To bee or not to bee: now that is a very serious question!

by Ahmet Bütün

Albert Einstein once said, “If the bee disappeared from the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left.”(1)

Time to “Bee” serious for Europe! Increasing bee mortality throughout Europe is starting to worry the EU authorities. A press release by European Parliament on 25 November 2010(2) blatantly suggests that the decrease in apiculture and increase in the mortality of bees may eventually result in a food crisis in Europe as most of the plants and crops are pollinated by bees. The European Parliament calls for EU to pay extra attention on measures against bee mortality the next time common agriculture policy is revamped.

Bees’ only job is not to produce honey. They also pollinate plants which are consumed by animals and people. (3) This fact gives bees a sine qua non role within the balance of the nature.

According to British Bee Keepers Association, only between 2007 and 2008 the bee population in the UK dropped by 30%.(3) Scary figures like this made European Parliament adopt a resolution asking the Commission “to do more to aid the beekeeping sector in the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2013, by reviewing legislation, boosting funding and stepping up investment in research.”(2)

Members of the Parliament also demand an action plan for combating the bee mortality which would include pollinator-friendly farming practices, more effective veterinary controls for bees, independent researches and revising the rules of pesticide usage.(2)

_________________________________________________________

1.Snopes.com (updated: 2007-04-21, retrieved: 2010-12-13)

2. European Parliament, Urgent call to save bees (updated: 2010-11-25, retrieved: 2010-12-13)

3. BBC, Why are Europe’s bees dying? (updated: 2008-11-20, retrieved: 2010-12-13)

Commission to heat up the Nordic Countries

A research done in 19.11.2010 by Eurostat has been recently published in EU Commission’s Directorate General of Economic affairs website.

The research is about the monthly tourism shares of the EU27 countries in 2009. The research indicates that the third quarter of the year is the high season and accounted for 43% of the 2.2 billion nights spent in the EU27 in 2009, followed by the second quarter with 26% of all nights spent, while the first quarter (15%) and the fourth quarter (16%) can be considered as the low season1 for tourism.

Europe being the world’s number one tourist destination yet still, the report says that commission is working on ways to extend the tourism period to maximize tourism revenues. For this reason Eurostat examined the total and monthly distribution of nights spent in collective tourist accommodation in EU27 countries.

The results indicate that people choose to visit Northern countries in July and Southern Countries in August. There are also no surprises there because July is the hottest season for the Northern Countries2 and as a person who lived in Sweden for 2 years I really can’t blame those people for choosing to visit Nordic countries in July, I would actually suggest those people to go there in July. Maybe because of my bad personal experience with cold weather during my stay in there, I really wonder what the commission has to offer to the people, to motivate them to visit those countries during winter in which the temperature may goes down till −20 °C.

My personal suggestion will be complimentary blanked and hot chocolate but I am sure we will be hearing from the Commission a clever solution about this issue because the tourism revenues are quite important for all European Countries and if the highest monthly shares in the Nordic countries of Denmark (24% of all nights spent in July) and Sweden (22%), Estonia (16%) and Finland (15%)3 extends to all year, that will boost the economic gains of those countries.

The Commission’s good job ,extending the seasons in Southern countries like Austria and Cyprus which are also mentioned in the report, is just filling us with hope that we will be witnessing an increase in the tourism revenues in the Nordic Countries really soon.

Can Olgu ERDEREN

Cars green and green and green….

The European Commission has decided to be more green with the environment and to reduce CO2 emissions. The Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport is a key player in this aim. In fact, in the website is clearly written the next following statement:

“Clean and energy-efficient vehicles are essential if the European Union is to achieve its 2020 targets for improving energy efficiency, increasing the market share of renewable energy sources, and reducing CO2 emissions”.

Is EU a “Venus” in the Wikileaks scandal?

Reading through European and American newspapers, one can easily recognize the difference between the EU’s and the USA’s reactions to the Wikileaks scandal. Applying the distinction made famous by Robert Kagan, it can be said that while US politicians appear to have the characteristics of “Mars” when waging an undeclared war against Wikileaks, EU officials generally have a softer tone about this matter. But what can be implied from the EU’s attitude towards the Wikileaks Cablegate?

Wikileaks can split the EU.

On 9 September 2010, the European Parliament sent some questions to the European Commission about “the WikiLeaks case, transparency, press freedom and access to information in the EU” [1]. The questions, which were based on the news that “the Obama administration had asked several of its allies, including some EU Member States, to consider filing criminal charges against the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange”, concerned the Commission’s viewpoint and actions towards Wikileaks. On 16 November 2010, the answers to these questions were given, thereby the Commission emphasized that it “has not taken any action towards Wikileaks and has no power to take any measure such as censorship or website blocking”, and that it respects the freedom of expression and information [2].

In another rare statement under the EU label, EU home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmström said “the latest cyber-attacks on Wikileaks make the case for the EU to criminalize the software tools enabling such crimes”, and confirmed that “the commission has proposed to criminalize botnets, the viruses and malicious software which were apparently used to attack WikiLeaks”. In both Ms. Malmstrom’s statement and a discussion paper prepared by the EU’s anti-terrorism co-ordinator Gilles de Kerckhove, for an EU interior ministers’ meeting on the first week of December, “state-driven or state-sponsored attacks” are highlighted as a risk to cyber security [3].

In general, EU officials have only mentioned the Wikileaks scandal from the merely IT point of view. On the Digital Agenda Communication from the Commission (26/08/2010), politically-motivated cyber attacks are  addressed briefly, in only one sentence [4]. According to EUobserver, EU spokespeople refused to comment officially on the leaks, “but senior EU officials interviewed on an anonymous basis by EUobserver… say it will have practical and political implications for EU foreign-policy-making” [5].

Meanwhile, some EU governments sound more frank than their supranational bodies when openly defending the US in the Wikileaks scandal [6]. Notably, “British police have arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on a European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden in a case of alleged rape” [7]. I doubt this is just an excuse. Several weeks ago, Vietnamese democracy activist Cu Huy Ha Vu was arrested for using a prostitute while in fact, the woman who was with him on the night he was arrested is only his friend. Whenever reading about Julian Assange, I always think about Cu Huy Ha Vu case, and wonder why such democratic governments like Sweden and the UK can act exactly like a Communist state.

In conclusion, the Wikileaks case  illustrates not only the difference between “Venus” EU and “Mars” USA, but also shows the split between supranational and national reactions in the EU, in which the supranational bodies can act like “Venus” while national governments can act like “Mars”. However, this Cablegate might make the EU tighten the cooperation between the information technology and external affairs fields. Cyber attacks might be considered to be caused not only by all kinds of viruses which destroy computers and network systems or invade personal privacy, but also by hackers  who want to disclose state secrets.

T Pham

[1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2010-7329&format=XML&language=EN
[2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2010-7329&language=EN
[3] http://euobserver.com/22/31409
[4] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF
[5] http://euobserver.com/24/31422
[6] http://euobserver.com/891/31378
[7] http://euobserver.com/24/31445

Single Market at the Service of Citizens!

In the EU citizenship Report, European Commission proposes measures to strengthen the Single Market, These measures are:

• A Single Market for growth: The Single Market Act calls for action to make the lives of all market participants – companies, consumers and workers – easier.
• Making citizens’ lives easier: When they exercise their EU rights to get married, buy a house or register a car in another EU country.

As it is mentioned in the report key priorities measures for business, consumers and workers for growth of a Single Market is composed of:

The Commission will help SMEs to access to finance easier;  simplifying rules and improving their access to contracts and introducing a common tax base for businesses, leading to further cost saving. [1] Therefore key priorities for entrepreneurs (SMEs) includes: Easier access to finances, simpler rules, and common taxes “leading to further cost savings”. Does cost saving, mean, paying low taxes and lower salaries to workers?

Besides, for social business Commission will propose European statues to create volunteer (charity) organizations to fed poor people and ill people to be healed. [2] Commission claims for equality and talks about volunteers association? It is easy to make equality for people without paying.  It is easier to improve help for poor people than trying to make equality and fight against poorness. Further, why is it needed to make such charity associations at the European level, while they are typically national associations? Instead of creating charity organisation at the European level, wouldn’t it be more efficient to really enhance social Business by banking, low cost housing, job social agencies and social health insurance at the European level?

Key priority for consumers is creating an “Online Commerce.” [3] Is it facilitation for consumers or for sellers? Is it for firms to accede to larger market or for consumers to find more products?

Key priority for workers is creating a “Professional I.D. card.” [4] Is it to offer workers better salaries and work conditions? Or is it for firms to find anywhere a larger “human resources” for market?

In other words, it is to facilitate firms and companies to move across national states borders; to look for local rules and places to produce by low costs; facilitate workers to move to find better salary; and to insure poor people in need to be helped easier by facilitating volunteers associations to distribute food and health!

Free natural movement of liquid and gas always go from high pressure to low pressure places. For firms and workers, it is the same. But what is the engine of the movements for them? For firms, going from high pressure to low pressure, means from high salaries, high social rights, and high taxes countries to lower salaries, weak social rights and low taxes places. For workers, going from high pressure to low pressure, means going to places where social rights and salaries are higher.

We easily imagine that those two natural flows are contradictory!! Shall we go to a Europe where firms have low costs but no workers in one side, and in other side workers and no firms?

The only way to create equality all around Europe, wouldn’t be by adopting supranational rules and balancing the flows to install free conditions of movements for workers and firms? Does movement led by the social and economic common interests  more than led by low costs? The only chance for Europe to be a “new world” is to make economic conditions at the service of citizens, not to force workers at the service of economy. And this will be possible only by harmonizing Taxes, Social rights, salaries and social insurance.

Therefore, free movement of workers and firms will be led by other pressure laws, like Brownian Motion  in a liquid or a gas, making homogeneous and harmonious the firms and people redistribution all around Europe.

Fatemeh

Barroso is watching you!

By Paul Bongers

The year 2011 almost commences, but “2020 Starts now”. That is the message that the President of the European Commission José Manuél Barroso conveyed to the European Council on February 11 of this year.[1] In 2020, Europe must have emerged stronger from the economic crisis and a 10-year strategy with “ambitious, but attainable” measures will ensure that.[2] The last of the seven “EU flagship initiatives” – sets of goals in different policy areas – will be launched in early 2011 which will be the prelude to the “Europe 2020” strategy for “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”.[3] With the first Annual Growth Survey in January 2011 as a kick-off for the first “European semester of policy coordination”, the European Union is well underway to 2020.

But what does this mean? The European Commission is going to coordinate the advancement of the flagship initiatives. This will be done throughout the year by “appropriate” – so it says in the report – monitoring by sectoral councils.[4] Every year in mid-April member states have to report on policy implementation and the Commission will give case-by-case recommendations in June. During the second half of each year the member states will have to arrange budgets as to the guidance of the Commission. In January, through an Annual Growth Survey, the Commission will research if the member states have taken their guidance into account.

Barroso’s flagship initiatives may be “ambitious, but attainable”, but so is the coordination of the implementation process. Nonetheless, the annual reports and structural monitoring is to be encouraged. The flagship initiatives aside, maybe there is already a great victory to be obtained merely in enforcing implementation of European legislation by 2020.

---

[1] Click here, visited on 2010-12-13.

[2] Click here, preface, visited on 2010-12-13.

[3] Click here, visited on 2010-12-13.

[4] Click here, visited on 2010-12-13.

 

EU suspends animal cloning

Imagine that you go to the supermarket to buy a piece of meat. The next day you once again go to buy meat and as the meat from the day before was absolutely incredible you decide to buy the exact same piece of meat! And as the meat comes from a cloned animal you can buy the exact piece of meat day after day after day![1] This could be reality in the nearest future!

Since the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, was cloned in the mid-1990s the controversial subject of cloning has been a widely debated issue across the world. While the controversy in the 1990’s primarily were founded on morality, ethics, and religious concerns about cloning, the debate today primarily focus on how cloning can be utilized in the most productive manner in particular in regard to stem cell research. One of the most recent examples of this debate is centered on the utilization of animal cloning for food production.

On October 19^th 2010 the Directorate General of Health and Consumer Policy of the European Commission announced that the Commission would propose a temporary suspension of animal cloning for food production in the European Union for a five-year period.[2] The announcement comes after several heated debates within the European institutions and particularly in the European Parliament who in September 2008 adopted a resolution which support the issue of banning cloning entirely.[3] However, John Dalli, the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy stated that even though the EP clearly emphasized it wishes to have cloning banned entirely the Commission stood firm in its conviction that the proposal will not suspend cloning for uses other than food, such as research, conservation of endangered species or use of animals for the production of pharmaceuticals.[4]

The reason the Commission announced the policy proposal in October was due to the recently published report by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that documents that there is no difference between offspring of clones and other animals in regard to food safety. [5] Others have disputed the arguments claiming that due to the lack of evidence and lack of knowledge on the subject it is too soon the conclude that it would be safe to eat cloned food.[6]

The main question is whether or not the customers would be interested in purchasing cloned food. According to the report An Evidence Review of Public Attitudes to Emerging Food Technologies published by the British Food Standards Agency in 2009 only 41% of men and 28% of women are likely to consume either meat or milk products that come from cloned animals or their offspring.[7] Even though the statistics are pretty clear is it unlikely that the consumers will reject cloned food if it would be available at the supermarkets. According to associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, Jesper Lassen, studies with genetically modified food show, that if the food is available in stores as regular products consumers will purchase it.[8]

JHK

---

[1] http://www.taenk.dk/?cid=7805

[2]http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1349&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ibid.

[5] http://www.taenk.dk/?cid=7805

[6] Ibid.

[7] See the entire report on http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/emergingfoodtech.pdf

[8] http://ing.dk/artikel/91688-danskere-er-villige-til-at-koebe-klonet-koed

A new way to curb the crisis?

While the EU has been undergoing a serious financial crisis like the rest of the world, new developments are on their way. According to the press release of the Commission with regard to future of the VAT system in the EU, the Union is in need of a new, reviewed VAT system. It is one of the most important stable revenue sources for the member states. However, why is there a need for a new VAT system?

Complexity of the current system

One of the very reasons for a review in the VAT system is its current complex situation. The complexity in the VAT rules results in unnecessary costs and administrative burdens for businesses. Simplifying the system will lead to better efficiency in administrative issues for businesses and better results in preventing VAT fraud activities emanating from the fragilty of the system complexities.

Making the single market work better

The fact that transactions made domestically and within the borders of the EU continue to be trated differently for VAT purposes may be an obstacle to the better functioning of the single market. Reducing the complexity of the VAT rules is a key element in creating a better environment for businesses so as to reduce administrative burdens and thus further facilitate cross-border activity, which will lead to a more compound single market.

Maximising revenue collection and tackling the system’s susceptibility to fraud

The current economic situation has attracted attention to the role that VAT plays in ensuring economic stability and growth. As mentioned earlier, VAT stands as one of the most important revenue sources for Member States. By 2008 VAT receipts accounted for 21.4% of the national tax revenues of EU Member States (including social security contributions). Moreover, given the impact of ageing societies on labour markets, savings and consumption patterns and public expenditure in the years to come, taxation systems will have to be adapted. The financing of the welfare state may have to rely less on labour taxes and tax revenues from capital income (savings), thereby further arguing in favour of a shift to indirect taxation.

To his end, the Commission has opened the floor for public debate with regard to the review of the VAT system. Accordingly, it has pressed a Green Paper which sets out questions under a few broad headings and provides a brief but thorough analysis of the current situation. The public consultation will be open untill May,31, 2011.

O.Tekin

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/consultations/tax/2010_11_future_vat_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/semeta/headlines/news/2010/12/20101201b_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do? reference=MEMO/10/633&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

EC went soft

In “Die Presse”the ‘soft’ procedure against France on the Roma expulsions is seen to be a setback for EU Commissioner Viviane Reding. There will be no legal action against the French government when it comes to ‘Roma discrimination’. Instead, an infringement procedure has been started because of France not applying the 2004 directive on Freedom of Movement .

—— Our comment ——

Viviane Reding’s strong comments on the French expulsion of the Roma demanded the European Commission (EC) to take a stance on the matter. Whereas on September 14 she was willing to take the French government to the European Court of Justice for not applying the 2004 Freedom of Movement directive, now she had to soften her tone.

The EC must have realised that by taking France to court because of ‘Roma discrimination’ could constitute a precedent for other European countries that will or have taken measurements of expulsion. For instance, should the EC start infringement procedures on Germany? Or Denmark? And what about the Netherlands?

On the other hand, by not setting fierce examples, did the EC clear the road for the other European member states to act likewise?

Either way, the EC has to be clear on their policy towards member states that are about to – or want to – expel their immigrants.

Paula Rosu and Paul Bongers