In this article "Le detournement democratique" published in UnMondeLibre, Emmanuel Martin and Carlo Lottieri highlight the main problems posed by the transplantation of western democracy as the model for development in "less developped" societies.
A lire absolument. In French only.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Re-setting Europe without “bonapartisme”
Published in Hürriyet Daily News, Turkey.
.
It has to be handed to the Swedish Presidency; it’s putting up a brave fight against France’s pressure to set the law.
EU-Turkey relations are just one of those battlefields of influence. During a recent meeting between the presidents of both countries (July 3rd), President Sarkozy reiterated, presumably in case the Swedes “hadn’t got it”, that the opening of new chapters would be allowed so that “Turkey would become an associate member of Europe and not a fully-fledged one". From his outburst to the legitimate comments made by President Obama in support of Turkish EU membership, to boycotting a meeting in Stockholm with Foreign Minister Carl Bilt, or the barely disguised contempt for the “Turkish Season” now starting in France, there appears to be no let up.
Indeed it is plain for those who want to see that this is no longer about making the French government’s views “known” to other member states but rather about imposing its position on enlargement as the “only” way forward. France’s Right is now “united” by a common culture of “turcophobie” with the all-powerful administration “purged” of any pro-Turkey accession advocates. This “obsession” is now being deliberately exported on the European stage with chairmanships “bullied” into abiding to the limits set by Paris. This trend does not abode well for the future under the Lisbon treaty or barely revisited EU Constitution whose chief architect was former President Giscard d’Estaing, a proponent of the “non à la Turquie”, and guardian of the centralizing and “dirigiste” tradition.
It is worrying that this “bonapartisme” is not solely confined to enlargement. It is much in evidence in economics too. Sweden warns against the “over-zealous” regulation of hedge funds. Yet the French centralizing and regulating tradition appears to be winning this battle too against the weakened Labour government of PM Brown with the City standing to lose the most. French officials with the blessing of the “G8+?” - one loses count - have launched an all-out war on so-called tax heavens and low taxation jurisdictions, essentially seeking to end tax competition on French terms - Read higher taxes (Dan Mitchell on tax competition as a liberalising force in world economy). It’s ironic that it took the intervention of communist China at the London Summit to prevent Hong Kong from being blacklisted (ranking first in the Heritage Foundation economic freedom list, France 64th).
The economist Jacques Garello (Institut de Recherches Economiques et Fiscales) talks about the “fiscal tsunami” triggered by the “green” political wave now sweeping across Europe in the aftermaths of the elections. Europe-Ecologie led by “Danny-le-Rouge” Kohn Bendit came third (16%) just behind the socialists. 400€ billion are needed for the “croissance verte” (green growth or révolution) promised by the political class during the campaign. With public finances in the red, money will have to be found somewhere. That means more borrowing (grand emprunt national), a fossil fuel tax (taxe carbone) to be borne by enterprises, and if “zealots” have their way, a European “cap-and-trade” regulation. In other words, less economic freedom and more protectionism in the guise of “virtuous” green goals. Beware the “bonapartisme écologique”!
Decisions taken on the basis of these kinds of political antics make a mockery of the idea that the EU abides to principles of law, that it stands for universal values as opposed to the rules of a “Christians only” club, and finally that it defends free trade. Reasoned discussions and consensual decision-making on sensitive issues have being replaced by the rule of the “stronger”, more dedicated member state. The “weaker” or less interested ones simply fall in, too busy with their own priorities. Unfortunately, Sweden’s voice has no echo. The silence of other member states is deafening, and perhaps a sign of surrender. It’s high time for dissenting views to be heard, or “bonapartisme” will have its way after all, and in its 21st century political expression, will dominate Europe…
In the offing lies the final battle of the Lisbon treaty ratification (German constitutional debate, second Irish referendum on October 2, pending signature into law by the Czech President). It is widely acknowledged that given a democratic chance, Euro-voters would have rejected the construction of a French-inspired highly centralized super-state. In fact they did with 3 no-votes in referenda in France, Holland and Ireland. In the end, the Irish government has obtained its opt-out “deal” (taxation and neutrality notably) so this time round, the balance may just tilt to a yes-vote. That is not good news because Europe needs resetting. Far from being the “doomsday scenario” voters are led to believe, it is a very necessary and healthy step.
For now, finding solace in history will have to do. In October 1805, Napoleon’s military power-grabbing was ended by a British hero at the Battle of Trafalgar off the Spanish city of Cadiz. Admiral Nelson’s victory thus prevented the planned invasion of the British Isles and French rule over most of Europe. French and Spanish sailors fought valiantly but they were not on the side of freedom. In the current economic storm and battle for influence, the EU leadership under French “command” has the weather gauge (advantage) to impose its vision of Europe. Czech President Klaus may be up against a vastly superior fleet of politicians and bureaucrats but he could well turn the tide. And become the European peoples’gallant hero.
EU-Turkey relations are just one of those battlefields of influence. During a recent meeting between the presidents of both countries (July 3rd), President Sarkozy reiterated, presumably in case the Swedes “hadn’t got it”, that the opening of new chapters would be allowed so that “Turkey would become an associate member of Europe and not a fully-fledged one". From his outburst to the legitimate comments made by President Obama in support of Turkish EU membership, to boycotting a meeting in Stockholm with Foreign Minister Carl Bilt, or the barely disguised contempt for the “Turkish Season” now starting in France, there appears to be no let up.
Indeed it is plain for those who want to see that this is no longer about making the French government’s views “known” to other member states but rather about imposing its position on enlargement as the “only” way forward. France’s Right is now “united” by a common culture of “turcophobie” with the all-powerful administration “purged” of any pro-Turkey accession advocates. This “obsession” is now being deliberately exported on the European stage with chairmanships “bullied” into abiding to the limits set by Paris. This trend does not abode well for the future under the Lisbon treaty or barely revisited EU Constitution whose chief architect was former President Giscard d’Estaing, a proponent of the “non à la Turquie”, and guardian of the centralizing and “dirigiste” tradition.
It is worrying that this “bonapartisme” is not solely confined to enlargement. It is much in evidence in economics too. Sweden warns against the “over-zealous” regulation of hedge funds. Yet the French centralizing and regulating tradition appears to be winning this battle too against the weakened Labour government of PM Brown with the City standing to lose the most. French officials with the blessing of the “G8+?” - one loses count - have launched an all-out war on so-called tax heavens and low taxation jurisdictions, essentially seeking to end tax competition on French terms - Read higher taxes (Dan Mitchell on tax competition as a liberalising force in world economy). It’s ironic that it took the intervention of communist China at the London Summit to prevent Hong Kong from being blacklisted (ranking first in the Heritage Foundation economic freedom list, France 64th).
The economist Jacques Garello (Institut de Recherches Economiques et Fiscales) talks about the “fiscal tsunami” triggered by the “green” political wave now sweeping across Europe in the aftermaths of the elections. Europe-Ecologie led by “Danny-le-Rouge” Kohn Bendit came third (16%) just behind the socialists. 400€ billion are needed for the “croissance verte” (green growth or révolution) promised by the political class during the campaign. With public finances in the red, money will have to be found somewhere. That means more borrowing (grand emprunt national), a fossil fuel tax (taxe carbone) to be borne by enterprises, and if “zealots” have their way, a European “cap-and-trade” regulation. In other words, less economic freedom and more protectionism in the guise of “virtuous” green goals. Beware the “bonapartisme écologique”!
Decisions taken on the basis of these kinds of political antics make a mockery of the idea that the EU abides to principles of law, that it stands for universal values as opposed to the rules of a “Christians only” club, and finally that it defends free trade. Reasoned discussions and consensual decision-making on sensitive issues have being replaced by the rule of the “stronger”, more dedicated member state. The “weaker” or less interested ones simply fall in, too busy with their own priorities. Unfortunately, Sweden’s voice has no echo. The silence of other member states is deafening, and perhaps a sign of surrender. It’s high time for dissenting views to be heard, or “bonapartisme” will have its way after all, and in its 21st century political expression, will dominate Europe…
In the offing lies the final battle of the Lisbon treaty ratification (German constitutional debate, second Irish referendum on October 2, pending signature into law by the Czech President). It is widely acknowledged that given a democratic chance, Euro-voters would have rejected the construction of a French-inspired highly centralized super-state. In fact they did with 3 no-votes in referenda in France, Holland and Ireland. In the end, the Irish government has obtained its opt-out “deal” (taxation and neutrality notably) so this time round, the balance may just tilt to a yes-vote. That is not good news because Europe needs resetting. Far from being the “doomsday scenario” voters are led to believe, it is a very necessary and healthy step.
For now, finding solace in history will have to do. In October 1805, Napoleon’s military power-grabbing was ended by a British hero at the Battle of Trafalgar off the Spanish city of Cadiz. Admiral Nelson’s victory thus prevented the planned invasion of the British Isles and French rule over most of Europe. French and Spanish sailors fought valiantly but they were not on the side of freedom. In the current economic storm and battle for influence, the EU leadership under French “command” has the weather gauge (advantage) to impose its vision of Europe. Czech President Klaus may be up against a vastly superior fleet of politicians and bureaucrats but he could well turn the tide. And become the European peoples’gallant hero.
.
********************************
In the olden days, French Embassies used to invite all residing “citoyens” for the traditional celebration of the “fête nationale”. No more. Must be politicians fullfilling their promises to bring public finance under control, or an extraordinary measure in times of deep recession.... Right.
- 2009 budget for the Elysée (présidence de la République): increase of 11.45% from 2008 (more here).
- Cost of the speech in Versailles Palace of the Président before the Parlement (Sénat-Assemblée Nationale) further to the constitutional amendment: 450,000€ (more here)
Last February, Russian President Medvedev announced that in the light of the crisis, state expenditures at all levels should be reviewed, adding that this exercise “should start with oneself ". So if the Kremlin can cut costs, why not the Elysée?
.
Allez, champagne quand même! A la santé de notre Liberté chérie....
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
EU parliamentary elections: democracy or hypocrisy?
Publié en français sur Un Monde Libre.org
In the wake of Europe-wide parliamentary elections, the Iranian presidential poll with its massive turnout and the eagerness of the voters to cast their ballots was uplifting. Candidates had spoken passionately, and their supporters mobilized in great numbers. The contrast with the lackluster and undisputed elections campaign in the European Union (EU) could not have been more striking. In Iran, the violent post-election crackdown is evidence - if anybody needed reminding - that elections do not necessarily yield more freedom. In Europe, the process was free and fair, peaceful but the question remains if the highly centralized Union is the democratic model it professes to be.
Indeed since the first direct elections (1979), fewer European citizens have bothered to exercise their right to vote. In the 2009, the overall turnout has hit the predicted record-low: 43% in 2009 v 62% in 1979. Slovakia with 19.64% lies at the bottom of the table. In France, one of the founding states, 60% of the electorate abstained. Yet this abyssal result did not damper the festive mood of the political parties that fared better (UMP 27.8%, Europe Ecologie 16.28%). Champagne corks popped with little regard to the fact that the newly elected MEPs (72, total of 736) will represent le peuple with the thinnest of democratic legitimacy. But truth be told, EU institutions and national governments have already moved on with a sigh of relief. It’s back to politics as usual.
By and large politicians have skirted the issue of the ever-deepening democratic deficit. The reason for this is simple. The EU show must go on. Many leaders have regularly and openly stated that “democracy and the complex EU polity are not really compatible”. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty has revealed a deep-rooted mindset of mistrust towards voters amongst the élite. Hence a growing sense that democratic consultations are only meant as a “rubberstamping exercise” whilst the “real” EU business carries on in the secretive conclaves of supra-national consensual politics. Disenchanted electorates were left with only two options to express their frustration and disagreement: abstention or a vote for the more extreme parties (right or left). Yet defining this rising tide of negative sentiment as “anti-European” is simplistic, albeit convenient for a political class intent on preserving the status quo. Results can also be interpreted as anti-EU as currently run, and pro-freedom.
EU institutions seized on these elections to promote the notion that the Lisbon Treaty will usher a new dawn: “a more democratic and transparent Europe”. But as Oxford academic Christopher Bickerton points out, attempts to remedy the lack of transparency have been tried before and failed because “the EU is not about transparency. Its function is to provide space for policymaking that substitutes political conflicts of principle for a culture of bureaucratic compromise”. (The Manifesto Club study, “No” to the Politics of fait accompli”). The EU polity has become a “public-free zone”, namely the preserve of unaccountable bureaucrats, politicians and diplomats as Daily Telegraph correspondent Bruno Waterfield puts it. Even with more powers granted to the Parliament, reversing decades of culture of insulated and undemocratic decision and lawmaking could prove mission impossible.
The European project is supposed to enhance our freedom. The essence of liberty is choice. Yet if citizens’ choices – a “no” to the Lisbon Treaty, abstention to express discontent – are dismissed, if the “eur-oligarchy” can think of nothing better to resolve the crisis of legitimacy than to scaremonger voters to push ahead their “enlightened” agenda (“vote Yes or face the consequences of extremism or recession”), then arguably there is little democracy left worth talking about. Rather, what is emerging is a new form of supra-national authoritarianism imposed by a nomemklature who, in ways not dissimilar to the Soviet one, always “knows best”.
The EU is in legitimacy crisis territory. The low participation rate (and no-votes in the referenda) should be interpreted as an electoral equivalent of the 1965 “empty chair crisis” (“Luxembourg compromise”) when French civil servants were withdrawn by Charles de Gaulle due to serious disagreement with the Commission. The responsibility lies squarely on politicians (mainstream or not) who have sadly failed to articulate a vision for the future that a majority of citizens “can believe in” and support.
For results, see here.
Indeed since the first direct elections (1979), fewer European citizens have bothered to exercise their right to vote. In the 2009, the overall turnout has hit the predicted record-low: 43% in 2009 v 62% in 1979. Slovakia with 19.64% lies at the bottom of the table. In France, one of the founding states, 60% of the electorate abstained. Yet this abyssal result did not damper the festive mood of the political parties that fared better (UMP 27.8%, Europe Ecologie 16.28%). Champagne corks popped with little regard to the fact that the newly elected MEPs (72, total of 736) will represent le peuple with the thinnest of democratic legitimacy. But truth be told, EU institutions and national governments have already moved on with a sigh of relief. It’s back to politics as usual.
By and large politicians have skirted the issue of the ever-deepening democratic deficit. The reason for this is simple. The EU show must go on. Many leaders have regularly and openly stated that “democracy and the complex EU polity are not really compatible”. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty has revealed a deep-rooted mindset of mistrust towards voters amongst the élite. Hence a growing sense that democratic consultations are only meant as a “rubberstamping exercise” whilst the “real” EU business carries on in the secretive conclaves of supra-national consensual politics. Disenchanted electorates were left with only two options to express their frustration and disagreement: abstention or a vote for the more extreme parties (right or left). Yet defining this rising tide of negative sentiment as “anti-European” is simplistic, albeit convenient for a political class intent on preserving the status quo. Results can also be interpreted as anti-EU as currently run, and pro-freedom.
EU institutions seized on these elections to promote the notion that the Lisbon Treaty will usher a new dawn: “a more democratic and transparent Europe”. But as Oxford academic Christopher Bickerton points out, attempts to remedy the lack of transparency have been tried before and failed because “the EU is not about transparency. Its function is to provide space for policymaking that substitutes political conflicts of principle for a culture of bureaucratic compromise”. (The Manifesto Club study, “No” to the Politics of fait accompli”). The EU polity has become a “public-free zone”, namely the preserve of unaccountable bureaucrats, politicians and diplomats as Daily Telegraph correspondent Bruno Waterfield puts it. Even with more powers granted to the Parliament, reversing decades of culture of insulated and undemocratic decision and lawmaking could prove mission impossible.
The European project is supposed to enhance our freedom. The essence of liberty is choice. Yet if citizens’ choices – a “no” to the Lisbon Treaty, abstention to express discontent – are dismissed, if the “eur-oligarchy” can think of nothing better to resolve the crisis of legitimacy than to scaremonger voters to push ahead their “enlightened” agenda (“vote Yes or face the consequences of extremism or recession”), then arguably there is little democracy left worth talking about. Rather, what is emerging is a new form of supra-national authoritarianism imposed by a nomemklature who, in ways not dissimilar to the Soviet one, always “knows best”.
The EU is in legitimacy crisis territory. The low participation rate (and no-votes in the referenda) should be interpreted as an electoral equivalent of the 1965 “empty chair crisis” (“Luxembourg compromise”) when French civil servants were withdrawn by Charles de Gaulle due to serious disagreement with the Commission. The responsibility lies squarely on politicians (mainstream or not) who have sadly failed to articulate a vision for the future that a majority of citizens “can believe in” and support.
For results, see here.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
L'Hermione, the Liberty Frigate
In June 2012, a replica of the 1780 French frigate Hermione will anchor off the Statue of Liberty, New York after having crossed the Atlantic Ocean (Rochefort, Boston, New-York). The original frigate had sailed to l'Amérique to support and help the American people in their quest for freedom and independence. .
Aboard the Hermione ("Frégate de la Liberté") when she set sails from Rochefort in March 1780, was le Marquis de La Fayette. After a 38 day sail, the 65 metres long man-of-war reached Boston where the French officer landed to re-join George Washington's forces. In 1777, having disobeyed Louis XVI's orders and avoided capture by British spies, young La Fayette had eventually reached American shores to serve in the Continental Army. He had returned to France a hero and played a key role in strengthening the French Monarchy's commitment to the American struggle.
Aboard the Hermione ("Frégate de la Liberté") when she set sails from Rochefort in March 1780, was le Marquis de La Fayette. After a 38 day sail, the 65 metres long man-of-war reached Boston where the French officer landed to re-join George Washington's forces. In 1777, having disobeyed Louis XVI's orders and avoided capture by British spies, young La Fayette had eventually reached American shores to serve in the Continental Army. He had returned to France a hero and played a key role in strengthening the French Monarchy's commitment to the American struggle.
The idea for an absolute king to support another people's struggle for freedom was daring. Of course, the monarch backed the project for the blow it would deal to His Britannic Majesty King GeorgeIII, and not to "defend freedom". For La Fayette the latter was the point for he had been truly inspired by the ideal of individual liberty (right with G. Washington at Mt. Vernon in 1784). During the French Revolution - despite persecution by the Jacobin revolutionaries - and throughout his life, he remained true to this ideal.
Crossing an ocean in the 18th century was adventurous but so is the 20th century project to build a replica and sail her across the Atlantic. If all goes well, the image of the "Frégate de la Liberté" anchored in front of the "Statue de la Liberté" will bear testimony to the will and achievements of a few who inspired so many. It will also honour the spirit of a free man who made a difference, Monsieur de La Fayette.
.
This project was initiated by a group of citoyens (Association Hermione-La Fayette founded in 1997), and after difficult beginnings (technical and financial), construction is well under way in 2009 (hull completed and caulked, big capstan installed). Of course, the French Republic keenly backs it (with taxpayers' money). The political objective behind may be to commemorate our common history, the friendship between our two nations and the ideal of liberty but one thing is certain, it is not in support of economic freedom! C'est un peu l'histoire qui se répète....
.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
La vague verte qui nous fera couler à pic!
Caring about protecting the environment does not mean accepting the fiscal onslaught being prepared by "enlightened-greened politicians" guided by "repainted-green ideologues" (Leader of Europe Ecologie, "Danny-le-Rouge" Cohn-Bendit....).
Dr. Garello comments on what he calls the "fiscal tsunami" being triggered by the green political wave. A wave sweeping now across Europe and certainly across France where the Europe Ecologie party came third (16.28%) in the European elections just behind the Socialist Party (16.48%). 400€ billion are needed to launch what the French government has labelled "the green growth" (croissance verte). With the rise of the "green political wave", it's time for reckoning.... And that means new taxation!
La vague verte et tsunami fiscal : 400 milliards pour la croissance verte (Publié le 17 juin 2009, article extrait du site irefeurope.org)
The most immediate and tangible consequence of the green wave will be to trigger a fiscal tsunami. The fosil energies tax and the overtaxation of polluting foreign products are coming. A good deal for the taxman and a disaster for enterprises and consumers. Below a commentary by Jacques Garello, administrator of the Institut de Recherches Economiques et Fiscales.
Dès la conclusion du Grenelle de l’environnement on savait qu’il faudrait trouver quelque part le financement des 400 milliards d’euros que Jean Louis Borloo a promis pour organiser la « croissance verte » (une promesse renouvelée au soir des élections). Les choses se précipitent, et grâce au succès électoral des thèses écologistes, on en vient maintenant à l’heure de vérité avec deux initiatives majeures : la taxe sur les énergies fossiles et la taxe européenne anti-pollution.
Taxe sur les énergies fossiles: Son principe doit être voté par le Parlement au cours de la session actuelle. Elle ne supprimera pas la taxe carbone qui concerne déjà les « grandes sociétés » qui utilisent des énergies fossiles. Elle frappera toutes les entreprises qui utilisent des énergies traditionnelles, non renouvelables : charbon, pétrole, gaz, essence. Le cas de l’électricité est en suspens, car il faudrait savoir si elle est d’origine nucléaire, thermique, ou hydraulique – en attendant l’électricité des éoliennes dont on sait en haut lieu qu’elle se substituera bien vite (au cours du 22ème siècle) à toutes les autres.
Dr. Garello comments on what he calls the "fiscal tsunami" being triggered by the green political wave. A wave sweeping now across Europe and certainly across France where the Europe Ecologie party came third (16.28%) in the European elections just behind the Socialist Party (16.48%). 400€ billion are needed to launch what the French government has labelled "the green growth" (croissance verte). With the rise of the "green political wave", it's time for reckoning.... And that means new taxation!
La vague verte et tsunami fiscal : 400 milliards pour la croissance verte (Publié le 17 juin 2009, article extrait du site irefeurope.org)
The most immediate and tangible consequence of the green wave will be to trigger a fiscal tsunami. The fosil energies tax and the overtaxation of polluting foreign products are coming. A good deal for the taxman and a disaster for enterprises and consumers. Below a commentary by Jacques Garello, administrator of the Institut de Recherches Economiques et Fiscales.
Dès la conclusion du Grenelle de l’environnement on savait qu’il faudrait trouver quelque part le financement des 400 milliards d’euros que Jean Louis Borloo a promis pour organiser la « croissance verte » (une promesse renouvelée au soir des élections). Les choses se précipitent, et grâce au succès électoral des thèses écologistes, on en vient maintenant à l’heure de vérité avec deux initiatives majeures : la taxe sur les énergies fossiles et la taxe européenne anti-pollution.
Taxe sur les énergies fossiles: Son principe doit être voté par le Parlement au cours de la session actuelle. Elle ne supprimera pas la taxe carbone qui concerne déjà les « grandes sociétés » qui utilisent des énergies fossiles. Elle frappera toutes les entreprises qui utilisent des énergies traditionnelles, non renouvelables : charbon, pétrole, gaz, essence. Le cas de l’électricité est en suspens, car il faudrait savoir si elle est d’origine nucléaire, thermique, ou hydraulique – en attendant l’électricité des éoliennes dont on sait en haut lieu qu’elle se substituera bien vite (au cours du 22ème siècle) à toutes les autres.
Premier avantage de cette innovation : les produits de cet impôt viendront à point nommé combler les pertes subies par le Trésor public du fait de la suppression annoncée de la taxe proportionnelle. Bercy respire : on a trouvé un impôt de substitution. Deuxième avantage : comme les entreprises seront tentées de répercuter la facture énergétique grossie par l’impôt sur la masse des consommateurs, ceux-ci vont voir leur pouvoir d’achat diminuer. Les coûts du transport et du chauffage, mais aussi de tout ce que les diverses entreprises produisent vont en effet augmenter et grever le budget des ménages. Qu’à cela ne tienne : le gouvernement versera une allocation aux ménages à faible revenu, et seuls les riches paieront, ce qui est d’une part très social, d’autre part très logique et très simple : après avoir pris de l’argent aux Français on le leur rend.
.
Taxe anti-pollution: Les produits en provenance des pays étrangers qui font du dumping écologique seront taxés pour rétablir une concurrence équitable avec les produits français qui, eux, sont non polluants ou moins polluants, grâce aux efforts incessants menés par notre administration et notre fiscalité. A la différence de la précédente, l’idée n’est pas nouvelle puisqu’elle avait été lancée aux Etats-Unis, pour freiner les importations en provenance du Mexique, pays échappant à la rigoureuse réglementation américaine en matière d’environnement. C’est cependant une taxe que les Français auront du mal à faire passer au niveau européen, surtout avec la nouvelle majorité au Parlement.
Va-t-on s’arrêter en si bon chemin ? Le Grenelle de la Mer peut sans doute apporter quelque nouvelle innovation fiscale. D’autre part, Michel Rocard est nommé à la tête d’un groupe « d’experts » pour étudier les principes et les effets d’une fiscalité verte. Un mauvais présage : l’inventeur de la CSG l’avait à l’époque présentée comme une très faible et très passagère « contribution ». En France on a de moins en moins d’impôts et de plus en plus de contributions. L’impôt est haïssable, mais quel honneur et quel plaisir de contribuer volontairement !
.
Taxe anti-pollution: Les produits en provenance des pays étrangers qui font du dumping écologique seront taxés pour rétablir une concurrence équitable avec les produits français qui, eux, sont non polluants ou moins polluants, grâce aux efforts incessants menés par notre administration et notre fiscalité. A la différence de la précédente, l’idée n’est pas nouvelle puisqu’elle avait été lancée aux Etats-Unis, pour freiner les importations en provenance du Mexique, pays échappant à la rigoureuse réglementation américaine en matière d’environnement. C’est cependant une taxe que les Français auront du mal à faire passer au niveau européen, surtout avec la nouvelle majorité au Parlement.
Va-t-on s’arrêter en si bon chemin ? Le Grenelle de la Mer peut sans doute apporter quelque nouvelle innovation fiscale. D’autre part, Michel Rocard est nommé à la tête d’un groupe « d’experts » pour étudier les principes et les effets d’une fiscalité verte. Un mauvais présage : l’inventeur de la CSG l’avait à l’époque présentée comme une très faible et très passagère « contribution ». En France on a de moins en moins d’impôts et de plus en plus de contributions. L’impôt est haïssable, mais quel honneur et quel plaisir de contribuer volontairement !
.
***************
***************
For an incisive analysis of "the new offensive of the ideologues", read Ivan Rioufol's Bloc-notes in Le Figaro.
On the "inconvenient truth" that a politically driven green economy will do more harm to employment than good, read this article by George F. Will (Washington Post) and the report by Spanish economist Gabriel Calzada Alvarez. Branle-bas de combat!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Divine intervention to save the Lisbon Treaty?
Who needs votes when the gods are on your side? Well, as if EU policy and decision-making mechanisms weren't already complex and confusing enough, it looks like religious leaders have joined in the EU political debate. Indeed the Lisbon Treaty introduces a "stronger consultative role for European religions in EU policy making" (statement made by the President of the EU Parliament at the inter-faith meeting he chaired in Brussels on 11 May). Co-chair European Commission President Jose Barroso added that this treaty provision would positively advance the freedom of religion or non-religion. Really?
In the Daily Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield questions this latest move by the EU leadership.
Why European institutions should be concerned with the divine when reviewing the fishing policy, discussing safety standards for toys or preparing legislation on the regulation of hedge funds is indeed difficult to fathom. Be it as it may, politics and faith are again being mixed and this time round, backed up by a legally enforceable right under the Lisbon Treaty. The introduction of religion into the EU public sphere is worrying. Historically, conflicts have been fueled on this explosive cocktail. So what is the political elite thinking? Are eurocrats and religious leaders ganging up to try and impose on us, the misguided flock, their revealed wisdoms? After more earthly fear mongering of economic and political doomsday, the message going out to the faithful (Irish in particular) is equally sinistre: "do not question (just ratify) the Lisbon Treaty. Or face eternal damnation".
Let us for a moment venture in the realm of legal fantasy. What if this yet-to-be-ratified-treaty opened a legal loophole for the introduction of a "common spiritual welfare policy" of sort? It is all too easy to imagine what would come next. Bureaucratisation with the establishment of a new Directorat Général (DG-DIVINE), the anointment of euro-priest-ocrats (naturally not answerable to the EU flock but their own gods), blessed subsidies and, of course, enlightened lobbies. Non-compliance with sacred rules would see you sentenced to hell...
On planet earth-EU now, punishment takes the form of ever-expanding EU exclusive competences. And more legislation. What this means at the end of the day, is more intrusion into the "private" sphere, i.e. less liberty for all.
To conclude on a point of public finance, the 2009 campaign has revealed that no expenses would be spared to guide from above. Quite literally. From the International Space Station, the Belgium astronaut propelled into orbit for the European Space Agency on a Russian rocket sent his "personal" - DG-COMM would like us to believe - election message to the EU flock below. Arguably the most expensive 2009 campaign spot... For free here.
Looking at the elections turnout (record low of 43%), the EU flock remained unimpressed (or just not interested) and chose not to flock to the polling stations. It is time for a rethink. Until then (...) and while analysts dissect the results of this electoral fiasco, some comic relief...
Mr. Beans' take on ze EU hell....
In the Daily Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield questions this latest move by the EU leadership.
Why European institutions should be concerned with the divine when reviewing the fishing policy, discussing safety standards for toys or preparing legislation on the regulation of hedge funds is indeed difficult to fathom. Be it as it may, politics and faith are again being mixed and this time round, backed up by a legally enforceable right under the Lisbon Treaty. The introduction of religion into the EU public sphere is worrying. Historically, conflicts have been fueled on this explosive cocktail. So what is the political elite thinking? Are eurocrats and religious leaders ganging up to try and impose on us, the misguided flock, their revealed wisdoms? After more earthly fear mongering of economic and political doomsday, the message going out to the faithful (Irish in particular) is equally sinistre: "do not question (just ratify) the Lisbon Treaty. Or face eternal damnation".
Let us for a moment venture in the realm of legal fantasy. What if this yet-to-be-ratified-treaty opened a legal loophole for the introduction of a "common spiritual welfare policy" of sort? It is all too easy to imagine what would come next. Bureaucratisation with the establishment of a new Directorat Général (DG-DIVINE), the anointment of euro-priest-ocrats (naturally not answerable to the EU flock but their own gods), blessed subsidies and, of course, enlightened lobbies. Non-compliance with sacred rules would see you sentenced to hell...
On planet earth-EU now, punishment takes the form of ever-expanding EU exclusive competences. And more legislation. What this means at the end of the day, is more intrusion into the "private" sphere, i.e. less liberty for all.
To conclude on a point of public finance, the 2009 campaign has revealed that no expenses would be spared to guide from above. Quite literally. From the International Space Station, the Belgium astronaut propelled into orbit for the European Space Agency on a Russian rocket sent his "personal" - DG-COMM would like us to believe - election message to the EU flock below. Arguably the most expensive 2009 campaign spot... For free here.
Looking at the elections turnout (record low of 43%), the EU flock remained unimpressed (or just not interested) and chose not to flock to the polling stations. It is time for a rethink. Until then (...) and while analysts dissect the results of this electoral fiasco, some comic relief...
Mr. Beans' take on ze EU hell....
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
EU elections: there is always time to scream!
Letter to the editor of the Japan Times sent on 12 May 2009:
Explaining the European Union to its citizens: a way forward.
The article « EU looks outward to create a better world” (May 11, 2009) was informative. I was pleased to read that diplomats from Member States’ embassies spare some time to explain the Union to Japanese school kids ("the EU comes to your school" project). Delightful.
How about starting a similar project targetting European citizens living in Japan? There is certainly a lot of explaining to do in the run-up to the parliamentary elections if turnout rates are to improve on the poor results of 2004 (45.47%). The latest opinion polls are hardly cause for optimism.
In 2009, the EU is unquestionably an economic giant but its standing as a showcase for democracy is more questionable. As more powers are being transferred to the Parliament (EP), less citizens appear to care about voting. A lower turnout would be disastrous for the EP's legitimacy.
The European construction has always been an elite-driven project. A lot of "top down-ocracy" rather than democracy... The referenda for its Constitution/Lisbon Treaty are quite revealing in this regard. Consultation with the citizenry was only meant to yield one result: the yes-vote needed by a leadership “who knows best”. The peoples said “no” (Ireland, Holland and France). Yet politicians didn’t listen.
There is something increasingly unbearable about the “top down-ness” of democracy à la EU. And frankly speaking, the glitzy €18 million elections campaign with one the silliest commercials ever produced (There is always time to vote. And scream!), can’t do much to motivate a generally disillusioned electorate. It did nothing for me.
Actually, I am a euro-enthusiast. But with no enthusiasm for the Europe now being dictated from above. Down here in Japan, will I have time to vote come June? “Niet!”. I say it in Russian because a French "non" will get little attention....
Poking fun at euroskeptics in the 2009 campaign...
Ok. Granted. The integration of European economies in the wake of WWII has brought peace, and it's fair to say that in itself, 50 years of peaceful coexistence is a tremendous achievement. The history of Europe is one of never ending feuds between nations. The question is whether the kind of centralised, bureaucratic Europe being built now is not undermining the ideal of a freer European space where citzens can shape their future, rather than it being shaped from above by "know-best-ocrats"!
On 04th June, other eurocitizens will choose too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
