re going to have charge a higher tariff on imports from South Africa, but a low tariff on imports from Botswana. Whenever it’s in the EU’s interest, it’s common sense, and whenever the EU can’t liberalise, it’s ‘you’ve got to accept political realities’. And where its perfectly acceptable, after the end of this year, to charge a tariff of 10.1 percent on imports of green beans from
Francis Mangeni concluded by noting that the EU’s “mercantilist” stance towards South Africa could have “adverse” effects on neighbouring Least Developed Countries in the region, which the EU intends to treat differently.
The Future of Europe: Reform or Decline - 12 December 2006
Open Europe and Policy Exchange hosted a joint meeting on 12 December with Alberto Alesina, Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University, and Ludger Schuknecht of the European Central Bank, discussing the prospects for future reform in Europe.
Prof. Alesina spoke of his new book The Future of Europe: Reform or Decline. Alesina argued that the European economic miracle following the Second World War is now definitely over, as a result of failure to keep pace with the US technologically, along with the introduction burdensome policies, particularly in regards to the welfare state and labour market regulation. He noted that Europe has seen a decline in working hours per person coupled with a reduction in productivity rates, contributing to rapid economic decline, especially relative to the United States.
Relative decline in wealth is important, he said, as it may lead to tough global adjustments, a “culture of stagnation” and ultimately the decline of Europe as a military and political force in the world. Alesina also alluded to Europe’s unfavourable demographic trend. He questioned whether the EU might be the solution to these problems. The single market and the Euro are examples of EU measures that have worked reasonably well, but, he said, that EU attempts to harmonise social policies are “useless”. Instead, he argued that the EU should stick to its core purpose of the liberalisation of services and goods.
He argued that the EU must drop its “obsession” with the growth and stability pact, stating that member states should be permitted to run high current account deficits for a few years in order to allow reform to take place. He singled out Italian Finance Minister Tomaso Padoa Schioppa’s recent decision to raise taxes in order to bring Italy in line with the growth and stability pact, where in fact his priority should have been tax cuts and other growth promotion strategies. He suggested that in order to incentivise greater fiscal discipline in countries running high deficits such as Italy, the ECB could raise the threshold at which it buys up sovereign debt.
He claimed that EU member states should not seek to allocate more public spending to education or innovation, but rather let the market provide the incentives. Reform, Alesina acknowledged, will not come easily, quoting statistics stating that only 36% of the French believe in free markets. He said it would be preferable to reform all sectors at the same time rather than piecemeal sector-by-sector reform.
Ludger Schuknecht of the European Central Bank drew up a sketch of the experiences some European countries have had with reforms. He pointed to a set of data, including social welfare indicators, arguing that ambitious reform of a country’s welfare system can in fact increase growth, productivity and job-rates without necessarily leading to growing income gaps. He argued that Europe still is too concerned with “protecting rents” and spends too little money on creating opportunities.
Echoing Alesina’s point, he noted that the countries that successfully reformed in the past had introduced comprehensive, broad-based reform packages. Such packages included cuts in public spending, particularly size-downs of bureaucracies along with improvements in fiscal institutions and budget management. This was also accompanied by labour market reforms through deregulation, tax cuts, etc. Moreover, he argued that countries that reduce social spending do not necessarily experience a worsening in their income distribution ratio. On the contrary, income distribution can “improve” after reform, since, he explained, reform can sharpen the targeting of welfare spending. He concluded that rent-seeking continues to hamper growth in Europe, particularly as it is undermining the “four freedoms” that constitute the Single Market.
Read Ludger Schuknecht's presentation here
Wider still and Wider? - 8 December 2006
Less than a month ahead of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU, on 8 December Open Europe hosted a lunch on the theme of EU enlargement. Participants heard speeches from the Ambassador of Bulgaria to the UK, H. E. Dr. Lachezar Matev, the acting Romanian Ambassador to the UK, Raduta Matache, the Croatian Ambassador to the UK H.E. Josko Paro, and Natasha Srdoc, President of the Adriatic Institute in Croatia.
The Romanian and Bulgarian Ambassadors agreed on the importance of the EU accession process for driving reform in their respective countries, with Raduta Matache saying Romania wouldn’t have undergone the transformation it has without the prospect of EU accession. She said “enlargement is the EU’s most powerful tool to spread security and prosperity”, and that nothing can replace it, but added, “that’s not to say that the EU should enlarge forever.” She said Romania will form part of the consensus to take forward institutional reform once it joins the EU. She concluded that the EU’s approach towards Romania over the past seven years was a “perfect mixture of carrots and sticks.”
Dr. Lachezar Matev noted that the EU accession negotiation process has changed a lot over the years, and that the process for Romania and Bulgaria was “completely different” than for the ten member states that joined the EU in 2004. He said for example that in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, these countries were allowed to enter the EU without having implemented all the legislation, while this is not the case for Bulgaria and Romania. He said, “With each new enlargement the bar rises higher and higher”, and said this trend will continue for the countries hoping to join the EU in the future. He also said his government believes there is a need for consensus on the EU Constitution, and that it is against “cherry-picking”, but is not excluding the possibility of a “mini-treaty” as suggested by French Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Dr. Matev said he was disappointed with the UK’s decision to restrict labour market access for Bulgarians and Romanians. He also said that Bulgaria would spend over €10 billion implementing EU environmental legislation.
The Croatian Ambassador Josko Paro talked about the “extremely cumbersome” accession procedures his country has already had to go through as part of its negotiations to join the EU, which are more difficult again than those faced by Romania and Bulgaria. He said the problem was not just the complexity of the rules, but the fact that they are “still not clearly defined.” He said 21,000 pages of legislation have been completed so far, involving 2,000 people and 429 administrative bodies, but that the process has been too slow – in a whole year of negotiations Croatia (and Turkey) were allowed to open and close only one ‘chapter’ of the accession conditions. He said it is sometimes “impossible to feel the sense of movement and direction.” He said that only 40% of Croatians are now in favour of joining the EU, “due to the procrastination of our accession.” He noted that despite the lack of a “favourable wind” of support the Croatian Government were “rowing hard” to keep up movement towards membership, but that there was now an “adverse tide” against further enlargement. The UK Government is to work with Croatia to produce a cost-benefit study of Croatian membership. If it completes the negotiation process, Croatia could have a referendum on membership in 2009.
Natasha Srdoc of the Adriatic Institute condemned the non-existence of cost-benefit analysis of Croatia joining the EU, and the lack of debate. She said EU accession represents many opportunities for Croatia, such as implementation of free market reforms, but also noted several “threats”, such as loss of sovereignty, and the possible harmonisation of social policies and taxes. She argued that what Croatia needs is strong leadership to help bring about the rule of law and eliminate corruption, and that if it had this, it wouldn’t necessarily need EU accession.
John Hulsman : “Ethical Realism” - 15 November 2006
In a talk that marked the UK launch of his new book, Dr John Hulsman explained what he saw as the urgent need for the United States to reject neo-conservative thinking and adopt a new, more pragmatic policy, based on the concept of “ethical realism”. He argued that despite spending vast sums of US taxpayers’ money and sacrificing thousands of US servicemen’s lives, the war in Iraq had failed in its objective of creating a stable democratic country. As such, he argued the neo-conservative’s policy was “immoral” because it had failed to leave the country in a better state than in which it was found. He called for the United States to return to the traditions of international relations of former Presidents Eisenhower and Truman.
Download John’s speech on the seminar “Ethical Realism”
Conservative Party Conference Fringe event - 3 October 2006
Can the EU be reformed? If so how?
Open Europe held a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference on 3 October titled “Can the EU be reformed? If so, how?”, with David Heathcoat-Amory MP, former Times Brussels correspondent Anthony Browne, Shadow Europe Minister Graham Brady, and chaired by Charles Moore, former editor of the Telegraph. Nearly 200 people attended the event, which was covered on BBC Radio Scotland.
David Heathcoat-Amory, a former member of the European Convention, was sceptical as to whether reform would be possible, arguing that the EU is “unreformable – I know because I tried”. He argued that the EU is not only undemocratic but is now undermining democracy, citing the lax attitude of many member states towards implementing legislation they have voted for. He also condemned the lack of debate in the UK Parliament on the important issue of the EU’s accession treaties, which give Bulgarians and Romanians automatic residence rights in the UK, as well as on the Free Movement Directive, which makes it illegal for the UK Government to deport foreign EU criminals from the UK. David also argued that the UK needs to be free to negotiate its own bilateral free trade agreements saying “what’s the point in [the Conservative Party] having policies if we can’t implement them… the question ‘why vote’ becomes unanswerable.” He argued that the EU is a “rival system of government”.
Anthony Browne said he agreed with David’s analysis but said his conclusion is that reform is possible. He argued that reform could be brought about through “constitutional crisis” and said a more “hardball” approach from member states such as the UK would force change to happen. He gave several recent examples of when the Government could have “put its foot down” and used its veto in Brussels but failed to. He said for example that the Common Agricultural Policy is “completely ridiculous” and that the UK should “pull out of it”. He said that in several areas of legislation the Government “should just pass a law to revoke it” and “deal with the consequences”, saying our attitude should be “so what” when the Commission and other member states complain. In response to questions from the floor, Anthony said there should be more referendums in the UK, arguing that a referendum campaign on the Common Fisheries Policy, for example, would help put it back on the political agenda. He also said that parliament needs to be able to better debate EU issues and give the Government a mandate for discussion in EU meetings.
Graham Brady also argued that reform is possible, saying the EU has “reformed throughout its history”, albeit in the wrong direction. He said a Conservative government would prioritise the creation of a “genuinely flexible” EU allowing some countries to press ahead with integration without others also having to. He said it would repatriate EU social and employment law – “our policy is to bring powers back to Britain”, and said a Conservative government would be “absolutely intransigent” in EU meetings, making the most of its veto to pressure other member states. Graham also promised to hold a referendum on “any policy giving up significant power”, including elements of the EU Constitution. He said that the party “would rule nothing out” in terms of reforming the Common Fisheries Policy. He concluded that “it’s crucial that this country and this party offers leadership for a different kind of Europe”, and that the consequences of doing nothing would result in Europe becoming a “costly, overregulated backwater”. In response to a question from the floor he said, “I am the only person who can bang on about Europe. I have a licence to. It’s my job”.
Discussion with Gisela Stuart and Vincent Cable - 15 June 2006
The European Union: where next?
Gisela Stuart and Vincent Cable discussed the future of Europe, and the current talks on reviving the rejected EU Constitution. Both argued that a referendum would be needed on a new treaty.
Vincent Cable MP said that there would almost certainly have to be a referendum if a new treaty was agreed, and noted that that the public were unlikely to say yes to such a treaty. He said: “This a subject which most British people in British politics regard with considerable dread. Because it is very, very difficult to see under any circumstances how a treaty, if it was at all substantial, would pass a referendum in the UK."
"The Conservatives would almost be certain to demand a referendum, I think we would also. If the treaty came up in a revised form anything like what happened before, with nothing serious on issues of subsidiarity, for example, I think there would be widespread worry about it. Unless what we were going to be offered was a series of very limited technical changes – you know, reducing the number of foreign Commissioners to a couple – and things of this kind, which could be dealt with on a piecemeal basis – I find it very to difficult to see how the British, across the spectrum could conceivably sign a treaty in the foreseeable future”.
Labour MP Gisela Stuart, who represented the UK on the European Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, said: "Other countries will try to bring back the Constitution after the French election. The British Government should make it clear that it will not be part of any process that implicitly or explicitly tries to revive the Constitution. There is no better time than now for Britain to take the initiative."
"During the "period of reflection" governments in other countries have not been afraid to speak but the British Government hides behind a reluctance to pre-empt a decision, whatever that means. "If the Government goes on like this it will be 3-0 down at half time... The first thing the Government needs to do is to state categorically that the Constitution is finished. Like the parrot: dead, deceased and no more. The second thing that needs to be done is to make clear that in Britain any future treaty which deals with the political and institutional arrangements of the EU, whether or not it is called a Constitution, will be subject to a referendum: it is the only way that a government can ensure the consent of the people in this matter."
Listen to a podcast of the seminar
Read what they said
Speech by William Hague - 7 June 2006
"The Future of Europe: freedom and flexibility"
The Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague outlined the Conservative party's policy on Europe in a speech at the Lewis Media Centre in London.
He called for the EU to become a more flexible structure, with only the Single Market as a compulsory core. He said, “In Britain and some other countries we want the EU to do a great deal less. Others, like the Dutch, want the EU to do less in some areas and more in others while those like the Belgians see a need only for increases in the EU's power. Our aim must be to let each country find the level of integration it is most comfortable with.”
He called for “a flexible Europe, with the Single Market at its core”, and said that “a further enlarged Europe will only be able to work with such a model.”
Read William Hague's speech
listen to a podcast
Open Europe panel discussion - 8 May 2006
"Can the Doha Round be saved? Prospects for world trade"
On 8 May Open Europe held a discussion on the prospects for the Doha Round of talks and the future of world trade. Alan Beattie, World Trade Editor of the Financial Times, chaired the seminar and introduced the panel. He spoke about the ongoing crisis of the Doha Round and why it has not progressed. Beattie said that the WTO is the only multi-lateral institution to which the US still allows itself to be bound.
Sandra Clark, Economic Counsellor from the US Embassy in London, explained the US position at the Doha talks. She said that agriculture was very important to this "development" round because reduction of farm tariffs promised to deliver nearly two thirds of the potential benefits for developing countries. Clark noted that agriculture has the highest remaining barriers to trade, because only one of the previous trade rounds had really addressed the issue. She said that the US had made a very ambitious proposal to reduce agricultural barriers. She disagreed that the Doha Round had been lost, but said tha to achieve agreement all members need to work together to find points of compromise.
Roger Liddle, a member of the Cabinet of Peter Mandelson, European Commission DG Trade, argued that the Doha Round can be saved but there is not much time to do it and agreement must be reached by the summer. He said that the EU was willing to refine and improve its agricultural offer but would not act unilaterally or without the US and G20 also showing willingness to move towards a compromise position. He said that it was this “need for a grand bargain in which there is movement on all sides which is lacking at present and extremely depressing for those who have been involved.” Liddle argued that a solution is not just down to the EU shifting on agriculture, and said that the offer was politically ambitious, with Irish beef farmers saying they would be wiped out, and France talking about the loss of 100,000 jobs.
In his view there are two major obstacles; the US’ "over ambitious" demand for cuts in agricultural tariffs (plus their refusal to say how they will cut their own subsidies) and the limited nature of the concessions the G20 is willing to make on industrial tariffs and market access to services. He warned that a substantial deal was needed because a minimalist deal could be rejected in Congress: "Otherwise, frankly the whole thing is going to sink under the Congressional pressures from Republicans, who, in a very difficult year for them in mid term elections, are likely to put their electoral interests ahead.”
Paulo Estivallet de Mesquita, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Brazil at the WTO, argued that Brazil would be reaching for a limited deal simply in order to preserve the credibility of the WTO, because "if the Round fails we will move backwards and lose credibility." He argued against claims that Brazil and other developing countries were not willing enough to move on services trade, and said that that Brazil has more open services market than the European or American markets. Mesquita said that what is currently on offer at the Doha talks will not amount to significant cuts in agricultural subsidies, and went on to say that there was an imbalance in the Round with demands for major industrial tariff cuts not being matched by significant agriculture offers. He also noted that Brazil had been asking for the "green box" of supposedly non- distorting farm subsidies to be examined more closely, noting the tension between claims that such subsidies are not distorting markets and the claim that they need to be maintained to support the industry.
Professor Patrick Messerlin, Professor of Economics, Sciences-Po, and Co-Chairman of the UN Taskforce on Trade, said that the G20 are not convinced by the EU and US offer, and are reluctant to liberalise. He said that the EU is "really bad" on tariffs but the US proposal is so "extreme" that it was quite possible that the US would not be able to follow their own proposals if they were agreed. Messerlin said that the choice of a tiered formula for the agriculture negotiations had been a mistake. It meant negotiators now had eight weeks to agree sixteen numbers to structure the agriculture deal alone. He also said that the discussions on services are very difficult because "we simply don’t know how to negotiate on services" noting that even within the EU the services directive had been a failure.
Going forward, Professor Messerlin argued that negotiators should focus on tariffs not subsidies, as this would raise the future cost of subsidies. He warned that removal of export subsidies alone, if not part of a big trade and growth creating package, would damage net agricultural importers. He suggested that the EU should back off from its over ambitious demand for a deal in non agricultural products, because EU businesses would be quite happy with a deal which compressed the maximum tariff to 20%, never mind the 15% the EU was asking for.
Dr Razeen Sally, Head of International Trade Policy Unit at the LSE, talked about how little was achieved at the Hong Kong ministerial conference in December. Dr Sally argued that the hope that a deal will be achieved “verges on the utopian”, because only six months will remain after the June/ July deadline for the fine details to be agreed, and that the small print had taken longer than this to negotiate in previous rounds.
He said that there was still likely to be a minimal deal, but that it would be not really "worth getting out of bed for". Dr Sally thought that all groups would be happy with a modest deal except for the US, where the US Congress may reject it. The dangers of a modest deal are that the WTO will not be taken seriously and there will be an acceleration towards free trade agreements and possible flouting of WTO rules. He argued that the WTO would continue in all the wrong directions as it has been doing in the last few years; more in the direction of "the easy politics of an aid agency" and "away from the hard politics of trade liberalisation." He noted that one third of the post-Hong Kong statement had been about aid.
Dr Sally said the WTO needs to "live in an age of diminished expectations and expect far less in the future from liberalisation". He also argued that trade barrier reductions in future were likely to be driven mostly by unilateral action.
In questions and answers, the panel discussed France’s power over the EU’s position at the WTO talks, CAP spending and why the EU doesn’t liberalise unilaterally even if the US doesn’t follow.
Listen to a podcast of the seminar
Open Europe round table discussion - 24 April 2006
"World trade and domestic reforms"
Dr Don Brash, the leader of the New Zealand National party since 2003, spoke at Open Europe’s round table event on “world trade and domestic reforms”.
Dr Brash was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand between 1988-2003 and in the 2005 election led his party to an 18% gain, taking them to the brink of government.
Don Brash said that in the 2002 election, the National party had its worst defeat in its 70 year history because the party’s programme was quite unclear. He argued that they failed because they had too many policies which meant the electorate didn’t fully understand what they were saying or promising. He commented that “In some respects we were not unlike the Conservative party here, in that we were saying that we would do everything Labour’s doing but more of it.”
In the 2005 election, in which the National party increased its vote from 20.9-39.1% - their most successful result since 1990, Brash concentrated on 5 key issues, including the economy, tax reduction and welfare reform.
During the discussion Brash was asked questions on agricultural subsidies, foreign affairs and the Doha round, where Dr Brash expressed optimism for a last minute deal. He said the issues on the table relate to import subsidies, internal trade distorting elements and access for non agricultural items in developing countries, and “if you can get those three bits together you can have an outcome that is reasonable, if you don’t it all falls apart.”
A question was asked about how New Zealand had achieved the ending of agricultural subsidies. Brash told how the Labour government, who had no particular affinity for the farming sector and didn’t expect to get any votes from the farmers, were willing to remove subsidies virtually overnight. It was difficult for farmers especially when manufacturing subsidies were reduced over a 10 year period, but, he argued, “there is no great support in the farming sector now to go back” and growth in the farming sector has been greater than anywhere else.
Listen to a podcast of the seminar
Open Europe lunchtime seminar - 18 April 2006
"Farming without subsidies - the future of European agriculture?"
Ben Todhunter and Vaughan Templeton, Nuffield Scholars from New Zealand, and Jack Thurston, a former adviser at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, spoke at Open Europe’s lunchtime seminar on farming and subsidies in New Zealand and in the EU.
Ben Todhunter and Vaughan Templeton spoke about their experience of farming in New Zealand after reforms in 1986 removed all government subsidies. They argued that the reforms ultimately benefited agriculture in New Zealand improving innovation and increasing efficiency.
Jack Thurston spoke about the situation in Europe and how the Common Agricultural Policy needs to be reformed. He argued that the situation in New Zealand may be completely different to that of the EU, where there were “different motivations for subsidies, different structure and different politics at the time,” but the New Zealand situation does show that “the sector not only survives but ultimately prospers and thrives on it” and that “farming to the market is the only way that farmers can be sure of a future.” Thurston argued that the CAP needed to be reduced with the “intention of abolishing production related farm subsidies.”
Listen to a podcast of the seminar (19 meg)
Open Europe lunchtime seminar - 10 April 2006
"Beyond the European Social Model?"
On 10 April Open Europe launched a new book of essays by leading thinkers from around Europe which argued that the so-called European Social Model is not working. At a lunchtime seminar attended by journalists, business leaders, academics, diplomats and policymakers, contributors to the publication talked about how to reform the so-called Social Model.
Open Europe’s Neil O’Brien kicked off the debate by talking about the urgent need for economic reform in the European Union. He argued that EU leaders used the notion of a European Social Model to justify their interference in areas which should be the responsibility of national and local institutions.
He argued that the high-tax, high-regulation approach in Europe was not only failing in economic terms, but in social terms too, as wage growth for the lowest earners in society has been far slower in the high tax economies than in "Anglo- Saxon" economies like Ireland and Britain. He argued that the tendency in Europe to look to the Nordic models as prototypes for success is a mistake, and that EU leaders would do better to look west instead towards Ireland.
Johnny Munkhammar from Swedish think-tank Timbro talked about Sweden’s experience of a high-tax, highly regulated state, arguing that other European countries should not seek to copy the model, but learn from its mistakes. He described how the system has led to the emergence of an “unfair state” with high unemployment and low growth, causing a decline in Swedish prosperity.
Eric Verhulst from Belgian think-tank WorkForAll talked about Belgium’s problems with high unemployment, and the relationship between high taxes, high and inefficient public spending and low growth. He argued that countries must reform on an individual basis, and that reformers should seek to identify the vested interests acting against reform.
Eline van den Broek from Dutch think-tank the European Independent Institute talked about the Netherlands’ so-called "Polder Model", arguing that the consensus-based system has created an anti-liberalisation climate which has reduced Dutch competitiveness and made reform difficult. Eline looked at the likelihood of reform in the coming years, and warned that real reform may not be grasped until it is too late and there is a real crisis.
Chresten Anderson from the Copenhagen Institute described the problems with the Danish model, where high taxes and a big welfare state mean there is little incentive to move off benefits and into work, and how employers offering pay rises are heavily penalised by the tax system. He argued that the EU must not be allowed to develop the capacity to impose such a so-called ‘social’ model in other countries throughout Europe.
Stephen Pollard looked at the chances of achieving the kinds of reforms endorsed by contributors to the book. He argued that the EU should have no role in imposing a ‘model’ on member states – be it liberal or otherwise – but that it is not enough to pin hopes on a new generation of political leaders emerging in the next round of European elections - as such hopes had all too often been raised and disappointed before. He said the people will not be able to accept reform unless there are strong leaders who can show the people what will happen if their countries do not reform, and unless they can see what they stand to miss out on.
A lively question and answer session followed, with members of the audience raising concerns about how change can be achieved in the face of opposition from vested interest groups and citizens who fear short term penalties. Chairing the meeting, Derek Scott answered a range of questions, including whether the euro acts as an obstacle to reform within the eurozone.
Listen to a podcast of the seminar (19meg)
Read the book "Beyond the Social Model" Hard copies of the book are available at a cost of £5 (including postage and packaging) from our shop.
Open Europe at the BCC annual conference - 3-4 April 2006
At its annual conference (3-4 April) the British Chambers of Commerce published new research showing that the EU was responsible for 86% of the value of new regulations on British businesses last year. Open Europe had a stand throughout the conference and members of our research team met BCC delegates and listened to their concerns.
Open Europe researchers Paul Stephenson and Lorraine Mullally pictured at the conference with BCC Director Christopher Quinton. Christopher is Chairman of Halarose Ltd and President of the South East England Chambers of Commerce.
Open Europe lunchtime seminar - 13 February 2006
Professor John Gillingham, Professor of History, University of Missouri-St. Louis
"Design for a New Europe"
Academics, politicians and business leaders attended Open Europe’s first lunchtime seminar on Professor Gillingham’s new book: “Design for a new Europe”.
Professor Gillingham argued that the EU must undergo root and branch reform if it is to avoid historical irrelevance. He called for the EU to return powers to its member states and to develop a flexible structure which would operate on an opt-in basis.
Read Professor Gillingham's speech here
Download a podcast of John's speech (15 meg)
Order Professor Gillingham's new book: "Design for Europe"
Open Europe's launch - 20 October 2005
Over 200 business leaders, politicians from all the main parties, academics and EU diplomats attended Open Europe's launch party at Bloomberg's European HQ in the City.
Open Europe's chairman, Rodney Leach explained Open Europe’s launch in the context of the current debate about the EU's future direction, and promised that over the coming months it would propose a programme of urgent and radical reform. Derek Scott, Tony Blair's former Economics Advisor introduced Adrian Cooper, Managing Director, Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF) who presented OEF's analysis of the benefits of EU trade liberalisation and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy for the EU, the UK, and the developing world.
Rodney then chaired a lively Question and Answer session, which included questions from Simon Wolfson (Chief Executive of Next plc), Peter Jay (former Economics Editor at the BBC), David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Theresa Villiers MP, who asked about Open Europe’s plans to extend its appeal across the board, bringing people from a wide range of political and professional backgrounds together in support of free trade and a more open Europe. Theresa Villiers pointed out the importance of reaching out to people who may not be inclined to support free trade. She argued that points made in the presentation showing how the poor stand to benefit the most would be a powerful argument for many people.
Read Rodney Leach's presentation here