DECEMBER 2007

EUREFERENDUM Blog 5.12.07
An unmitigated record of failure

Published yesterday by the EU's Court of Auditors was the most comprehensive, unmitigated and comprehensive indictment [see below] of the Common Fisheries Policy - and no one noticed.
Actually, that's not strictly true. England Expects wrote a piece about it. We were too busy - and too preoccupied - to deal with it. Thus it lay there, on his blog, forlorn and unloved, despite a chilling account of the Auditors' press conference, which should have had this nation up in arms.
Why it matters, of course, it that it represents a sustained failure of an EU policy which, since it was introduced in its current form in 1983, has driven a once highly profitable industry into decline. It has reduced turnover to roughly £0.5 billion when, according to expert estimates based on successful fisheries models elsewhere, the industry should be worth at least £3 billion annually.
That is real money, real jobs and a real loss to the economy - an entirely avoidable political and ecological disaster brought about by a policy which is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed and one which, incidentally, was agreed - in the teeth of opposition - by the last Conservative government under the aegis of born-again environmentalist John Selwyn Gummer.
The essence of the failure is summed up in a two-page press release, which opens with the unusually stark and direct phrasing, "Lower catches and overexploitation of fishery resources have been observed for many years. These findings are now widely shared and represent the failure of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)."
And there in that one sentence is the f-word: "failure". The CFP has failed. It is a core EU policy, and it has failed, failed, failed, failed. It has failed. And no one on this side of the Channel - not in our media at least, and not in the self-obsessed political classes and the wannabe political blogs - seems to give a damn.
But, says the press release, "since its inception in 1983, the objective of the CFP has been the sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources. Setting total allowable catches (TAC) and national quotas in order to limit catch volumes is the cornerstone of this policy."
However, the audit carried out at the Commission and in the six principal Member States in fisheries terms led the Court to conclude that:
* catch data are neither complete nor reliable and the real level of catches is thus unknown, and, as a consequence, this prevents proper application of the TAC and quota systems;
* the inspection systems do not provide assurance that infringements are effectively prevented and detected; the absence of general control standards is an impediment to adequate control pressure and optimisation of inspection activities in the Member States;
* the procedures for dealing with reported infringements do not support the assertion that every infringement is followed up and still less that each one attracts penalties; as regards cases where Member States contravene Community legislation , the only instrument of proven effectiveness available to the Commission is an action before the Court of Justice for failure to fulfil an obligation; however, some of the inherent characteristics of such actions limit their utility and make this an insufficiently responsive instrument;
* overcapacity reduces the profitability of the fishing industry and, in a context of decreasing authorised catches, is an incitement to non-compliance with these restrictions. It also affects the quality of the data forwarded; the Community's current approach, which is based on reducing the fishing effort, is unlikely to resolve the problem of overcapacity.
Thus does the Court conclude:
If this situation continues, it will bring grave consequences not only for the natural resource, but also for the future of the fishing industry and the areas associated with it. If the political authorities want the CFP to achieve its objective of sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, the present control, inspection and sanction systems must be strengthened considerably.
And therein lies yet another, most egregious failure. The Court, having recognised the failure of the policy then fails completely to understand - or admit - the cause of the failure. At its very heart lies the system of "total allowable catches (TAC) and national quotas in order to limit catch volumes" which, it says, "is the cornerstone of this policy."
Yet it is that very system which is fundamentally flawed, more so in mixed fisheries which comprise the bulk of the resource in the waters of EU member states, which give rise to the "discards" problem about which the media briefly took and interest a few weeks ago.
But, in a classic example of blinkered thinking, instead of going back to basics, to redress the fundamental flaws, the Court recommends more of the same - more inspections, more enforcement and tighter (central) controls.
This is exactly the same mindset that prevails throughout our legislative system. The "speed camera" issue is another good example. Having wrongly identified speed as the main cause of read deaths, the government introduces a network of speed cameras and when - as was entirely predictable - the regime fails to work, it reacts by adding more cameras and increasing the penalties.
However, the subtlety of the argument that, simply adding more laws and tighter enforcement to fundamentally bad law does not make bad law better is clearly beyond the ken of our political classes. Furthermore, it is something which the media - as a collective - is incapable of grasping. Thus, when confronted with the consequences of their own failures, both resort to doing what they are best at - nothing.
Behind that lies much of the despair and frustration that pervades this blog. This writer particularly, spent many years of his life on the fisheries issue. We know what is needed and, complex though it is, it is not rocket science. Yet the system is quite incapable of remedying its own failures. In the fullness of time, when governments acknowledge that "something must be done" the only certainty is that, whatever they finally do, they will make the situation worse.
This is why people retreat from politics. Whenever, in particular area, individuals look up, see something wrong and decide to engage, they embark on a process that brings nothing but frustration and despair.
The system wears you down and spits you out the other end. But nothing changes. In the end, therefore, it is easier to play at politics, record the froth and trivia and indulge in personality politics. That avoids the need to confront the reality that we have a system of government which, essentially, is totally out of control - beyond even the control of those who claim to be in charge.
That, in itself, is at the heart of the malaise in our modern society, the recognition of which is the most pressing need. Once our elected rulers are forced to admit that they are no longer in control, and stop pretending that they are, then we might be able to start doing something about the system.
--------------------------------- Posted by Richard North ===========================================
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
- Special Report No 7/2007
http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/581539.PDF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. The Common Fisheries Policy was instituted in 1983 with the objective of sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources. Setting total allowable catches (TAC) and national quotas in order to limit catch volumes is the cornerstone of this policy. The existence of complete and reliable data and the application of effective inspection and penalty systems are essential to the success of such an approach.
II. The audit covered these three elements, and the results of testing at the Commission and in the six principal Member States* *[ Denmark, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Italy and the United Kingdom (England and Wales)] in fisheries terms led the Court to conclude that:
* catch data are neither complete nor reliable, and the real level of catches is thus unknown. As a consequence this prevents proper application of the TAC and quota systems. In the Member States, the regulatory framework and the procedures in force guarantee neither that the data collected are complete, nor that inconsistencies are detected when it is validated. For its part, the Commission is not in a position to identify satisfactorily errors and misstatements in the data forwarded by the Member States and to take the timely decisions necessary to protect the resource (paragraphs 18 to 51);
* the inspection systems do not provide assurance that infringements are effectively prevented and detected; the absence of general control standards is an impediment to adequate control pressure and optimisation of inspection activities in the Member States. Moreover, in actual fact it restricts the extent and scope of the Commission's work of evaluating national arrangements and consequently limits the latter's ability to give an opinion of the overall effectiveness of national systems (paragraphs 52 to 87);
* the procedures for dealing with reported infringements do not support the assertion that every infringement is followed up and still less that infringements attract penalties; even when penalties are imposed their deterrent effect is, on the whole, limited. As regards infringements of Community legislation by a Member State, the only instrument of proven effectiveness available to the Commission is an action before the Court of Justice for failure to fulfil an obligation; however, some of the inherent characteristics of such actions limit the utility of such actions and make this an insufficiently responsive instrument (paragraphs 88 to 106);
* overcapacity detracts from the profitability of the fishing industry and in a context of decreasing authorised catches is an incitement to non-compliance with these restrictions. It also affects the quality of the data forwarded. After the failure of the programmes for adapting fishing capacity, the current approach, which is essentially based on reducing the fishing effort, is unlikely to resolve the problem of overcapacity (paragraphs 107 to 120).
If this situation continues, it will bring grave consequences not only for the natural resource, but also for the future of the fishing industry and the areas associated with it.
III. If the political authorities want the CFP to achieve its objective of sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources, the present control, inspection and sanction systems must be strengthened considerably, in particular by implementing the following recommendations:
* the Member States should improve the quality of their catch data by carrying out systematic compliance checks on all operations, including checks on operations across national boundaries. They should also have their data certified by an independent body;
* the Commission should ensure that the electronic system for recording and reporting fishing activity data is implemented as quickly and widely as possible and should strengthen controls on the data forwarded to it, notably by extending the analyses that it performs on individual data;

* the Member States should develop analytical, programming and follow-up tools for their inspection activities to enable them to ensure that there is adequate overall control pressure and optimal deployment of resources
* the Member States should remind the competent authorities of the need to impose deterrent sanctions;
* the Community legislator should specify in the regulations the various elements essential to an effective inspection and sanction system;
* the Community legislator should reinforce the Commission's ability to put pressure on defaulting Member States;
* the Commission and Member States should adopt active measures to reduce structural overcapacity in the fishing industry.


FROM THE MOUTHS OF THE GENTLEMEN WHO KNOW - TOO MUCH -
'Aspects of the European Union'  
*************
SOME STATEMENTS ON THE EU CONSTITUTION (These are in chronological order backwards)

"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention." - V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President  and Chairman of the Convention which drew u the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007
_________________
 "I think it's a bit upsetting... to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity", Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday(21 October), according to the Irish  Independent.  If you believe in something ...why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the  cause, and perhaps others shouldn't be so afraid of it," he added." - Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, EU Observer, Brussels, 22 October 2007 __________
  "They decided that the document should be unreadable.  If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception.  Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand!  But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say 'Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.' Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new." -   Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007
_________________

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way." - V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007,  and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
______________

 " The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform.  As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum." -  Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Prime Minister(Taoiseach), Irish Times, 30 June 2007
_________________

 "The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact."  - German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Parliament,  27 June 2007
____________
"The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left."  - Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007
______________
 
"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution'." - Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister,  Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007
__________________  
"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to  the substance of what was agreed back in 2004." -  Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
_________________
"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success." - Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister,  Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007
____________     "It is psychological terrorism to suggest the spectre of a European superstate." - Giorgio Napolitano, President of Italy,  Sunday Express, London,  17 June 2007
________________
"The good thing about not calling it a Constltution  is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." - Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007
________________

"Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable ... I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU much more difficult. If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed? ... If you have signed a treaty, you should also ratify it. And if you can't, you should at least contribute to a solution."
- Commission President Jose M. Barroso, Irish Times, 8 Feb.2007; quoting remarks in  Het Financieele Dag  and De Volkskrant, Holland; also quoted in  EUobserver, 6 February 2007 ___________
" It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin ... Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive ... The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament ... And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country ... The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead,  it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation ... Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something  is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this."
- Former German President Roman Herzog, article on the EU Constitution, jointly written with Lüder Gerken,  Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007
___________  
"We need a European defence, a European army, not just on paper but a force genuinely capable of operating in the field, including beyond the European borders ... The philosophy behind all these proposals - economic, political, military - is always the same. I believe that the citiizens' doubts and uncertainty, as for example reflected in the two referendums, actually constitute a plea for more Europe, a strong Europe, and not for less Europe.  And I am also quite clear that I am advocating a more powerful Europe, also a more closely integrated Europe ... In short I am advocating a United States of Europe."
- Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, speech at the London School of Economics, 21 March 2006
______________
  "The rejection of the Constitution is a mistake which will have to be corrected ? If the Irish and the Danes can vote Yes in the end, so the French can do it too."
 -  V.Giscard d'Estaing, speech at the London School of Economics, 28 February 2006
__________
                                "After Nice the forces of political Europe joined others in stoking the fire. The Commission, the Parliament, the federalists, French proponents of integration, the media, all found Nice too 'intergovernmental'.  Together, they imposed the idea that Nice was a disaster, that we urgently needed a new treaty. Soon a 'new treaty'  wasn't enough. It had to be a 'Constitution', and little did it matter that it was legally inappropriate. When the time came, the result had to be ratified. What tiny national parliament, what people, would then dare to stand in the way of this new meaning of history? The results of the Convention, at first deemed insufficient by maximalists, became the holy word when it was realised that selfish governments might water it down.

"At every stage of this craze, from 1996 until 2005, a more reasonable choice could have been made, a calmer rhythm could have been adopted, that would not have deepened the gap between the elites and the population, that would have better consolidated the real Europe and spared us the present crisis. But in saying this, I understimate the religious fervour that has seized the European project. For all those who believed in the various ideologies  of the second half of the 20th century, but survived their ruin, the rush into European integration became a substitute ideology.

"They planned urgently to end the nation state.  Everything outside this objective was heresy and had to be fought. This was in the spirit of Jean Monnet, the rejection of self and of history, of all common sense. 'European power' was a variation, the code name for a counterweight to America that excited France alone for years and towards which the 'Constitution' was supposed to offer a magical shortcut. And let us not forget the periodic French incantations for a Franco-German union.

"As the train sped on, these two groups, instead of braking the convoy, kept stoking the locomotive, some to enlarge and others to integrate, deaf to the complaints coming from the carriages. Since we had to ask for confirmation from time to time, the recalcitrant peoples were told they had no choice, that it was for their own good, that all rejection or delay would be a sign of egotism, sovereignty, turning inward, hatred of others, xenophobia, even Le Penism or fascism. But it didn't work. The passengers unhooked the carriages?"
- Hubert Vedrine, French Foreign Minister 1999-2005,  Irish Times,  8 August 2005  ____________
  "If its a Yes, we will say 'On we go", and if it's a No we will say 'We continue.'"
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005
___________
   "We decide on something. We leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most poeple don't know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." - Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker,  The Economist, 24 September 2004
_________   "The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State" - Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004
___________
  "The Convention (which drafted the EU Constitution)  brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration and who see national governments and parliaments as an obstacle. Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The debates focused solely on where we could do more at the European Union level. None of the existing policies were questioned." -   Gisela Stuart MP, The Making of Europe's Constitution, Fabian Society, London, 2003.
__________  
"Once the  European Union acquires legal personality under the new Constitutional Treaty,  this will dispel any remaining tendency to see it as just another international  organisation and will free it from a constraint that has hitherto frustrated its ability to act on the world stage.   As a fully-fledged political entity, the Union will be able to establish  a foreign policy that is consistent with its specific values and principles, a  policy seeking a more stable, more equitable international order, and it will be  able to combine the internal policies of the Member States in a common area of  freedom, security and justice ...The Constitution will be the constituent act of the Europe of the future,  the new, enlarged Europe.  Europe,  and, a fortiori, each individual Member State, can only become  influential if they are united, and not divided." - Carlo Ciampi, President of Italy, address to Conference of European Parliament group presidents, 30 September 2003
__________
"When we build the euro - and with what a success - when we advance on the European defence, with difficulties but with considerable progress, when we build a European arrest-warrant, when we move towards creating a European prosecutor, we are building something deeply federal, or a true union of states. . . The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must become a charter of rights that is applicable and effective... I wish this Constitution to be the Constitution of a rebuilt Union, able to reflect its social cohesion, deepen its political unity, express its power externally." - M.Pierre Moscovici, French Minister for Europe, Le Monde,28 February 2002
_________ 
"European monetary union has to be complemented by a political union - that was always the presumption of Europeans including those who made active politics before us. . .What we need to Europeanise is everything to do with economic and financial policy. In this area we need much more, let's call it co-ordination and  co-operation to suit British feelings, than we had before. That hangs together with the success of the euro."
- German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, The Times, London, 22 February 2002
__________
"Defence is the hard core of sovereignty. Now we have a single currency, then why should we not have a common defence one day?"
- Spanish Defence Minister Federico Trillo, European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, 19 February 2002
________
  "It (the introduction of the euro) is not economic at all.It is a completely political step . . .The historical significance of the euro is to constuct a bipolar economy in the world. The two poles are the dollar and the euro. This is the political meaning of the single European currency.  It is a step beyond which there will be others. The euro is just an antipasto." 
- Commission President Romano Prodi, interview on CNN, 1 January 2002
__________
"The currency union will fall apart if we don't follow through with the consequences of such a union. I am convinced we will need a common tax system."
- German Finance Minister Hans Eichel, The Sunday Times, London, 23 December 2001
________
  "We need a European Constitution.  The European Constitution is not the 'final touch' of the European structure; it must become its foundation.  The European Constitution should prescribe that . . .we are building a Federation of Nation-States. . .The first part should be based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed at the European summit at Nice. . . If we transform the EU into a Federation of Nation-States, we will enhance the democratic legitimacy. . .We should not prescribe what the EU should never be allowed to . . . I  believe that the Parliament and the Council of Ministers should be developed into a genuine bicameral parliament."
- Dr Johannes Rau, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, European Parliament, 4 April 2001                                      
__________
"Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage."
- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001
___________

- "Thanks to the euro, our pockets will soon hold solid evidence of a European identity. We need to build on this, and make the euro more than a currency and Europe more than a territory . . . In the next six months, we will talk a lot about political union, and rightly so. Political union is inseparable from economic union. Stronger growth and Euorpean integration are related issues. In both areas we will take concrete steps forward."
- French Finance Minister Laurent Fabius, The Financial Times, London, 24 July 2000
___________
"One must act 'as if' in Europe: as if one wanted only very few things, in order to obtain a great deal. As if nations were to remain sovereign, in order to convince them to surrender their sovereignty. The Commission in Brussels, for example, must act as if it were a technical organism, in order to operate like a government ... and so on, camouflaging and toning down. The sovereignty lost at national level does not pass to any new subject. It is entrusted to a faceless entity: NATO, the UN and eventually the EU. the Union is the vanguard of this changing world: it indicates a future of Princes without sovereignty. The new entity is faceless and those who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected ...That is the way Europe was made too: by creating communitarian organisms without giving the organisms presided over by national governments the impression that they they were being subjected to a higher power. That is how the Court of Justice as a supra-national organ was born. It was a sort of unseen atom bomb, which Schuman and Monnet slipped into the negotiations on the Coal and Steel Community. That was what the 'CSC' itself was: a random, mixture of national egotisms which became communitarian.  I don't think it is a good idea to replace this slow and effective method - which keeps national States free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power - with great institutional leaps...Therefore I prefer to go slowly, to crumble pieces of sovereignty up little by little, avoiding brusque transitions from national to federal power. That is the way I think we will have to build Europe's common policies..."
- Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, later Vice-President of the EU Constitutional Convention, interview with Barbara Spinelli, La Stampa, 13 July 2000
 
____________
  "We already have a federation. The 11, soon to be 12, member States adopting the euro have already given up part of their sovereignty, monetary sovereignty, and formed a monetary union, and that is the first step towards a federation."
- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Financial Times, 7 July 2000,
___________
"We will have to create an avant-garde ... We could have a Union for the enlarged Europe, and a Federation for the avant-garde."
- Former EU Commission President Jacques Delors, Liberation, 17 June 2000
__________
"The last step will then be the completion of integration in a European Federation. . . such a group of States would conclude a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of a constitution of the Federation. On the basis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice. . . a strong parliament and a directly elected president. Such a driving force would have to be the avant-garde, the driving force for the completion of political integration. . . This latest stage of European Union . . . will depend decisively on France and Germany."
- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, speech at Humboldt University Berlin, 12 May 2000
   

from Prof. Anthony Coughlan

(THIS LAST PROPOSAL IS HARD TO RATIONALISE AFTER THE FEDERATION OF YUGOSLAVIA HAS JUST BEEN BROKEN UP, FRACTURED, SPLINTERED AND THE FEDERATION'S SELF-DEFENSE CALLED "WAR CRIMES" J.Braddell Editor) 

Merkel criticises Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union plans

06.12.2007 - 09:24 CET | By Honor Mahony
German chancellor Angela Merkel has warned that French plans for a Mediterranean Union risk splitting the EU.

Speaking at a conference in Berlin on Wednesday (5 December), Ms Merkel indicated that if French president Nicolas Sarkozy pushed ahead with his proposals for a union of countries from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa the "core" of the European Union would be threatened. The chancellor said that "cooperation between some member states has to be also open to the rest and it has to be approved by all member states." It cannot be that some countries establish a Mediterranean Union and fund this with money from EU coffers, said the German leader. "This could release explosive forces in the union I would not like," she said, according to news agency DPA.


Since becoming president in May, he has elaborated on his proposal saying in October that "in the Mediterranean will be decided whether or not civilisations and religions will wage the most terrible of wars...whether or not the North and the South will clash". Under the plans, the group would tie southern Europe with Northern Africa as well as Israel and its Arab neighbours and tackle topical issues such as counter-terrorism, immigration, energy, trade, water and sustainable development.Just seven EU states - Cyprus, Greece, France, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain - are envisioned to take part.

Mr Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union idea – he suggested on Wednesday that France and Algeria be the main axis of the Union - has also raised eyebrows in Brussels. The European Commission fears it will undermine the 12-year-old Barcelona process, aimed at promoting dialogue between the EU and ten countries on the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean.There are also fears that it is a ruse to enmesh Turkey – which would be a member – into the process and detract from its current EU negotiations, with Mr Sarkozy being strongly opposed to Ankara's EU membership bid.

Division of powers
Speaking at the same meeting, Ms Merkel also offered some criticism of the new EU treaty, a document that was formed under her presidency of the bloc, according to German newspaper Handelsblatt.While praising the treaty, due to be signed next week, as representing "historical progress" she added that "naturally it is still far from the clarity of our constitution on how powers are really delineated......."a lot will change in the European Union" noting that because not all loopholes in the document had been closed off, member states will have to keep a close eye on how it is implemented.