Walter,
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding just what the EC did in this matter. Germany and France have violated the stability pact and are by EU law subject to penalties. My understanding is that few EU countries want to see the penalties invoked, but that several want to see the stability pact voided as a result of this incident. How does the action reported above affect these questions?
Well, I had troubles as well, but only with my internet connection (the dsl-crosspoint didn't work).
The EU finance ministers had decided to suspend the budget rules. Thus, Germany and France had not violated the stability pact and weren't by EU law subject to penalties.
The European Commission, however, argued different.
Thus, the European Court of Justice will have the final word.
As I understand it, the law suit is about the process, not the wisdom of the decision. The treaty of Maastricht has fairly specific terms about what constitutes a breach, and which sanctions await those who breach it.
Therefore, according to the European commision, it was clear that France and Germany were in violation of the contract, it was clear in which range the punishment would lie, and it was the job of the European finance ministers to decide which point in that range to pick. But they had to pick some punishment within that range. By ignoring the terms of the contract at will and by not imposing any punishment at all, the ministers violated European law themselves.
This is the European Commision's point of view. The European finance ministers disagree of course. Now it's up to the European Court of Justice to determine who's right.
BRUSSELS The European Commission scolded France on Wednesday for not making enough of an effort to reduce its excessively large budget deficit..
In a report on France's mid-term economic forecasts, the European Union's executive body said that the French government's budgetary plans "lack ambition," and warned that Paris is set to burst the deficit ceiling of 3 percent of gross domestic product through 2007..
Italy, Greece, and two of the EU members considered best at budgetary management, the Netherlands and Britain, were warned that their deficits risked breaching the ceiling, the commission said in separate reports on each country..
The warning to member states came as the commission filed a lawsuit against them at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The commission charges EU governments prevented it from penalizing France and Germany from for repeatedly breaching the 3 percent deficit ceiling..
"Europe is going through a difficult period, both in terms of actual developments and as regards the implementation of the EU framework for fiscal surveillance," European Monetary Affairs Commissioner Pedro Solbes said at a news conference..
"We think the risk of breaching the 3 percent threshold in case of unfavorable macroeconomic circumstances is very real," he added..
When he announced this month that he would take the member states to court, Solbes also said that the commission would review the excessive deficit rules, which are now causing a problem for many countries..
France would have to cut its spending further if it is to bring its budget into conformity with the rules by 2007, the report said..
Britain is heading for a budget deficit of 3.3 percent during the 2003-2004 financial year, the commission said, and the Netherlands may also breach the 3 percent ceiling in the coming years..
However, neither country received a formal warning..
The Netherlands need not tighten its belt, Solbes said. "I believe that a further discretionary tightening is not appropriate in the current cyclical conditions and that the current budgetary slippage will be corrected once growth picks up and the government measures start yielding results," he said..
The commission's assessment of France's medium-term budget plan said: "Under plausible macroeconomic and budgetary assumptions, the adjustment path in the program may be insufficient to eliminate the excessive deficit in 2005," Reuters reported..
In the meantime, the commission showed no sign of slackening in its role as monitor of the national economies. Solbes warned France that the risk of its continuing to breach the 3 percent threshold "is very real.".
It described as plausible France's forecasts for modest economic growth of 1.7 percent this year, rising to 2.5 percent beginning in 2005, but said Paris's aim to bring its deficit down to below the 3 percent ceiling next year was unrealistic..
International Herald Tribune
Very interesting situation in several respects, and a number of distinct issues presented;
1. Is the stability pact a good idea from the economic and financial prerspectives?
2. Should the dominant ("core") countries of the EU get a pass on this contractural matter?
3. Have the EU finance ministers acted in accordance with EU law?
4. Is it sufficient for the EC to merely punt this evidently political issue to the European Court? Does the EC have any direct responsibility in the matter?
5. How will all this play out among the candidate members who may already be suspicious of the "core states" dominance and. as well, of their own ability to live within the terms of the Stability Pact?
I hope the EU is able to quickly and successfully resolve these issues to the general satisfaction. I am of the opinion that this matter, the question of voting power in the new EC, and the subsequent constitutional issues will work together to eventually require some structural change in EU governance for their acceptable resolution.
BRUSSELS The European arrest warrant, which replaces traditional extradition agreements among European Union countries, has now taken effect, though only in the eight member states that managed to meet the deadline of Jan. 1. The aim is to ensure that trials of suspected criminals, including terrorists, are not held up by messy extradition procedures..
The proposal for a European arrest warrant emerged in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although it had been in the pipeline for some time, it was the terrorist threat that spurred it on, allowing for political agreement in record time on a highly controversial area of EU law..
But even as this flagship of cooperation on criminal law at the EU level is being initiated, cracks have started to appear. Despite warnings from human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the European warrant system has the fundamental flaw of failing to include human rights among the specific grounds on which a suspect may refuse to surrender. This deficiency is stalling progress..
Governments were nervous about including specific reference to human rights in the text of the warrant documents for fear it would be used by every clever lawyer to draw out proceedings and scuttle the new and efficient procedures. However, at the same time, all EU states have legal obligations under international human rights laws to which they are signatories..
Some member states, in particular Germany, have encountered difficulties in passing through their parliaments the required warrant legislation related to surrender. The human rights issue is also likely to create chaos when the national courts come to consider arrest-warrant cases over the next few months. In fact, recent extradition requests for terrorist suspects between EU member states including Britain, France, Spain and Germany are being held up, or have been refused, due to allegations of evidence gathered through torture or convictions for serious crimes based on scant evidence and in the absence of the accused. This suggests that a lot more work is required before reaching the level of trust necessary for the new system to operate smoothly..
The European arrest warrant can only work if EU member states have mutual confidence in their respective criminal justice systems - that they do, in fact, live up to international and EU human rights standards, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights..
The fact that signing up to the convention on human rights is a prerequisite of EU membership is often cited as evidence of mutual trust. But human rights protection must be real, not just on paper. Amnesty International's recent report to the EU's European network of independent experts on human rights included instances of alleged police brutality and breaches of fundamental rights in eight of the 15 current EU members states and five of the 10 countries about to join..
Amnesty International welcomes the idea of a system ensuring that criminals, including war criminals, do not escape punishment through long, drawn-out extradition procedures. Had the European arrest warrant been in force in 1998, for example, Augusto Pinochet might now be sitting in a Spanish jail rather than enjoying a comfortable retirement in Chile. Under the European arrest warrant system, extradition is decided by judges and not ministers..
But for the warrants to work, there must be a level playing field for the respect of rights in criminal justice sys- tems across the EU. Currently standards vary significantly from country to country and case to case; terrorism is an area that is particularly susceptible to a lowering of the standards of human rights protection..
What is missing is an EU-wide agreement on safeguards governing procedures involving suspects. This means equal access to lawyers and interpreters, steps to combat police impunity, and EU-wide harmonization of how key elements of the European Convention on Human Rights are interpreted, elements like the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial, including the application of the right to silence..
Despite the promises from the European Commission, as yet no such parallel proposal has appeared and it is unclear when, if ever, it will..
Like so many initiatives rushed through after Sept. 11, the European arrest warrant is an example of how there can be no security without human rights. Tragically, some EU governments have still not accepted that it is not the respect for human rights, but the breach of those rights, that undermines effective security and justice..
The writer is executive officer at Amnesty International in Brussels and a specialist in extradition law. She is co-author, with Marisa Leaf, of “The European Arrest Warrant: A solution ahead of its time?”
I dont want to see any human being "set foot" on Mars. As Pillinger says we are not sterile. We a full of horrible microbes, bacteria, parasites and other filth. How dare we infect another planet.
Anyway the Chinese will be first back to the Moon. And on Mars. Any bets?
About the Stability Pact: this is clearly a case of 'the big ones decide'. The fact that the Stability Pact is under fire now comes from the fact that two large EU-countries - France and Germany - do not follow the rules that were set up by the EU to prevent EU-countries from spending too much money. If it was the Netherlands for example who would spend too much, I think we would have been seriously in trouble, because we are a small country.
Anyway, the thing that other EU-countries like the Netherlands are really angry at France and Germany - cause we are -, is because we are seriously cutting on the budget just to get under that 3% budget deficit (although it seems this year we will also be above the 3% budget deficit). Those measurements are very unpopular here, but we know that it will be good for the future, so we just take it and do the best we can, also because we want to follow the EU-rules. So can you imagine a lot of Dutch people are really pissed off by the way France and Germany are acting? This is not about equality, this is just about how much power you have. I think that Europe is far from being really one and equal.
Rick
You see, we (they, the government) were trying to do so here in Germany as well - and failed, ealier than The Netherlands, I admit. :wink:
Yes but in that case Germany should face the consequences, a big fine, maybe not paid immediately but in times when the economy is better. But now, well just let the budget deficit rise to 5%, who cares... :wink:
It seems to me the dispute over the stability pact is particularly unfortunate in its timing, given the large number of new candidate members and the already open dispute concerning voting proportions in the new Commission.
I am truly perplexed by the insistence by France and Germany that the Stability Pact be preserved, despite their own failure to adhere to it. Why not agree to a general relaxation of its requirements as part of a settlement of the France/Germany issues? I really don't understand this. Have I missed an important element in this matter? It is a naturally difficult problem, given the common currency and central bank, along with multiple government budgets and financial policies.
george, It reminds me of how Germany and France continues to disagree with the US on many fronts considering past history. It seems like a complete breakdown of common sense, but I'm sure there are aspects to this that many outsiders do not understand.
georgeob1 wrote: I really don't understand this. Have I missed an important element in this matter?
I don't understand it either. One thing you may have missed, having watched this debate from America, is the importance of prestige-seeking. The rules of the stability pact were written by France and Germany -- mostly Germany -- in an attempt to make sure that fiscal policy in Europe would standardize on something like Germany's fiscal policy before reunification. By relaxing the rules of the stability pact, the political class in these countries would admit that they can't follow their own rules. So they must at least pretend to oppose such a move in order to save face. Never mind it's stupid.
Another important factor is ideology. The politicians who drove European integration during the 90s have turned the Euro and Maastricht into an ideological litmus test. If you were for them, you were a good European. If you you were against it, you were a bad one -- never mind that the case for a single European currency doesn't have any enthusiastic supporters among macroeconomists. At some point, this created a self-reinforcing tide of "Good Europeanness", and in the end, only Communists and extreme Nationalists continued to oppose the Euro. No self-respecting democratic politician wanted to vote with these elements.
This ideology can be felt until today. For example, one important factor behind Germany's permanent slump is that real interest rates are too high in Germany. Our inflation rate is permanently 1 - 1.5 percentage points below the European average, but our nominal interest rates are the same as everyone's in Euroland. In a rational world, this would be regarded as evidence that the Euro might not have been such a good idea -- and among economists, it is. But you won't find any articles to this effect in the business sections of our big newspapers. Ideology can do strange things to people.
Thomas' quote, " For example, one important factor behind Germany's permanent slump is that real interest rates are too high in Germany. Our inflation rate is permanently 1 - 1.5 percentage point below the European average, but our nominal interest rates are the same as everyone's in Euroland. In a rational world, this would be regarded as evidence that the Euro might not have been such a good idea -- and among economists, it is." That's also how I see the problems of Euroland. Not all countries have the same "inflation" rate, so the government is helpless in trying to 'control' it through monetary policy. I see that as one of the biggest drawbacks of the common currency.
georgeob1 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 2:45 pm Post: 551811 -
Quote:"I am truly perplexed by the insistence by France and Germany that the Stability Pact be preserved, despite their own failure to adhere to it. Why not agree to a general relaxation of its requirements as part of a settlement of the France/Germany issues? I really don't understand this. Have I missed an important element in this matter?"
This obviously would be the best of both worlds for these "core states". Kind of like a "Do as I say, not as I do!" situation. They will somehow wheedle out of the pact's economic consequences by some type of compromise with the EU authorities (this would be better than letting this go to court, the result of which might prove divisive). Keeping the pact intact would allow future influence and leverage against those weaker states such as the former Warsaw Pact members who seemed to be viewed as secondary members of lesser stature in the EU. This merely manifests the need for a rethinking towards the stability pact, if not its abolition altogether. But this call for a rethink brings up a salient point.
As a citizen of the U.S., I find the whole idea of the EU, specifically the legislative and legal aspects, lacks a natural real world democratic legitimacy. At present, this legality flows from bureaucratic elites that presume Universal Truths that only a select few are enabled to interpret and apply.
In America, such high faith in authority comes only from its validation by participating citizens. It is the combination of elected legislators, administrators, and judges that works towards laws and policies that not only checks special interests but is, at the same time, answerable to all our citizens. In short, it is the political process that validates our laws and Constitution.
The U.S. does not see International law based on interpretations by bureaucrats and technocrats unchecked by popularism as desirable. America feels a more participatory system, despite its messiness, where laws and constitutions flow naturally from the governed, gives such institutions ultimate legitimacy. Government created by and responsible to the governed is the American concept. If one studies the constitutional creation process in both the U.S. and that of Kosovo, their polar opposition, regarding conceptual ideologies, is manifest. The Iraqis prefer the American method, thus the messiness we find there.
Respectfully,
JM
That is Europe, same old same old. When does the war start?
au, The "war" will be only in words.
