DOCSLIB.ORG

The European Union in the Interests of the United States?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Heritage Special Report SR-10 Published by The Heritage Foundation September 12, 2006 Is the European Union in the Interests of the United States? A CONFERENCE HELD JUNE 28, 2005 GLOBAL BRITAIN Is the European Union in the Interests of the United States? June 28, 2005 Contributors Listed in order of appearance: John Hilboldt Director, Lectures and Seminars, The Heritage Foundation Becky Norton Dunlop Vice-President for External Relations, The Heritage Foundation Senator Gordon Smith United States Senator for Oregon Lord Pearson of Rannoch House of Lords Christopher Booker Journalist and Editor The Rt. Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory MP House of Commons Daniel Hannan, MEP Member of the European Parliament Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute Yossef Bodansky Former Director, Congressional Task Force against Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare John C. Hulsman, Ph.D. Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation Ruth Lea Director, Centre for Policy Studies Diana Furchtgott-Roth Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Ian Milne Director, Global Britain Mark Ryland Vice President, Discovery Institute Marek Jan Chodakiewicz Research Professor of History, Institute of World Politics Kenneth R. Weinstein, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer, Hudson Institute Judge Robert H. Bork Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. Vice President, Davis Institute for International Studies, The Heritage Foundation Edwin Meese III Chairman, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Questions from Audience Listed in order of appearance: Paul Rubig Member of the European Parliament Ana Gomes Member of the European Parliament Sarah Ludford Member of the European Parliament Michael Cashman Member of the European Parliament Tom Ford United States Department of Defense Bill McFadden Unknown Helle Dale Heritage Foundation © 2006 by The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002–4999 (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org Contents Welcome and Keynote Address . 1 Panel One: The European Union: “The Nature of the Beast . 6 Panel Two: The Atlantic Alliance and National Security . 20 Panel Three: The European Union's Impact on U.S. Business . 34 Panel Four: The View from Europe . 45 Panel Five: European Courts Establishing Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court . 52 Closing Remarks . 62 The sponsoring organizations extend special thanks to Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Global Britain for their leadership in presenting this conference and for kindly providing the transcript published here. June 2005 There could not be a better time to open a debate in Washington DC on the impact on the United States of developments within the European Union. The current saga of the European Constitution provides a fascinating glimpse into the workings of the minds of the European political and bureaucratic elites. The Constitution which these elites designed takes the continent in a fundamentally new direction. It requires the full endorsement of every Member State. Yet how have the elites reacted when first the French, and then the Dutch, peoples rejected the proposals in nationwide votes? Have they accepted that the Constitution cannot now be ratified? Not at all. They argue that ratification must continue in all Member States no matter what the cost or the waste of resources. With such a blatant disregard of democratic will is it any surprise that people so distrust the direction in which the European Union is heading? Just as the people of Europe must now ask searching questions, it is equally right that decision makers in the United States assess the consequences of a more bureaucratic, more centralised Europe, where issues such as foreign policy and defence are increasingly decided in Brussels rather than by national governments. What will be the effect on the NATO Alliance? Or for American/ EU cooperation on issues such as fighting international terrorism, on stemming nuclear proliferation, or on managing the transition of China towards growing political, economic and military power? Let alone on wider questions of free trade? So this conference is timely and I hope that it will focus greater attention on the need to strengthen our Atlantic ties rather than weaken them as we face a more uncertain world. Welcome and Keynote Address JOHN HILBOLDT: At The Heritage Foundation, limited government, individual freedom, free enterprise, tradi- tional American values, and strong national defense are fundamental and guiding principles. We are pleased today to co-host an all day conference on the future direction, and indeed the wisdom of a European Union and its place in advancing the fundamentals of freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society that we at Heritage envision, not just for America, but for all the nations around the world. Hosting this morning’s first address is Becky Norton Dun- lop. Mrs. Dunlop is Vice President for External Relations here at The Heritage Foundation. Prior to joining the Foun- dation she was Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Cabinet of Governor (and now Senator) George Allen. In addition to serving in the Reagan Administration as a Deputy Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel, Special Assistant to the President and Director of his Cabinet office, and a Senior Special Assis- tant to the Attorney General, Edwin Meese, Mrs. Dunlop was Deputy Undersecretary at the Department of the Interior and Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. She currently serves as a board member for numerous public pol- icy organizations and associations, and directs Heritage’s national and international outreach to conservative move- ment organizations and policy leaders. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome my colleague, Becky Norton Dunlop. BECKY NORTON DUNLOP: Thank you very much, John, and let me add my words of welcome on behalf of my colleagues at The Heritage Foundation, Dr. Edwin Feulner, our President, and all of the rest of us here who so much appreciate our friends coming across the Atlantic Ocean to visit with us. I’m also delighted to tell you this morning that The Heritage Foundation is going to be establishing a Margaret Thatcher Freedom Center. And the purpose of this Margaret Thatcher Freedom Center will be to house and promote and advance the ideas of liberty that Prime Minister Thatcher—and now Baroness Thatcher—has championed throughout her life. This program that we are hosting today is really the first program that we are able to hold under the auspices of the Margaret Thatcher Freedom Center, and I would like to share with you what Baroness Thatcher wrote in a letter to us today. I just want to read briefly from it: There could not be a better time to open a debate in Washington D.C. on the impact on the United States of developments within the European Union. Then she talks about the current state of the European Constitution, and she goes on to say Just as the people of Europe must now ask searching questions, it is equally right that decision makers in the United States assess the consequences of a more bureaucratic, more centralised Europe, where issues such as foreign policy and defence are increasingly decided in Brussels rather than by national govern- ments. What will be the effect on the NATO Alliance? Or for American/EU cooperation on issues such as fighting international terrorism, on stemming nuclear proliferation, or on managing the transition of China towards growing political, economic and military power? Let alone on wider questions of free trade? So this conference is timely, and I hope that it will focus greater attention on the need to strengthen our Atlantic ties rather than weaken them, as we face a more uncertain world. So I’m delighted to share that letter and make that announcement about the Margaret Thatcher Freedom Center. As John mentioned, I did serve in the Reagan Administration where we talked a lot about federalism—the con- cept of federalism as it was discussed by our founders. And, in fact, I always like to pull out my little copy of the U.S. Constitution, and remind everyone that the Tenth Amendment is still there. And the Tenth Amendment of the Con- stitution of the United States—which, as you can see, is very brief —says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now, ladies and gentlemen, if, in a Constitution of this size, we have this very explicit language, and yet even today the balance of power in the United States has shifted tremendously from the states to the central government in Washington D.C. I think it is right that all of us, those in Europe, in the nation states of Europe, ask themselves how can the rights of the nations and the rights of the free people in Europe be protected in a Constitution which 1 Is the European Union in the Interests of the United States is so voluminous that most people have not even read it. Fortunately, I think we can say that the people of France and the Dutch people made a wise decision in their rejection of that Constitution. We are very fortunate this morning to be able to kick off the conference with a very learned, interested and great leader of our country, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. Senator Gordon Smith is from the west of the United States of America, but he has long had a personal interest in European history. He studied European history in college, and during his time in the Senate, he has served as chairman of the Europe Sub-Committee of the Senate Foreign Rela- tions Committee. He did that for six years and now he has moved on to other assignments, which are many. He serves on four major Senate committees: Commerce, Science and Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources, Indian Affairs, and the Finance Committee.
Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

    Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

    Tuesday Volume 540 21 February 2012 No. 266 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 21 February 2012 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 723 21 FEBRUARY 2012 724 reviewed for potential savings following the Treasury-led House of Commons pilot exercise that I described, which was undertaken at Queen’s hospital, Romford. Tuesday 21 February 2012 Oliver Colvile: Given that the PFI process has been proven to have flaws in delivering value for money for The House met at half-past Two o’clock taxpayers, what effect does my right hon. Friend feel that that will have on new commissioning boards? PRAYERS Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will know from the very good work being done by the developing clinical [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] commissioning groups in Plymouth that they have a responsibility to use their budgets to deliver the best BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS care for the population they serve. It is not their responsibility to manage the finances of their hospitals LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR or other providers; that is the responsibility of the LONDON (NO.2)BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER) strategic health authorities for NHS trusts and of Monitor for foundation trusts. In the future, it will be made very TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (SUPPLEMENTAL TOLL clear that the providers of health care services will be PROVISIONS)BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER) regulated for their sustainability, viability and continuity Second Readings opposed and deferred until Tuesday of services but will not pass those costs on to the 28 February (Standing Order No.
  • EU Election Results

    EU Election Results

    EU Election results 28 May 2019 EU Elections Timeline WC July 8 30 September - Election of 10 October Committee Chairs 28 May and Vice-Chairs Parliamentary hearings of Commissioners designate First meeting of 1 Conference of 20-21 June Presidents (political Nov group laders) European Council 15-18 Jul New Commision decides nominee takes office European Council for Commission top European Parliament dinner to take stock jobs (Presidents of elects the European of EP elections Commission, Council Commission President and ECB) WC 1 July June Election of EP vote of consent on June European the new Commission Parliament + European Council Elected candidates President and formally appoints the negotiate to form VPs Commission political groups for the upcoming Parliament’s 9th term July - September November - December Appointment of MEPs 2-4 July Member States Exchange of views on to EP Committees & propose members multinational priorities, Inaugural plenary Delegatiolns of the Commission Commission Work session of the newly- Programme elected Parliament Appointment of political group coordinators (lead) on Committees The European Parliament’s 9th term will begin on 2 July, when Members of the European Parliament will meet for its first session in Strasbourg, France. MEPs will elect the President, the 14 Vice-Presidents and the five Quaestors of the House and decide on the number and 2 Jul composition of Parliament’s standing and sub-committees - thereby launching the new legislative term. 2 Seats distribution for the new European Parliament (EU28) - Left–right political spectrum Source: https://election-results.eu/ The scramble for a new majority coalition For the first time since 1979, Europe’s centre-right and centre-left political groups will be too small to form a majority in the European Parliament between them.
  • European Parliament Elections 2014

    European Parliament Elections 2014

    European Parliament Elections 2014 Updated 12 March 2014 Overview of Candidates in the United Kingdom Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 CANDIDATE SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................. 2 3.0 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: VOTING METHOD IN THE UK ................................................................ 3 4.0 PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATES BY UK CONSTITUENCY ............................................ 3 5.0 ANNEX: LIST OF SITTING UK MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ................................ 16 6.0 ABOUT US ............................................................................................................................. 17 All images used in this briefing are © Barryob / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 / GFDL © DeHavilland EU Ltd 2014. All rights reserved. 1 | 18 European Parliament Elections 2014 1.0 Introduction This briefing is part of DeHavilland EU’s Foresight Report series on the 2014 European elections and provides a preliminary overview of the candidates standing in the UK for election to the European Parliament in 2014. In the United Kingdom, the election for the country’s 73 Members of the European Parliament will be held on Thursday 22 May 2014. The elections come at a crucial junction for UK-EU relations, and are likely to have far-reaching consequences for the UK’s relationship with the rest of Europe: a surge in support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) could lead to a Britain that is increasingly dis-engaged from the EU policy-making process. In parallel, the current UK Government is also conducting a review of the EU’s powers and Prime Minister David Cameron has repeatedly pushed for a ‘repatriation’ of powers from the European to the national level. These long-term political developments aside, the elections will also have more direct and tangible consequences.
  • Conservative Party

    Conservative Party

    Royaume-Uni 73 élus Parti pour Démocrates libéraux Une indépendance de Parti conservateur ECR Parti travailliste PSE l’indépendance du Les Verts PVE ALDE l'Europe NI Royaume-Uni MELD 1. Vicky Ford MEP 1. Richard Howitt MEP 1. Andrew Duff MEP 1. Patrick O’Flynn 1. Paul Wiffen 1. Rupert Read 2. Geoffrey Van Orden 2. Alex Mayer 2. Josephine Hayes 2. Stuart Agnew MEP 2. Karl Davies 2. Mark Ereira-Guyer MEP 3. Sandy Martin 3. Belinda Brooks-Gordon 3. Tim Aker 3. Raymond Spalding 3. Jill Mills 3. David Campbell 4. Bhavna Joshi 4. Stephen Robinson 4. Michael Heaver 4. Edmond Rosenthal 4. Ash Haynes East of England Bannerman MEP 5. Paul Bishop 5. Michael Green 5. Andrew Smith 5. Rupert Smith 5. Marc Scheimann 4. John Flack 6. Naseem Ayub 6. Linda Jack 6. Mick McGough 6. Dennis Wiffen 6. Robert Lindsay 5. Tom Hunt 7. Chris Ostrowski 7. Hugh Annand 7. Andy Monk 7. Betty Wiffen 7. Fiona Radic 6. Margaret Simons 7. Jonathan Collett 1. Ashley Fox MEP 1. Clare Moody 1. Sir Graham Watson 1. William Dartmouth 1. David Smith 1. Molly Scott Cato 2. Julie Girling MEP 2. Glyn Ford MEP MEP 2. Helen Webster 2. Emily McIvor 3. James Cracknell 3. Ann Reeder 2. Kay Barnard 2. Julia Reid 3. Mike Camp 3. Ricky Knight 4. Georgina Butler 4. Hadleigh Roberts 3. Brian Mathew 3. Gawain Towler 4. Andrew Edwards 4. Audaye Elesady South West 5. Sophia Swire 5. Jude Robinson 4. Andrew Wigley 4. Tony McIntyre 5. Phil Dunn 5.
  • Common Ground

    Common Ground

    Common Ground – for Mutual Home Ownership Soaring mortgage costs for first-time buyers in the South of England mean that those worst affected are workers on average incomes of between £15,000 and £25,000 per year, who are neither poor enough to rent from a social landlord nor rich enough to rent or buy in the open market. This problem is having huge effects on retaining public sector workers in such high cost areas and current government schemes to tackle this issue have proved inadequate. Common Ground sets out a radical approach to securing permanently affordable housing for key workers (and also potentially for others on similar income levels) in areas that would otherwise be unaffordable. The housing model proposed includes a Community Land Trust, designed to take land out of the market and keep it as a public asset so that affordability is preserved on a long-term basis, and co-operative tenure. The Mutual State in Action 3 The Mutual State in Action is a series of publications which build on the ideas presented in The Mutual State – the report of a collaborative programme by the New Economics Foundation and Mutuo which invited contributions from a broad range of organisations to explore the potential for the mutualisation of public services. The Mutual State aims to put the public back into public services. Through user participation, accountability to the local community or recasting public services as self-governing social enterprises, a new mutuality could refresh and invigorate our public services. The first book in the series was A Mutual Trend: How to run rail and water in the public interest by Johnston Birchall and the second, The Mutual Health Service: How to decentralise the NHS, by Ruth Lea and Ed Mayo was a collaboration between the Institute of Directors and nef.
  • SYRIZA, Bloco and Podemos

    SYRIZA, Bloco and Podemos

    Transnational networking and cooperation among neo-reformist left parties in Southern Europe during the Eurozone crisis: SYRIZA, Bloco and Podemos Vladimir Bortun The thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Portsmouth. March 2019 Abstract European parties to the left of social democracy have always lagged behind the main political families in terms of transnational cooperation at the level of the EU. However, the markedly transnational character of the Eurozone crisis and of the management of that crisis has arguably provided a uniquely propitious context for these parties to reduce that gap. This research project aims to establish whether they achieved that by focusing on three parties that were particularly prone to seeking an increase in their transnational cooperation: SYRIZA from Greece, Bloco de Esquerda from Portugal and Podemos from Spain. For these parties not only come from the member states most affected by the crisis, both economically and politically, but they also share several programmatic and strategic features favouring such an increase. By using a mix of document analysis, semi-structured interviews and non-participatory observation, the thesis discusses both the informal and formal transnational networking and cooperation among the three parties. This discussion reveals four key findings, with potentially useful insights for wider transnational party cooperation that are to be pursued in future research. Firstly, the transnational networking and cooperation among SYRIZA, Bloco and Podemos did increase at some point during the crisis, particularly around SYRIZA’s electoral victory in January 2015. Secondly, since the U-turn of that government in July 2015, SYRIZA’s relationship with both Bloco and Podemos has declined significantly, as reflected in their diverging views of the EU.
  • European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009

    European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009

    European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009 Elections to the European Parliament were held across the 27 states of the European Union between 4 and 7 June 2009. The UK elections were held concurrently with the county council elections in England on 4 June. The UK now has 72 MEPs, down from 78 at the last election, distributed between 12 regions. The Conservatives won 25 seats, both UKIP and Labour 13 and the Liberal Democrats 11. The Green Party held their two seats, while the BNP won their first two seats in the European parliament. Labour lost five seats compared with the comparative pre-election position. The Conservatives won the popular vote overall, and every region in Great Britain except the North East, where Labour won, and Scotland, where the SNP won. UKIP won more votes than Labour. UK turnout was 34.5%. Across Europe, centre-right parties, whether in power or opposition, tended to perform better than those on the centre-left. The exact political balance of the new Parliament depends on the formation of Groups. The UK was not alone in seeing gains for far-right and nationalistic parties. Turnout across the EU was 43%. It was particularly low in some of the newer Member States. Part 1 of this paper presents the full results of the UK elections, including regional analysis and local-level data. Part 2 presents summary results of the results across the EU, together with country-level summaries based on data from official national sources. Adam Mellows-Facer Richard Cracknell Sean Lightbown Recent Research
  • Women in Power A-Z of Female Members of the European Parliament

    Women in Power A-Z of Female Members of the European Parliament

    Women in Power A-Z of Female Members of the European Parliament A Alfano, Sonia Andersdotter, Amelia Anderson, Martina Andreasen, Marta Andrés Barea, Josefa Andrikiené, Laima Liucija Angelilli, Roberta Antonescu, Elena Oana Auconie, Sophie Auken, Margrete Ayala Sender, Inés Ayuso, Pilar B Badía i Cutchet, Maria Balzani, Francesca Băsescu, Elena Bastos, Regina Bauer, Edit Bearder, Catherine Benarab-Attou, Malika Bélier, Sandrine Berès, Pervenche Berra, Nora Bilbao Barandica, Izaskun Bizzotto, Mara Blinkevičiūtė, Vilija Borsellino, Rita Bowles, Sharon Bozkurt, Emine Brantner, Franziska Katharina Brepoels, Frieda Brzobohatá, Zuzana C Carvalho, Maria da Graça Castex, Françoise Češková, Andrea Childers, Nessa Cliveti, Minodora Collin-Langen, Birgit Comi, Lara Corazza Bildt, Anna Maria Correa Zamora, Maria Auxiliadora Costello, Emer Cornelissen, Marije Costa, Silvia Creţu, Corina Cronberg, Tarja D Dăncilă, Vasilica Viorica Dati, Rachida De Brún, Bairbre De Keyser, Véronique De Lange, Esther Del Castillo Vera, Pilar Delli, Karima Delvaux, Anne De Sarnez, Marielle De Veyrac, Christine Dodds, Diane Durant, Isabelle E Ernst, Cornelia Essayah, Sari Estaràs Ferragut, Rosa Estrela, Edite Evans, Jill F Fajon, Tanja Ferreira, Elisa Figueiredo, Ilda Flašíková Beňová, Monika Flautre, Hélène Ford, Vicky Foster, Jacqueline Fraga Estévez, Carmen G Gabriel, Mariya Gál, Kinga Gáll-Pelcz, Ildikó Gallo, Marielle García-Hierro Caraballo, Dolores García Pérez, Iratxe Gardiazábal Rubial, Eider Gardini, Elisabetta Gebhardt, Evelyne Geringer de Oedenberg, Lidia Joanna
  • Ian Peters John Philpott Alan Reece Robert Rowthorn Candida Whitmill

    Ian Peters John Philpott Alan Reece Robert Rowthorn Candida Whitmill

    Nations Choose Prosperity Nations Choose Prosperity: Why Britain needs an industrial policy Ruth Lea (editor) Brendan Barber Ian Brinkley Ian Fells David G. Green Ian Peters John Philpott Alan Reece Robert Rowthorn Candida Whitmill Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society London First Published June 2009 © Individual authors Civitas 2009 77 Great Peter Street London SW1P 2EZ Civitas is a registered charity (no. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales (no. 04023541) email: [email protected] All rights reserved ISBN 978‐1‐906837‐10‐5 Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is fin‐ anced from a variety of private sources to avoid over‐reliance on any single or small group of donors. All publications are independently refereed. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. Typeset by Civitas Printed in Great Britain by Hartington Litho Ltd Lancing, Sussex Contents Page Authors vi Foreword David G. Green viii 1. Introduction: Manufacturing Industry in Britain Ruth Lea 1 2. The Free‐market Case for Industrial Policy David G. Green 10 3. A Union View Brendan Barber 25 4. Manufacturing and the Knowledge Economy Ian Brinkley 29 5. Finding the Energy to Keep UK Manufacturing Going Ian Fells and Candida Whitmill 33 6. A Cab Driver’s View of Manufacturing: Myth or Reality? Ian Peters 36 7.
  • Report 1. the Political

    Report 1. the Political

    National meeting of spokespeople of 15M squares, retrieved from https://madrid.tomalaplaza.net, accessed 20/11/2020. ERC-COG-2016-724692 HETEROPOLITICS Refiguring the Common and the Political D3.1 Author: Dr. Alexandros Kioupkiolis Host Institution: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Principal Investigator: Dr. A. Kioupkiolis ERC COG 2016 (implementation 2017-2020) July 2020 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4 1. The political .......................................................................................................17 1.1. Theorizing the political today .........................................................................17 1.2. On the political (i): state/non-state in political science and theory ..................20 1.3. On the political (i): state/non-state beyond political theory, from ‘personal’ politics to infra-, alter- and micro-politics .............................................................25 1.4. On the political (ii): war or peace? .................................................................38 1.5. Another agonistic politics via Arendt and Rawls ............................................50 1.6. Opening up the political .................................................................................64 1.7. Mapping out another politics, alter-politics or heteropolitics in contemporary political theory and practice ..................................................................................66
  • WHISTLEBLOWING in ACTION in the EU INSTITUTIONS Prepared

    WHISTLEBLOWING in ACTION in the EU INSTITUTIONS Prepared

    WHISTLEBLOWING IN ACTION IN THE EU INSTITUTIONS Prepared for ADIE by RBEUC, Tallinn / Brussels, end 2008 Prelude 1 One of the Grimm brothers’ fairytales basically evolves around three characters: a twisted king with a demand nigh to impossible: to turn hay into gold; a miller’s daughter in serious trouble; and a little man who up to three times helps out the troubled girl miraculously. Facing certain death, the girl even promises the little man her first-born child. Later, when she is a queen and a mother and kept to her promise, it is thanks to the open ears of a loyal royal messenger that she narrowly escapes from this ordeal. Sent out to discover the little man’s secret name, this messenger was at the right place at the right time when he overheard him singing his secret name ( Rumplestiltskin ) in a merry song. Doing what he had been asked to do, the messenger chose sides against the one who had become the enemy of his master. Of his fate we learn nothing: not if he was rewarded by the queen for saving her child, perhaps by marrying the young princess; not if the little man who must have felt that he was ratted out took revenge on the whistleblower; if he lived happily ever after or not was irrelevant. He played his role, and now is no more than a nameless footnote in fairytale history. PRELUDE 2 A whistleblower: “A whistleblower is anyone who discloses or helps to disclose fraud, irregularities and similar problems.” An MEP, in 2002: “If you have the courage to criticise your superiors, you run the risk of being kicked out of your job.
  • Financial Management and Fraud in the European Union: Perceptions, Facts and Proposals

    Financial Management and Fraud in the European Union: Perceptions, Facts and Proposals

    HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 50th Report of Session 2005–06 Financial Management and Fraud in the European Union: Perceptions, Facts and Proposals Volume II: Evidence Ordered to be printed 7 November 2006 and published 13 November 2006 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 270-II CONTENTS Page Oral Evidence Mr Ivan Lewis MP, Economic Secretary to HM Treasury, Mr Chris Austin, Head of EU Finance and Mr Chris Butler, Head of Assurance, HM Treasury Written evidence 1 Oral evidence, 2 May 2006 4 Supplementary written evidence 15 Letter from Ed Balls MP, Economic Secretary 17 Mr Hubert Weber, President, Mr Vitor Manuel da Silva Caldeira, Member, Mr David Bostock, Member and Mr Josef Bonnici, Member, European Court of Auditors Oral evidence, 16 May 2006 18 Commissioner Kallas, Commissioner for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud, Mr Kristian Schmidt, Mr Brian Gray and Mr Reijo Kemppinen, European Commission Written evidence 34 Oral evidence, 6 June 2006 38 Supplementary written evidence 45 Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General, Ms Caroline Mawhood and Mr Frank Grogan, National Audit Office Written evidence 45 Oral evidence, 6 June 2006 48 Supplementary written evidence 53 Mr Ashley Mote MEP, European Parliament and Mr Christopher Arkell Written evidence 56 Oral evidence, 13 June 2006 61 Mr Terry Wynn MEP, European Parliament Written evidence 70 Oral evidence, 27 June 2006 73 Mr Brian Gray, Accounting Officer, European Commission Written evidence