EU Energy chief under legal threat

The world of transparency has finally washed against the shore of Günther Oettinger, the EU's Energy Commissioner.

According to Der Stern he is under investgation for lying about his declaration of interests. Which is a criminal offence in Germany.

He should have mentioned his membership of the Board of Trustees of the Ludwigsburg Festival in his latest declaration on 10 June. He held this post during his time as minister president of the Baden-Württemberg region and failed to declare it even back then, going against regional constitutional law.

Oettinger's Brussels office reportedly explained that the commissioner ''had taken up the honorary post when he became minister president and had not thought it necessary to resign separately from the honorary post when he handed in his resignation from the office of minister president''.

Frank told EurActiv.de that there was no connection between membership of the Board of Trustees and the office of minister president, as Oettinger's successor to the office had not automatically become a member of the board. Moreover, Oettinger would still have had to declare it as one of the activities he has undertaken in the past ten years.

This could cause a whole pile of ructions in the College of Commissioners.

A chance to speak into the void

The European Commission has launched a consultation

ON THE OPEN INTERNETAND NET NEUTRALITY IN EUROPE.

Amongst the questions that are being asked are those such as this,

Are the commercial arrangements that currently govern the provision of access to
the internet adequate, in order to ensure that the internet remains open and
that infrastructure investment is maintained? If not, how should they change?

Which seems to be requesting the answer, Yes of course the internet should be taken out of the hands of independent commercial and profit making types and handed over to the disinterested and trustworthy taxpayer funded bureaucrats.
And so to the final point

4.5. The political, cultural and social dimension
The internet has become a vital platform for the political, cultural, and social participation of European citizens. Any policy decision concerning the way in which the internet functions must be framed keeping this basic premise very firmly in mind.
Question 15:
Besides the traffic management issues discussed above, are there any other
concerns affecting freedom of expression, media pluralism and cultural diversity
on the internet? If so, what further measures would be needed to safeguard those values?

What do you think? Frankly keeping the government out of the internet is a good palce to start, and discouraging the EU from waving its regulatory wand over the sector could be very helpful.
In various countries of the EU, Italy for example there have been serious attempts to control the internet for political purposes. The Eurocrats have never forgiven the way in which the first Irish Lisbon Treaty vote was influenced by internet campaigning. How they spoke in shock of the way in which the No side were fleet footed and used humour.

Now I am no expert in these matters and defer to those wiser than I, but please, if you know what you are talking about involve yourself in this consultation.

Responses need to go to infso-netneutrality@ec.europa.eu before the 30th September

"the Commission had no intelligence capability of its own"

But we knew that... Ok a cheap laugh but these comments about intelligence infiltration of the European Commission need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

She confirmed media reports of the existence of a note circulated internally by the EU executive warning its staff that "the threat of espionage against the Commission is increasing day by day."

"In a number of countries, information-seekers, lobbyists, journalists, private agencies and other third parties are continuing to seek sensitive and classified information from the Commission,"...

"One example of such cover is that of a trainee, the second is that of a member of a national administration who is on secondment, the third is that of a technical expert on IT (information technology) matters," Rampi said.

"We are not only pointing the finger at the journalists. It could be the pretty trainee with the long legs and the blonde hair," she told the briefing.

Well, err lobbyists prowl all over the Commission, but I guess most are working for corprate or NGO (which of course generally means Commission) interests. Long haired trainees, hmmm...

Well in the past when it came to stagieires being divvied up betwen DGs and Units there used to be an unseemly auction amongst the Heads of Unit as they bid for the better looking ones, it appears that that system must have backfired.

Attached national experts. Now I remember a conversation that I may have referred to before in which it became clear that Geoffrey Van Orden, now a Tory MEP had operated on secondment to the Commission as an MI6 chappy. He was accused as such by Gen Phillipe Morrillion MEP and didn't respond to the charge. He describes his job there thus,

where he worked on a range of foreign and security policy issues

But others obviously have a different view see this Parliament report which describes his unit as the,

"'Security Aspects' Unit of DG1A"

Do I believe that the Commission has what Valerie Rampi delightfully calls,

no intelligence capability of its own

No I don't.

Is this why they are mad as hatters?

A friend calls me with a strange tale. He was having a meeting in the European Commission HQ Berlyamont building a few days ago, up amongst the Gods on the 13th floor (Cabinet offices). A Commission drone apologised for the lack of coffee.

Apparently the coffee machine up there has been closed by Elf 'n Safety due to very high lead concentrations. Now if the water going to the 13th floor is contaminated, that would suggest that the entire Berlyamont's water system is compromised.

And we all know what happens when there is exposure to lead poisoning...

We now know that lead damages the brain, lowering IQ and causing learning disabilities and behavioral problems.

Suffer little children

Oh my giddy aunt. This is one of the latest propaganda films from the Commission and leaves me a little scared. Tell me what you think, please

Wonder what the informal ones were like...

In my weekly email from the Commission this morning came this rather gratifying piece of news,

Pour votre information, aucune décision formelle n'a été prise par la Commission
cette semaine.
For your information, no decision was taken by the Commission this week.

Trebles all round

When in a hole... dig deeper

As the questions facing the climate change alarmists get more pressing what would you do if you were the European Commission. Would you,

A) Wind your neck in a little. After all the bio-fuels policy has already blown up in your face.
or
B) Organise the creation of a Climate Change DG with its own EU Commissioner and staff.

Obvious really isn't it. Madness of course, expensive madness at that but obvious.

No human damage! and other linguistic shenanigans

A week after the event, and a couple of days after the story started to come out - (what took them so long I wonder?) the Parliament services have finally put out a statement about the collapse of the Strasbourg hemicycle chamber ceiling. It includes the following glorious phrase.

"Fortunately, the incident caused no human damage."

Like so much of what comes through our in-boxes and in-trays this appears to be written in English, but lacks a certain something.

Similarly, last night I was talking to a fonctionaire last night in the pub. He is a newbie, only been here for a couple of months and he was trying to recover from what must be thought of as a trying day.

He had spent the morning, all four hours of it, trying to persuade his Head of Unit to define the difference between,

1 - An initiative,
2 - A policy
3 - A program
4 - A project
5 - A contract

He is to write a submission of approx 75 pages on a spend of upwards of four billion Euro. All he wanted to do was to define terms before he started. After the four hours the impression he got was that most of the terms were for practicle purposes interchangeable with the meaning of one sliding into the meaning of the next on a scale that stretches from point 1 through to point 5.

Better still he was told that his work should concentrate on the executive summary, which would the only part of his efforts that would be signed off up the command chain. All the analysis and meat would be left to him.

So what we have here is that about 5-10% of the effort, that is the PR aspect, will be checked and signed off, but the 90% actual policy will be left to him, an admittedly highly qualified, but institutionally inexperienced junior functionary. It will not have to be peer reviewed and will be responsible for the way in which 4 billion, yes 4 billion Euros will be spent.

I understand the afternoon was spent trying to define the term used to describe a tender bid. No, no conclusion was reached there either. The fellow surely deserved his beer.

He finished by bemoaning that he would not even be able to produce what he called,
"An architechtural blueprint for following the process procedure (or something very like that)". This is for Data-wharehousing...

See what I mean about a language that at first glance is English but has no real link to the language as she is spoken and understood.

Natural Justice from the Tranzi's? You must be joking

This week the awful Avril Doyle, leader of the Fine Gael group of MEPs over here in Brussels called for an outright ban on tobacco. Not only that she suggested that a European ban on all tobacco products could be extended beyond the EU's borders,

"I have never favoured a nanny state attitude, the over regulation of our citizens, of dictating to anyone on what anyone can or cannot do...but the one area I can make an exception is the tobacco industry...

By 2025 it should be illegal to sell tobacco products in the EU. That would give 15 years notice for all our citizens to realise just how serious we arer about not allowing the continued sale within the EU and hopefully elsewhere of products... that may be legal but are not legitimate".

She was speaking at a closed conference organised by the Smoke Free Partnership and supported by Pfizer. The event was called "The role of article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in protecting public policy from tobacco industry influence" which refers to the way in which the health fascists wish to direct future policy making. By barring the affected parties from putting their position to policy makers.

The key bit is 5.3 which states,

"3. In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law".

What this means in effect is that politicains and civil servants should be protected from the tobacco and assocaited industruies - such as the hospitality industry when legislating or implementing tobacco control policies. The net result of this being that if a local publican wants to put up a lean-to, to protect his customers from the rain he needs planning permission. He may well be barred from lobbying his local council's planning department as the individuals there will be involved in implementing the tobacco ban.

At the Conference the Commissioner Vassiliou said,

"All public health policies with regard to tobacco control have to be effectively protected from the interests of the tobacco industry. My first consideration is that this this obligation cannot be fullfilled if the scope of the guidelines are not broad enough. All the actors in both the setting and the implementation tobacco Control policies should be bound by this obligation. To refer to our own environment for instance it would not make much sense if only the Commission were to act in that sense. Following any Commission proposal tobacco control policies are discussed, amended and adopted through the European legislative procedures with the Parliament and the Council, and these institutions should also act in accordance with the guidelines once adopted. The same should apply to all those involved in the implementation of the tobacco control policies.... The scope of the furure guidlines is therefore a key aspect. It needs to be as comprehensive as possible in order to have a real impact...

So the ban on contacts should spread across all public policy,

Let me also move a step forward. As Commisioner for health I am ready to commit today not to accept any invitation coming from the tobacco industry or those working to preffer its interest while I hold this office.... the ultimate goal of making tobacco use a thing of the past."

OK, that is your personal comittment Commissioner. But you are not a private person, you are an EU official, unelected remember, and and a civil, my servant. And I believe you are a bound by The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. Which states quite clearly,

Article 20
Equality before the law
Everyone is equal before the law.

Meaning exactly what it says, no individual or group of individuals may be singled for different treatment. This is backed up elsewhere in the Charter here for example,

Article 11, Freedom of expression and information. Para 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Got that Commissioner. Whithout interference by public authority

Article 41, Right to good administration. Para2. This right includes: the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken.

You might think that tobacco control legislation might be harmful tothe tobacco industry, its representatives and supporters, likewise the hospitality industry. You do not have the right to make the commitment that you have made.

So what's it gouing to be, health facism or human rights?

Your call.

Brussels to foreclose on national landmark...

Pooh, Owl and Tigger maybe evicted.

In a letter dated 11/10/2007 a Head of Unit at DG Enterprise,

"The Commission proposal is to repeal the use of the acre because it is no longer apllied as a legal unit in the UK or Ireland".

OK that maybe simplifying things just a touch, but really where do they get off. If one is no longer allowed to seel or buy in the UK or Ireland using the acre m,easurement (why on earth not if both buyer and seller are happy, and as most historic plots particularly in the countryside are in fact in acres or fractions of acres. Thus much like buying 1.36 litres of milk, (when it should be 2 pints) or a 453g tin or summat (when it should be a pound). Thus the 100 acre wood would, under this ruling become the 40.46 Hectare wood.

"Ha-ha," said Eeyore bitterly. "Merriment and what-not. Don't apologize. It's just what would happen."

Harassment epidemic in European Commission?

What is going on here? The European Commission has put out an (internal) call for applications,

"In the framework of the policy concerning the protection of the dignity of the person and the fight against psychological and sexual harassment at the European Commission, DG ADMIN is launching this call for application in order to extend the network of confidential counsellors to include 20-25 new members".

There are currently 20 counsellors working at the Commission. This is a doubling of the team. Given that the European Commission employs approximately 32,000 staff this is a very high number for any institution. If each counsellor spends approximately 1 hr with a colleague, then shall we say, what with lunch, admin, follow up meetings and so on there will be three a day.

According to the internal staff regulations,

What is psychological harassment?
"Psychological harassment means any improper conduct that takes place over a period, is repetitive or systematic and involves physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts that are intentional and that may undermine the personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of any person" (Article 12a of the Staff Regulations).

Psychological harassment can manifest in various forms, in particular by : offensive or degrading comments, pressure, humiliation, even refusal to communicate; insulting or threatening remarks; being isolated, excluded, ignored, disparaged; setting unrealistic working objectives, etc. Such behaviour, while unacceptable, may in isolation appear of little consequence. When occurring on a regular basis, however, such conduct can cause serious harm to the person at whom it is directed.

What is sexual harassment?
"Sexual harassment means conduct relating to sex which is unwanted by the person to whom it is directed and which has the purpose or effect of offending that person or creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive or disturbing environment. Sexual harassment shall be treated as discrimination based on gender" (Article 12a of the Staff Regulations).

Sexual harassment may take different forms (physical, verbal, written or other), and involve persons of the opposite sex and of the same sex. The essential characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted by the recipient; it is therefore for each individual to determine what behaviour is acceptable to them and what they regard as offensive. Sexual attention becomes sexual harassment if it is persisted in once it has been made clear that it is regarded by the recipient as offensive, although, unlike psychological harassment, a single incident may constitute sexual harassment if it is sufficiently serious (for example, groping).

That would mean that if there are to be 40 councillors that should work out at 120 a day and upwards of 600 such meetings a week. Or Over 1.5% of the entire Commission workforce a week!

Spread out over a year the ramifications of this are manifold. OK take harassment seriously, yes I agree. But hold on here. What this suggests is a problem of seriously epidemic proportions.

Fast and loose

Stavros Dimas (no really) is the European Commissioner for Global Warming and it appears he has been a little economical with the actualite. Chris Horner spots the deliberate mistake here,
According to EU Observer he claims,

“‘Our emissions are currently 2 percent below [1990] levels (…) while our economy has grown by more than 35 percent over the same period.”

The point being is that Kyoto was agreed by the then EU 15, the 35% growth rate is essentially just adding the GDP of the accession countries, with no real growth required, and of course the collapse of the Eastern European manufacturing industry immediately after the fall in the Berlin wall has meant that the 27 overall have had a reduction. Not the EU 15 which is way over target.

This conflation of "we" (15) and "we" (27) is a pernicious mistruth.

Here's hoping

The latest think tank in town obviously has no desire to make friends or perhaps even to influence people over here in Brussels. Or if it does it certainly has a strange way of going about things. The Globalisation Institute moved from London to Brussels a couple of months ago because its Director, Alex Singleton (seen to our right in a typically dignified display) spotted an obvious problem. His think tank concentrates on global trade issues, which are not decided in London but in Brussels.

However this press release may not be what the colleagues want to hear,

Abolish 12 unnecessary EU departments, urges Brussels think tank

12 European Commission government departments, known as directorate-generals, should be abolished according the Globalisation Institute, a Brussels-based think tank.

In a submission to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, the Institute says:

“These directorate generals gobble up hundreds of millions of European taxpayers’ money without providing any meaningful benefit to the public. Abolishing them would free up money for the European Commission’s core work on the environment, trade and ensuring competition, and give scope to member states for tax cuts.

The departments that the Institute proposes scrapping include, among others, Information Society and Media; Communication; Regional Policy; and Education & Culture (which runs no schools).

In addition, the Institute proposes that three internally-focussed departments should be privatised and face competition: Informatics (the IT department), Translation (the largest translation service in the world) and the Joint Research Centre (which produces contract research to Commission departments).

The proposals would reduce directly-employed staff in the Commission by 10716.

According to Alex Singleton, President of the Globalisation Institute:
“The Commission is in desperate need of reform. As we move from yesterday’s outdated vision of the “European Project”, it’s time to get rid of these wholly unnecessary departments. We cannot afford the overhead of so many needless bureaucrats in Brussels.”

The report can be read here

Of course my only criticism of the report is that it lacks ambition. How about the Committee of the Regions, the European Social and Economic Committee. Oh I could go on.

What could they mean by this?

TEBAF Walstrom is at it again, and this time she wants your children. Acording to her statement today, accompanied by a cringemaking video, European institutions should stop blaming each other for failing to convince us the public about how frightfully spifing they are, but instead should get together and,

Identifying the aspects of school education where joint action at EU level could support Member States;

So how do you go about home schooling?

Agora: Brussels speaks to Brussels, again

The Agora system is a format by which the European Parliament can get a handle how the outside world is thinking, in particular about the whole Constitutional thingy.

There will be an Agora meeting just before the October summit in Lisbon, and I have the invite list in front of me.

I can tell you that 554 NGO's and Quasi NGO's have been invited along to this boondoggle.
Going through the list I note that only one is coming from a eurosceptical perspective, and that is the Freedom Association. The others are either funded or unfunded fellow travellers.

Thus they pay people to come to tell them what they have paid them to say. They then can go and say that they have listened to civil society.

Did you really write that Margot?

This has got be a contender for "Pseud's Corner"

"this year’s Tällberg Forum which is an international meeting place for people from all walks of life who want to work for a sustainable future. (Theme this year: “How on earth can we live together?). Have a look at their blog and at the comments from guests in previous years. It’s a wonderful mixed crowd where titles and hierarchies are put aside. At Tällberg you can see royalty, like the Swedish King (or as this year the Queen of Jordan), together with a teacher from the US, a French actor and a professor from South Africa. A journalist asked me if this was not just another talk-shop? I said that sometimes talk-shops can be useful for generating new ideas, creating better understanding or allowing people to build networks. People come here because they want to make a change. They get inspiration and support, find common causes and start up projects together. Tällberg is like a waterhole in the desert where you take a pause, breathe – you leave rested, full of energy and new ideas, thinking there is actually hope for a better future".

Wonderful mixed crowd! The Queen of Jordan, an EU Commissioner, a French actor, a South African Prof?
What planet do you live on you simpering tube of crimped organic drapery? Mixed, like the petit fours at Au Crocodile are mixte.
"a waterhole in the desert where you take a pause, breathe – you leave rested, full of energy and new ideas, thinking there is actually hope for a better future".
People pay you... hold on people pay you because if they didn't they would go to prison. And you have a say in my future? Tell me it isn't true Margot, tell me they don't let you into the conclave when decsions are being made. I really cannot bear the thought of such diaphonous drivel being listened to anywhere oustide of the Priory clinic.