Home

NEW ITEMS SINCE 13 JANUARY 2004

IT BEGAN with a suspicion in the mind of two MEPs, Ilka Schröder and François Zimeray, that European Union funding for the Palestinian Authority was being diverted into the pockets of terrorists. By the time the EU working group had finished its investigation, it had uncovered evidence to show that Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian president, had personally signed cheques to people linked with terrorist activity. This week, fresh allegations have surfaced that money intended for use by the Palestinian Authority for legitimate purposes has been siphoned off by corrupt officials, ostensibly to pay the wages of 7,000 non-existent staff. But rather than prosecutions and the recovery of misappropriated funds, the investigation has concluded with a whimper, petering out in two conflicting reports and an inconclusive debate. What it is has provided, however, is a salutary lesson in the labyrinthine workings of the EU and the possibility that future donations may be subject to rather more scrutiny than that which applied to the $246 million (£134 million) handed over without question to the Palestinian Authority. Ms Schröder and Mr Zimeray’s determination uncovered a murky world where money from the EU’s constituent states was channelled into the pockets of dubious figures in the Palestinian Authority, and from there into the pockets of Palestinian terrorist groups. Ms Schröder was in no doubt about what had happened to the money. In an open letter, she wrote: "It is a well known fact that the EU-funding for the Palestinian Authority was channelled to a black budget. It is also well known that the Palestinian Authority has financed a murderous anti-Semitic terrorist war against Israel . Israel provided the European Commission with proof of this use of EU-funding in May 2002. Since then, the commission denies having any knowledge of this specific use of the money and the Conference of Presidents successfully stalled an inquiry committee on this issue." But from the start, it was an uphill battle. Chris Patten, the EU foreign affairs commissioner, was against any investigation, arguing it amounted to ignoring Palestinian suffering. Ms Schroeder could not stomach that argument: she accused Mr Patten of "winking approval of terrorist attacks funded by the EU". Mr Zimeray and Ms Schröder pressed ahead and, after four months, had the 157 signatures they needed for a vote on the matter. Mr Patten’s attempts to persuade Euro MPs to drop the matter were rejected, and the parliament set up a working group to look into the claims. Already, officials in Brussels were admitting they could not account for every penny spent by the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, the working group ploughed on with its investigations, uncovering plenty of evidence to suggest money had ended up in the wrong pockets. The evidence suggested that money paid to the Palestinian Authority may have found its way to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a group responsible for hundreds of attacks on Israeli targets. There was even evidence to show Mr Arafat had signed payment orders for thousands of pounds for people directly involved in terrorist activity. But when it came to their conclusions, they were divided on how much credence to give to the evidence they had uncovered, with seven members believing it was not of sufficient quality to stand up in court and six prepared to accept it. Charles Tannock, the Tory foreign affairs spokesman in the European Parliament and one of the authors of the minority group’s report, called it a whitewash. He said the majority report had chosen to ignore signed payment orders by Mr Arafat to the tune of $39,000 (£22,000) "to people linked to terrorist activities or their families" on the basis that they amounted to circumstantial evidence only and did not prove that payments had been made. Mr Tannock said that he believed about 270 million (£178 million) had been paid to the Palestinian Authority over a two-year period, with the money going into a single account. "It was all paid into a pot to finance a variety of things, some of them legitimate and some dubious," he said. He demanded a committee of inquiry into the payments, but the request was vetoed and it is unlikely further investigation will take place. ( Scotsman Fri 9 Apr 2004 )

 The North Sea oil industry could face ruin because of the potentially enormous cost of applying new European rules on offshore working time, industry sources warned last night. A House of Lords report said the UK Offshore Operators Association was "very concerned" at the possibility that European Court of Justice rulings limiting doctors' hours could be interpreted to include offshore oil-and-gas rig crews as well. The rulings stipulate that time spent sleeping at work by doctors on call counts as working time and there must be immediate compensatory rest for those on call who are summoned back to work to deal with emergencies, even when they have been able to rest. The report by the European Union committee of the Lords said employers feared "this would have a profoundly damaging impact on staffing requirements and operating costs". Management believed the time spent onshore by rig crews more than covered the rest periods to which they were entitled. A senior offshore source said a strict application across the board of the principles outlined for doctors might require the double-manning of offshore installations, at least for specialists such as medics, senior electricians and engineers. "A wide and extreme interpretation of the court's judgments could be ruinously expensive," the source said. The Department of Trade and Industry told the committee in evidence that the rulings "might well pose problems" for offshore workers. (North of Scotland Press & Journal 08 April 2004 )

Alex Smith, the president of the Scottish Fishermens' Federation, said some  skippers were still being forced to risk their lives because of the days at  sea limits.  Mr Smith said: "It seems not to matter what happens to us and the  Commission seems hell bent on restricting effort, but they have gone too  far. The worry is that we get lumbered with the permit scheme and only 15  days a month to catch the fish involved."  Mr Smith said it was already clear that some white fish vessels cannot make  a living while others were managing to make ends meet by heading for Faroe  and in some cases the Rockall grounds.  "If you talk to some of smaller or mid class vessel skippers some of them  are being virtually forced to go to Rockall which is so dangerous for  smaller vessels at this time of year.  "So there are a number of vessels finding it extremely difficult despite  the fact that we have already destroyed half our fleet. The half that is  left is no better off." (Oban Times April 06, 2004 )

GORDON BROWN is doomed to inherit not a poisoned but an empty chalice, drained of all power. When Tony Blair finally passes control of the Labour Party to his Chancellor he will not be passing on control of Britain ’s destiny. With the signing of the new EU constitution, power will have moved from Westminster to Brussels . Mr Brown’s long fight to prevent the Prime Minister from trading in the pound for the euro will have failed, as will his efforts to keep Britain ’s successful economy from becoming inextricably intertwined with that of the sclerotic EU. Thanks to Mr Blair, Mr Brown will indeed find himself sitting at the top table in EU meetings. But it will be well below the salt, where he will be banging his spoon against his begging bowl for attention. He won’t get it. France and Germany together will have the power to block any reforms the other 23 members propose. It does not take a legal expert to understand these words: “The constitution, and law adopted by the Union ’s institutions in exercising competencies conferred upon it, shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” But it does take a careful reader to notice two interesting points. First, this is a constitution, not, as Mr Blair contends, merely a treaty that “tidies up” earlier treaties. Second, the word “competencies” is deliberately used in place of the word “powers” in an effort to minimise the concerns of the constitution’s opponents. That sets the broad institutional framework, the distribution of power that will prevail during a Brown premiership. The specific frustrations Mr Brown will face will make matters worse. The constitution confers on the EU the power to tax: “The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives.” At precisely the same time as Mr Brown will need to increase the flow of revenues into the Treasury to finance his continued expansion of the public sector, the EU will be tapping into the same revenue stream ­ the pockets of British taxpayers. Worse still, Mr Brown will have to sit helplessly by as his cherished goal of preventing eurowide harmonisation of taxation moves from merely improbable to clearly unattainable. The constitution says: “A European law . . . shall lay down measures for the harmonisation of . . . turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation . . . ” An EU official told me just last week that this certainly includes the harmonisation of capital gains taxes, and if CGT are covered, corporate taxes can easily be shoehorned into the definition of indirect taxes, especially if the body wielding the shoehorn is the European Court. Meanwhile, Mr Blair will have the last laugh on the question of the euro. Again, the constitution is bravely unambiguous: “The activities of the member states and the Union shall include . . . a single currency, the euro, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy . . . ” No messy referendum needed; no need to meet a single economic test, much less five of them. The euro is in, the pound is out. And Mr Brown ’s successful management of the UK economy will come to an end, as the baton is passed to the folk who have brought double-digit unemployment and stagnation to Germany , and periodic nationwide, union-led shutdowns to France . To protect against the possibility that Mr Brown’s powerful intellect will allow him to find some way to maintain his control over the economic fate of Britain , Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and his fellow draftsmen have made sure to close all escape hatches: “Each member state shall ensure that its national legislation, including the statutes of its central bank, is compatible with the constitution and . . . European regulations (and) . . . decisions.” The targets that Mr Brown determined for the Bank of England will be replaced by those of the European Central Bank, and the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street will finally be able to lay down the burden of trying to find an interest rate that, when combined with the Chancellor’s fiscal policy, will keep the British economy inflation-free and growing. Mr Brown is too clever not to realise all of this. But he has a dilemma: should he oppose the new constitution, and lose the support of Mr Blair for his move to No 10, or support the constitution, actively or passively, and inherit an address and an office stripped of the power he has always coveted? To complete this nightmare, imagine that Peter Mandelson’s benefactor grants his wish, and installs the twice-fallen minister as Britain ’s man in Brussels , with more power under the new constitution than Mr Brown can muster. (Irwin Stelzer, The Times April 13, 2004 )

The Government is considering legal action against the European Commission over Gibraltar 's company tax laws. The threat follows a Commission decision this afternoon outlawing government plans for sweeping reforms of Gibraltar 's company tax rules. The changes planned by the UK government  abolishing the current 35% corporate tax rates in Gibraltar and bringing in new taxes capped at 15% of profits  breach EU rules on state aid, according to competition Commissioner Mario Monti. He said the changes would give Gibraltar-registered companies an unfair advantage over UK-based companies which face a 30% main rate of corporation tax  twice the maximum level now planned for the Rock. Mr Monti launched an investigation last October after London formally applied for clearance to change Gibraltar 's corporate tax arrangements. Under the Government's plans, companies registered there would be subject to a "payroll tax" of £3,000 per employee and a "business property occupation tax". The combined tax take under the new system would be capped at 15% of profits or £500,000, whichever is the lower, replacing the current 35% general tax on company profits. Only Gibraltar 's utility companies  telecoms, water, sewage, electricity and fuel  would continue to be taxed at a 35% flat rate. The Government expressed disappointment at the decision, particularly as the proposed tax changes for Gibraltar had already been approved by EU finance ministers. A spokesman said: "We will study this judgment very carefully. The Commission say lower corporate tax in Gibraltar amounts to state aid, but we are convinced that Gibraltar can establish a different tax from the UK and still remain within the EU's state aid rules. " Gibraltar is not part of the UK for this or any other purpose, and going to the European Court of Justice is one of the options we will be looking at." Gibraltar 's Chief Minister Peter Caruana has already pledged to fight the Commission decision in court to win the Rock's right to change its tax laws. (The Scotsman 30 Mar 2004 )

Tony Blair's enthusiasm for introducing ID cards, while no doubt motivated in part by naturally authoritarian instincts, should be seen in the wider context of the drive to create a single EU criminal justice system. This aim forms a major component of the proposed EU constitution.  The European Commission has been funding at a cost of 180 million euros, through its Information Society Technologies Programme, 65 different bodies working for a common ID card. As long ago as April 2000 the member states collectively signed up to the eEurope Smart Cards Charter and in October 2001 EU police chiefs said that "the EU should speed up the universal adoption of ID cards".  Last July, at an e-government conference organised by the Italian presidency of the EU, Andrew Pinder of the UK cabinet's e-Envoy Unit spoke about the need for an "interoperable" ID card across the Union . The conference called for "co-operation between member states and the Commission in order to assess the feasibility and support research on cross-border usage of emerging solutions for identification".  The danger is that if ID cards are introduced in Britain in the near future, a more liberal-minded future administration will not be able to reverse the decision because of the wide-ranging and highly elastic powers relating to criminal justice the proposed EU constitution will invest in Brussels . For this reason, both civil libertarians and democrats who believe in the right of new governments to repeal past, ill-conceived legislation must oppose Tony Blair on this issue. (Letter to Daily Telegraph from Democracy Movement 6 April 2004 )

 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has been criticised by a number of  MPs who believe its approach to the EU Working at Height Directive is overly robust.  The directive outlines safety rules governing the use of ladders and ropes in the work place.  However the HSE's proposed application of the regulations to outdoor adventurous activities has been questioned by MPs in a Parliamentary Early Day Motion - a mechanism allowing MPs to express their opinion on a subject not scheduled for debate.  "This House is surprised and concerned at the attitude of the Health and  Safety Executive (HSE) in respect of EU Directive 2001/45/EC" the EDM states.  The MPs argue that the directive was never intended to cover activities  such as rock-climbing caving and mountaineering and go on to "deplore" the HSE's failure to rule such activities as being outside the scope of the proposed regulations.  The EDM concludes by calling on the "HSE to abandon such gold-plating of sensible suggestions which reduces them to absurdity".  (9 Mar 2004 DeHavilland Information Services plc.)  

The latest figures from Eurostat show that prices differences between Eurozone countries have stayed the same in 2003 and actually increased since the introduction of the euro in 1999.  The possibility of price convergence has been used by the British euro lobby to suggest that joining the euro would 'hold prices down' of everyday goods like jeans and CDs.  But Francisco Caballero-Sanz, head of economic analysis at the internal market directorate, said "Cross-border shopping has been overestimated.  The people of Birmingham don't drive to London to buy their digital cameras. That's why we still see big price differences within countries.  And the people of Athens certainly don't buy their televisions in Vienna , even if they are much cheaper there" (FT, 2 March 2004 ).

The well known Dutchman and EU whistleblower Paul van Buitenen has announced his candidature for the European elections. (EUobserver.com 21.02.2004)

 The socialists in the European Parliament are in turmoil after one of their own members made serious allegations that some members of the group are involved in a expenses scam. Austrian MEP, Hans-Peter Martin, has alleged that some of his colleagues have claimed expenses for meetings that they have not attended. He has subsequently been kicked out of the group. Last Thursday (5 February) Mr Martin removed an attendance register for a meeting which he says proves that some MEPs still claim their daily allowance - to which they are entitled for Parliament attendance in Brussels and Strasbourg - in spite of not participating in the meeting. "The fact is that MEPs last Thursday morning wanted to sign themselves on to an attendance list for a session that was cancelled. With one signing in they have an automatic right to a daily allowance of 262 euro - even when the session does not take place", said Mr Martin in a statement. He continued: "But I drew attention to this. Despite this many social democrat MEPs put their names down". For their part, his colleagues complain about his tactics for gathering information. Socialists spokesman Peter Reichert said that Mr Martin, who is a former journalist for Der Spiegel, got "relatively aggressive". German Socialist MEP Rosemarie Müller alleges she was attacked by him last Thursday - something which Mr Martin strongly denies. An internal note sent round by Ms Müller to her colleagues, seen by the EUobserver, says she thought an apology would not go far enough. "We should not allow that he [Hans-Peter Martin] slanders us in public and presents himself as "clean man" of the European Parliament while at the same time he uses his assistant to watch out and gathers "information" about us", says the note. On Wednesday evening (11 February), the Socialists in the Parliament, condemning the "inquisitorial and policing methods" used by Mr Martin, decided to kick him out of the group when he refused to apologise for his actions. Leader of the socialists, Enrique Baron Crespo, ordered him from the room. Mr Martin himself remains defiant. "I am not going to continue to let myself be silenced and remain obliged to our voters to whom transparency has been promised." He has reportedly received hundreds of emails from Austrians asking him to stand as an independent in the European elections in June. However, he continues to be vilified by many in the group for his behaviour. Various socialists contacted by this news-site accused Mr Martin of "sneaking around corridors". Mr Martin's tactics aside, an opaque expenses system, which allows MEPs to make huge amounts of money on the side, does exist. And reform of the system, which has been debated for years, has found itself back on the Parliament's agenda after it looked like it had disappeared Following a discussion today, Parliament President Pat Cox decided to call a high-level meeting of just group leaders and some advisors on 25/26 February to see if the expenses issues can be resolved. But the Socialists, as well as the biggest group in the Parliament, the European People's Party, are still against reform - said an insider. Spokesperson for the Parliament David Harley said experts are now looking into "transparent legal means for an appropriate compensation mechanism". (EUobserver.com 13/2/04 )

London sees its favored relationship with Washington as a lever  and fulcrum in this balancing act. Maintaining close ties --  economic, political and military -- with the United States allows  the United Kingdom to be part of Europe , while remaining just  outside Europe . This allows London to use its American lever to  sabotage European integration when London feels events are  progressing too quickly (something Washington , always concerned  that a single unity power could emerge in Eurasia , is happy to  assist with) or to test the European waters as domestic politics  allow. From the standpoint of the United States , the United  Kingdom is the European Union's poison pill. (STRATFOR.COM   7 February 2004 )

Re: confidential police databases. A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: "We are looking at documentation  suggesting agencies obtained personal information through a corrupt police  source and then passed information to various media organisations. We have  contacted a number of people we wish to speak to in connection with this  investigation, but we are not prepared to disclose names or the organisations."  The spokesman said that four men had answered police bail last Thursday,  "having been previously arrested by our anti-corruption command as part of  a continuing investigation into passing police information to private  investigation agencies". The four were bailed again, to return on February 4.  One of the men is a 38-year-old police civilian staff member in Wandsworth,  south London , who is now suspended. The others are a 58-year-old former Met  officer who works at a private investigation agency and two directors of  private detective agencies, aged 51 and 54. ( January 20, 2004  The Guardian)

The Commission proposal seeks to remove the VAT exemption for postal services, which has been in place since the 6th VAT Directive was adopted in 1977. Traditionally, this sector was dominated by state-run monopolies, facing little or no competition. It therefore made sense, at the time, to make such services exempt from VAT, in line with the treatment of other public services. However, in the 25 years that have passed since then, postal markets have undergone tremendous changes. The market is being liberalized at European level, and there have also been changes at national level, with several old PTT:s being turned into limited companies. The Commission argues that this has resulted in an uneven playing filed, especially as only services provided by the public operators are exempt from VAT, with the services provided by their competitors being subject to full VAT. It should be stressed that this is not a win-win scenario for either category of operator - the current system has advantages and disadvantages for both. Public operators have a competitive advantage for customers who are not able to claim back VAT, such as private individuals, charities and banks. Although their prices do include a degree of "hidden VAT" (VAT it has paid on its purchases, which it is not able to reclaim), they are likely to be able to offer a total price that is lower than a private operator who has to add up 25% of VAT. Private operators, on the other hand, are likely to be more attractive for VAT registered companies as, although the overall price may be higher, the customer can reclaim the VAT which generally results in a lower net cost to the business. A further disadvantage of the VAT exemption for public operators is that it favors self-supply, i.e. it is more cost-effective for the operator to carry out a service itself rather than subcontracting it as it can not reclaim VAT paid. A case in point is Royal Mail which has recently announced that it will discontinue its (outsourced) mail trains, and instead transport the mail by road with its own fleet of lorries. It is against this background that the Commission proposes that the exemption shall be removed, and proposes that VAT shall be charged at the standard rate for all items of mail, over 2 Kg. in weight, while at the same time giving Member States the option of applying a reduced rate of VAT to items of addressed mail weighing less than 2 kilos. (Commission proposal February 02, 2004 )

Passengers on low-cost airline Ryanair face higher prices after the European Commission ruled that discounts received by the airline from its hub in Charleroi were illegal. Ryanair slammed the decision as "bizarre" and a "meaningless interference in the free market". (EUobserver.com 4/2/04 )

 The head of the UEN group in the European Parliament, Charles Pasqua, has strenuously denied reports in the French media that he received 12 million barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein as a "gift". The former French Minster's name was revealed by an official from the Iraqi oil ministry and the Iraqi media. (EUobserver.com 28/1/04 )

A new study on the population trends of wild birds has shown that numbers have steeply declined.  The study by BirdLife, is based on 24 widespread farmland birds (including Skylarks, Lapwings and Yellowhammers) and shows that numbers have gone down by more than 30 percent since 1980 as a result of intensive farming.  BirdLife, a partnership of conservation organisations for the protection of birds, is now calling on the European Commission as well as current and future EU member states to put the environment and wildlife at the heart of farming policy.   If nothing is done there will be further massive decline and some birds may even become extinct in wildlife-rich new member states, still relatively untouched by the ravages of intensive farming, says the organisation.  Previous research has shown that the population decline of farmland birds has been greatest in those EU countries with the most intensive farming systems.  "Subsidies paid to farmers to maximise output have driven the corncrake out of much of the European Union. In fact, this has been so marked you can pick out the outline of the Common Agricultural Policy imprinted on the distribution map of the bird", said Graham Wynne, chief executive of the The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. (EUobserver.com 21.01.2004)

The European Commission last week announced it would press ahead with a legal challenge to defend the Stability and Growth Pact.  The Commission, which was divided over whether to pursue legal action, said it was asking the European Court of Justice to rule that EU finance ministers should not have suspended disciplinary procedures against Paris and Berlin last November.  A number of senior Commissioners have warned that the challenge in the European Court will only serve to heighten tensions after the collapse of last months talks on the EU constitution.  The Commission is asking for a “fast track” hearing in the European Court , however in reality the case is likely to take months to settle.  (“NO” Bulletin 23/1/04 )

Jacques Delors, the former President of the European Union, this week admitted that Britain was justified in opting out of the single currency.  In an interview with the Times, he said, “Since we have not succeeded in maximising the economic advantages of the euro, one can understand the British saying, “Things are just fine as they are.  Staying out of the euro hasn’t stopped us prospering” (17 January).  Delors predicts that Britain will stay out of the euro for years (“NO” Bulletin 23/1/04 )

The blue ensign to carry the EU ring of stars emblem? - An overwhelming majority of MEPs is against the proposal to display the   emblem of the European Union in a corner of their flags for ships sailing   under the flag of an EU Member State. Two amendments, adopted earlier by   the Transport Committee, were rejected in plenary this morning with   respectively 369 votes against, 137 in favour and 6 abstentions and with   458 votes against, 44 in favour and 5 abstentions. The proposal to   integrate the EU stars onto the national flags had already been heavily opposed in the UK . (2 region-press@europarl.eu.int2/1/04)

Last year saw a big leap in the number of forged euro coins, according to data released by the European Commission today (22 January). Over 26,000 counterfeit euro coins were last year found in circulation and removed by national central banks - up from 2,339 in 2002. Two-euro coins have seen the most counterfeit activity rising from just over 1000 forged coins in 2002 to over 19,600 coins in 2003. Three illegal coinshops were dismantled last year, two in Italy and one in Portugal . Meanwhile, forgers have also been busy on the note front. The European Central Bank today published figures showing that 311,925 counterfeit euro banknotes were removed from circulation in the second half of last year - a 30% increase on the first half of last year. (EUobserver.com 23/1/04 )

An overwhelming number of Austrians -- four out of five -- are opposed to the enlargement of the European Union, an opinion poll carried out by a national newspaper here revealed on Thursday. The poll, carried out by Die Presse shortly after the collapse of talks in Brussels in December on a historic new European constitution, showed that 80 percent were against the adhesion of 10 new European countries programmed for May this year. The poll also showed that 43 percent of Austrians wanted to be part of a so-called "hard core" of EU countries that would forge ahead with policies independently of other members, an idea proposed by France following the summit. Only one third of the 1000 people questioned were in favour of the EU becoming a political union and more than half thought the EU should be reduced to the level of economic cooperation. Just one quarter thought membership of the EU brought more advantages than disadvantages to countries. (Independent 23/1/04 )

ENGLISH fishermen's leaders are considering plans to follow the lead of  Scottish trawlermen in staging a rebellion against the European Union's new  Draconian days-at-sea regime.  The executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations  (NFFO), the English equivalent of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, will  meet on 28 January - four days before the new rules come into force - to  discuss their response to the Scottish white-fish fleet's initiative.  Members of the powerful Scottish White Fish Producers' Association have  already vowed to defy the new 15 days a month fishing limit and fishing  grounds permit system from 1 February. An estimated 120 Scottish white-fish  trawlers and 20 English vessels will be subject to both the new days-at-sea  restrictions and permit rules while most other English demersal trawlers  will be subject to the days-at-sea restrictions. Barrie Deas, the chief  executive of the NFFO, told The Scotsman yesterday that English fishermen  were equally incensed about the new days-at-sea regime which will apply  only to British vessels operating in the North Sea .  He said: "We won't be taking a formal stance until a meeting of our  executive later this month. While we don't have as many vessels which fish  the haddock areas subject to the permit restrictions, we do have a number  of boats which will be similarly affected.  "And we find the conditions associated with the increase in the haddock  quota to be extremely onerous and very difficult to work with.  "These conditions were introduced without any prior discussion with the  industry and they are unreasonably severe and discriminatory. They do not  apply to boats from any other member states, which is completely unacceptable.  "The perversity of the system is that the smaller the mesh you use, the  more days at sea you get," Mr Deas added. (The Scotsman 14 Jan 2004 )

After extensive consultation instigated through the Commission's  Communication on an Internal Market Strategy for Services issued in  December 2000, the Commission published in July 2002 a Report on the State  of the Internal Market in Services, including an inventory of barriers (see  IP/02/1180 and MEMO/02/178). The Report concluded that a decade after the  Internal Market was supposed to be completed, European businesses and  consumers felt that they were still losing out because of the huge gap  between the vision of an integrated European economy and the day to day  reality they experienced. Therefore, a Directive covering the Internal  Market for services as a whole was required. For further details and explanations, see also MEMO/04/3.  The full texts of the proposal and impact assessment are available at:  http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/services/services/index.htm

EU diplomats in Central Europe told Stratfor, however, that   France and Germany are hinting to the new members that they will  withhold access to the development funds for current members  unless they line up behind the Franco-German leadership. This is  a credible threat because France and Germany are the most  powerful members of the EU and they have been willing to block EU  developments that do not go their way. Although the ultimate  allocation of the structural development funds cannot be  predicted, the outcome of the budget talks, which begin in late  2004, will be a test of France and Germany 's ability -- and long- held desire -- to retain a leadership role in an expanded  European Union. Paris and Berlin find the inability to control policy vexing  because they seek to shape the EU into a tool for countering U.S.  hegemony. To do that, they need to break up blocs of states that  oppose their policy goals.  Financial pressure, using such mechanisms as the structural  development funds, is the most effective way to pressure wayward  members. The funds are crucial because they can accelerate  economic growth in poorer member states, the primary lure of EU  membership.   A suggestion by some EU states to implement a cap in the 2007- 2013 budget is another opportunity to apply financial pressure. (STRATFOR.COM   12 January 2004 )

The EU is planning a massive network of speed cameras across the Continent,  the Mail on Sunday can reveal.  Britain already has 5,000 but could be ORDERED to install  more if it fails to meet safety targets set by EU transport commissioner  Loyola d Palacio.)  She wants to halve Europe 's annual road death toll of 40,000 by 2010 and  has called for an even greater network if sophisticated electronic devices  with speed offenders and drink drivers facing prosecution in any EU  country - even as visitors - as part of a pan-European enforcement plan.   Britain already has one of the toughest enforcement regimes in Europe and  it is feared efforts to reduce death rates, inflated by bad driving on the  Continent, will see British motorists being unfairly targeted.  Labour transport committee chairman described the plan as "all embracing  rubbish" but Richard Brunstrom head of road policing for  the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: "We are going to be leaders  in this". (Mail on Sunday 11/1/04 )

Tony Blair may not yet have found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ,  but it seems that his officials have now diverted their attention to a firm  in Letchworth, Hertfordshire, which supplies screen wash and car polishes  to the Royal Family.  Paul Caller, the managing director of Autoglym, which holds warrants for  supplying car-cleaning equipment to Prince Charles and, since January 1,  the Queen herself, was astonished to be issued with a lengthy questionnaire  from the Department of Trade and Industry, asking whether his company  supplied any of the materials necessary to make chemical weapons. In the  pages-long list of substances to be notified were such mundane ones as  acetone, which is used as nail polish remover.  Since Mr Caller's firm makes 1,500 products, using thousands of chemicals,  it took his staff two weeks to complete the form, required under the 1996  Chemical Weapons Act. Although he dutifully complied, this seemed to him  the last straw in the burden of time-wasting paperwork and bureaucratic  interference which, as surveys by the CBI and others regularly show, is  cited by hundreds of thousands of British businesses as their greatest  single problem.  Like many other companies, Autoglym, which employs 135 people, has a  full-time senior member of staff just to co-ordinate its compliance with an  ever-growing mountain of regulations, most of them originating from the EU.  Mr Caller reels off some of the most costly and time-wasting, ranging from  the EC's cumbersome packaging waste regulations to its working time  directive, which even the Government admits has already cost UK industry  £8.65 billion.  "In an industry like ours," Mr Caller says, "much of a firm's research and  development budget can now go just in reformulating products so that they  comply with EC rules." (Sunday Telegraph Christopher Booker's notebook 11/01/2004 )

Publicity for the EU election will  mainly be done by the political parties in each of the 25 member states.  But the parliament itself has allocated a modest amount for publicity ­  nothing like enough to pay for television adverts, but enough to take on PR  consultants to suggest a few stunts.  In the UK , Weber Shandwick has won a lucrative contract from the European  parliament's London office. It appears to be struggling for inspiration. A  televised debate between MEPs aboard the Eurostar train, travelling from   London to Brussels was one idea ­ though why MEPs should be more  interesting on the Eurostar than anywhere else is unclear ­ quite apart  from the unsuitability of a train carriage for a debate. Apparently, the  parliament owns a hot air balloon. Blissfully unaware of the irony of this  to the many members of the public who regard the entire Strasbourg  parliament as a hot air balloon, it asked Weber Shandwick to come up with a  novel way of using it during the campaign.  Its Brussels representative, Nicholas Lunt, explains its plan: "We came up  with the idea of a pro-am balloon debate which would pit MEPs in each  region against each other. They will have selected a celebrity partner who  will have to have agreed that if their MEP loses the debate they will be  jumping out of the balloon on a bungee." (Sunday Herald - 11 January 2004 )

There was outrage in Scotland last week when it emerged how ministers had hidden the details of a fisheries deal struck just before Christmas. By directly discriminating against Scottish fishermen, the deal flouts a central principle of the EU treaty. In a Commons debate next Tuesday, Scottish Nationalist MP Alex Salmond will ask the fisheries minister, Ben Bradshaw, why he allowed the EU to forbid the Scots from fishing vast tracts around the Scottish coast when fishermen of other countries, including several outside the EU, can continue to pull fish worth hundreds of millions of pounds from the same waters.  After negotiations in Brussels that went on for three days and a night, Mr Bradshaw and his Scottish counterpart, Ross Finnie, came out claiming that they had negotiated a good deal for UK fishermen, including a 55 per cent increase in haddock quotas. ( North Sea stocks of haddock are at their highest since 1972.)  It was only after Christmas that the full details emerged. Astonishingly, the agreement includes rules that directly discriminate against Scottish fishermen, in breach of Article 12 of the EU treaty, prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality.  On the east coast, complex rules have been introduced which in effect bar the Scottish whitefish fleet from the North Sea fishing grounds where they have traditionally spent 95 per cent of their time, while allowing continued fishing on the same grounds to French, Danish and German vessels. On the north-west coast, the local fleet has learned that, for 11 months after February 1, it will not be allowed into a huge area where it normally works, even though the same UK waters will still be open to fishermen from Norway , Iceland and the Faroes, which are not even EU members. (C Booker Sunday Telegraph 11/01/2004 )

THE European Commission is going to spend millions of euros to prevent English becoming the de facto official language of the European Union, and to shore up the use of French. The Commission has been pushed into the plan by the French, who are concerned that the language of Molière will become marginalised after the EU's enlargement to 25 countries in May. Language usage is one of the most politically sensitive issues in the EU, with French national pride bruised by the rise of English. The Commission is undertaking a huge recruitment drive from the ten countries joining the EU, and has found that 83 per cent of the new staff speak English and just 24 per cent, French. At present all Commission employees must speak their mother tongue plus one other EU language, which is generally English. The Commission has agreed that all new employees must learn a third language, usually French, before they can be promoted. The Commission will pay for the training for the third language, which will be required of about 5,000 staff by 2008. This is in addition to an existing French government scheme that is paying for civil servants in Eastern Europe to learn French. The new staff regulations are set to be approved by national governments before coming into force in May when the new member states join. It will increase the amount that the Commission spends on language training to nearly €5 million (£3.5 million) a year. Christopher Heaton-Harris, a Conservative MEP, said: "We're talking millions and millions of pounds here for a bizarre element of national pride. It's a mad idea and a huge waste of money. Why are the French so concerned about their language when they have already given up their currency?" The regulations were also criticised by employee representatives. "We don't like the firm link between learning a third language and getting promotion," Alan Hick, president of the Union Syndicale, the main staff union, said. English is the most popular second language in most of the Eastern European countries joining the EU, with French fourth behind Russian and German. After enlargement the number of official languages in the EU will increase from 11 to 20, putting a huge burden on the interpretation and translation service. With 11 languages the number of cross-translations is 110, but with 20 languages it rises to an unmanageable 380. The translation and interpretation services cost €700 million a year, and their availability will be cut back to prevent the cost exceeding €1 billion a year. Interpretation will be available only at the highest-level meetings. (The Times January 09, 2004 )  

A holidaymaker is facing 10 years in a Greek prison after being accused of  using forged euro notes he said he bought at his local Post Office.  Graham Nichols, 45, has already been held for four days in custody and must  return to Greece for trial.  The Post Office, which admitted it bought and sold unchecked currency, said  it could have provided Mr Nichols with the fake notes, but no records were  kept other than that a transaction had taken place.  It is so concerned that it is now introducing mechanical fraud detection  machines at all its bureaux de change. (Daily Telegraph 09/01/2004 )

The European Union is discussing plans to ensure all products manufactured in the EU carry a "Made in the EU" label - a move that could end traditional national origin marks. The European Commission believes such a marking would promote the EU's image abroad, improve consumer information and fight counterfeiting. But there is certain to be fierce opposition from many member states and business groups that fear industry will be saddled with more costs and bureaucracy and restricted in promoting products on the basis of national origin. Brand experts have criticised the plans, arguing that consumers have few positive associations with the EU. They say national origin markings can be valuable in branding and promoting products, and that it is unlikely that a "Made in the EU" marking would carry the same cachet as a "Made in France " or "Made in Germany " stamp. EU officials stress that the Commission has still to decide whether to draw up a formal proposal and that national markings could be allowed alongside the EU stamp. The plan would also need the backing of member states, some of which have made clear their opposition to compulsory EU marking. To brand experts, this is about as close as you can get to commercial suicide. (Financial Times 12/1/04 )

The Government is reviewing guidance on the operation of the Data Protection Act because of growing concern that it could be putting lives at risk. The Soham murders and the recent deaths of a couple who had their gas cut off have highlighted restrictions imposed by the legislation on the passing on of vital information. It was revealed last week that Humberside police had deleted computer records about alleged sex offences involving Ian Huntley because they believed they were complying with the terms of the Act. British Gas recently argued that the Act stopped it informing social services that an elderly couple, who were later found dead in their home, had been cut off.  A chemist was beaten unconscious by a thug who he recognised. He looked in his records and gave the name and address to the police. He was reprimanded for contravening the data protection laws. The Data Protection Act (DPA) was introduced in 1998 and came into force on March 1, 2000 . It was designed to prevent individuals' personal details from being released to third parties without their consent and to regulate information holders such as banks, councils and hospitals.  A sheep wandered onto my land so I noted its ear tag number. When I asked the Ministry who the owner was I was told that this was a secret under the data protection laws. Any changes to the DPA  will have to be by majority decision of the European Commission – Ed. (Daily Telegraph 24/12/2003 )  

JACQUES CHIRAC, France 's president, is clearly not a man who worries too much about the price of vegetables. This month an investigating magistrate in Paris announced an inquiry into how Mr Chirac and his wife managed to spend over euro2.1m on groceries from 1987-95, during his long spell as mayor of Paris before he became head of state. Newspapers calculate that he and his wife Bernadette munched up fruit and vegetables worth up to euro150 ($177) a day, despite having an entirely separate budget for entertainment. Auditors think something smells a bit off. They say that in several instances receipts have plainly been falsified. In one case, a bill of FFr5,000 (then worth $1,000) for foie gras is said to have been doctored by someone to FFr15,000, by adding the figure one at a later date. Given his own rather cavalier attitude to the cost of food, it is perhaps unsurprising that Mr Chirac is unmoved by pleas to reform the European Union's notorious common agricultural policy (CAP). Why should the fact that the CAP adds euro600 a year to the food bills of the average European family weigh heavily with a man who can eat his way through that amount, in fruit and veg alone, in just four days? (The Economist Jun 19th 2003 )

The average person in sub-Saharan Africa earns less than $1 a day. The average cow in Europe -- thanks to government subsidies -- earns about $2 a day. And therein lies a tale of the power of European farm interests, and the weakness of African economies. A burgeoning volume of economics literature argues that the largest factors stunting African economic development include not only disease, drought, warfare and mismanagement, but also the European Union's "Common Agricultural Policy," or CAP. Why? Because the EU's policy has spawned subsidies and tariffs that have richly rewarded European farms and swollen European food output, while depressing world food prices and undercutting African exports.   Yet the economic evidence of harm in Africa has elicited nary a peep, squawk or moo from the EU. Over the past two weeks, European agriculture ministers have been haggling over changes in the CAP, which now consumes some 40 billion euros, roughly half of the EU budget. The EU farm commissioner has proposed trimming subsidies, but France rejected the deal with Germany 's support, and the proposal was shelved.  This deadlock in Europe spells misery in Africa . Take Malawi , for example. Its economy is in shambles: CAP tariffs and quotas keep its chief exports, corn and sorghum, out of European markets; CAP export subsidies help European producers crowd out Malawi sales in third-country markets; and CAP price supports drive down the prices that Malawi crops can fetch abroad by driving up European production. ( Washington Post 22/6/03 )

The Treasury is staging a fight against European Union plans that it fears could force the government to abandon its promise to introduce cheap, off-the-peg savings products this summer.  Ministers are concerned that the EU's proposed investment services directive would bar the sale of any savings product without an adviser first having questioned the potential investor in detail to check whether the product was suitable.  This, they fear, could clash with the government's promise to unveil a range of simple, low-cost savings products that could be sold without advice and with a minimum of paperwork.  The Treasury is soon due to publish its proposals for a range of products that would comply with recommendations by Ron Sandler, author of the government's review of the British savings industry.  A core principle of the Sandler products is that charges would be capped at 1 per cent and investors would not have to pay for advice.  Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MEP, said: "The directive would threaten these financial products. A suitability test would make stakeholder products uneconomic.  "It [the directive] could spell the end of execution-only brokerage and simplified products." (Financial Times June 23 2003 )

 Edward Heath created a secret government propaganda unit to persuade the British people to accept the Common Market. Civil servants were engaged in a dirty tricks department of the Foreign Office to cover up the threat to sovereignty and provide rapid rebuttal of anti-Common Market arguments. The European Community Information Unit operated from 1970 to 1972 as Mr Heath negotiated our way into Europe . But when his No 10 files on the topic were released after 30 years, the ECIU's work was kept secret. A list of 200 files has been quietly released at the National Archives at Kew this month. They show that staff were drafted in from another secret unit, the Information Research Department, that for 20 years of the Cold War had been fighting a worldwide covert battle against communism. Their skills were used to soften up the public for huge price rises in basic commodities such as butter. Sir Con O'Neill, senior diplomat leading the unit, told the team that counter-propaganda, "if any legitimate arguments can be found", was "the most important thing we could be doing in connection with Common Market entry". Officials proposed a health campaign to persuade housewives to buy less butter. A government hospitality fund was used to entice supposedly independent-minded personalities to speak in favour of Europe . A fact sheet on sovereignty was suppressed rather than admit that Parliament would have to accept European regulations that conflicted with its own statutes. Officials were encouraged to spy on the Labour Party's plans to oppose the terms of entry and even drafted speeches for pro-European Labour frontbenchers to deliver at their party conference. The unit was told in September 1970 of its new duties in a five-page memo by Anthony Royle, a Foreign Office minister, after discussions with Geoffrey Rippon, the Europe Minister, and Willie Whitelaw, the Cabinet fixer and Lord President of the Council. Mr Royle expected the unit to find "independent" people to deluge newspapers with pro-Europe letters and to tour Britain speaking on behalf of the pressure group the British Council of the European Movement. They were to be given a secret list of constituencies whose MPs were anti-marketeers. Mr Royle wanted close liaison with leading Labour pro-marketeers, but said: "I should not do this personally as it might emerge that ministers have been colluding with the Opposition. (Daily Telegraph 23/06/2003 )

The European Union's draft constitution proposes radical reforms of the EU's institutions - more sweeping than those in the Single European Act and the Maastricht and Nice Treaties combined. Many reforms have been debated but little attention has been paid to the most critical: the reform of EU decision-making procedures. This lack of scrutiny is astounding. Decision-making rules are at the heart of any constitution. Most EU laws are adopted by majority voting. These laws are binding in all member states - including those that opposed them. Crafting such rules must be done with care. Nations should assess their stake in decision-making, since this affects how often they end up with laws they have opposed. Our research* demonstrates that the constitution's rules would make it much easier to pass EU laws, improve the EU's decision-making efficiency and would shift a great deal of power to the four largest members: Germany , France , Britain and Italy . The consequences of transferring power to the larger countries is obvious. The implications of improved efficiency are subtle but just as important, since the constitution will transform the balance of power among EU institutions. The increased decision-making efficiency stems from reform of majority voting in the Council of Ministers. Instead of the Nice Treaty's complex system, the Council would pass EU laws when half the members, representing at least 60 per cent of the EU population, vote for it. This would make it easier to achieve a winning majority in the Council. Under the Nice rules, only about 2 per cent of all conceivable coalitions constitute a qualified majority. Under the Constitution's rules, over a fifth of all coalitions will achieve that goal. Such a change primarily benefits the European Commission. It has a monopoly right to propose legislation. This right - which amounts to a "pre-veto" over legislative ideas that it dislikes - gives the Commission influence over the shape of EU laws. On each law every member in the Council has particular concerns. The law that passes does not have to address all these concerns - only those of countries representing at least half of the members and 60 per cent of the population. With so many ways to form a winning coalition, the Commission will have more choice over which concerns it pays attention to. One hopes that the Commission will act in the best interests of Europe , of course. But constitutions should be about power, not hope. Indeed, the extra power makes it ever more important that the Commission is viewed as an honest broker by all national governments. Limiting it to 15 members is a bad idea. Since the Commission's own decision-making rule - simple majority - is highly efficient, the constitution should allocate one voting Commissioner per country but allow the Commission president to give portfolios only to the 15 most capable. The European Parliament also gains. The constitution would strengthen its power over EU legislation in two ways. First, it would require parliamentary approval for most EU laws, including many that are now decided only by the Council. Second, the greater decision-making efficiency means legislation will be passed more quickly. In contrast, the Council of Ministers loses. It does not decide which proposals it votes on - that is the Commission's job. Making it easier to find a winning coalition reduces the Council's influence on what is passed. After all, when many alternative winning coalitions are possible in the Council, the coalitions can be played off against each other - either by the Commission with its "pre-veto" power or by the parliament with its actual veto. The reforms now contained in the draft constitution were deemed so sensitive they were rejected at the summits in Amsterdam in 1997 and Nice in 2000. So does their inclusion in the draft constitution indicate a change of heart among EU leaders? (Financial Times 23-6-03 )

From the 11 July, there will be in excess of eight billion euros of our money allocated to political parties across the European Union. In true democratic fashion (and as hinted at in the Nice Treaty) the rules are framed to ensure that none is likely to reach parties that are eurosceptic. The sheer arrogance of this festering organisation is breathtaking. (The Scotsman 23/6/03 ) 

EU Commons debate Wednesday 18 Jun 2003 Fabricant MP referred to a US Treasury study costing our membership of the EU. According to the analysis undertaken by the US Treasury, the World Trade Organisation gives us access to European markets regardless of whether we are members of the European Union. I have an interesting document produced by the US Treasury about two years ago. It goes into considerable detail about the direct and indirect costs and benefits accruing from our membership of the European Union. Its strange conclusion-it is strange because it runs contrary to everything that we are told-is that the net benefit to the United Kingdom is minus US $40 billion a year. Putting it crudely, that is equivalent to about £500 for every man, woman and child in this country every year, or to almost doubling our state pension overnight. (EU Commons debate Wednesday 18 Jun 2003 )

A training school for Italian TV showgirls is being funded with £900,000 of European Union money, it emerged today. The cash has been earmarked to train 97 girls in how to wear a bikini, dance, sing and put on their makeup. It works out at just under £10,000 per bikini - more than twice the average cost of a year's tuition at an Italian acting school. Details of the school emerged only hours before Italy 's embattled Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was due to address officials on how he plans to use his six months as EU president. Italian TV is awash with programmes featuring scantily-clad women appearing on quizzes and football talk shows. Viewers may expect to see more of the same after the 97 prospective students have completed their 10-month training period. The 600 hours is divided up into 180 of theory and 420 of practice. Classes take place in Frattomaggiore, near Naples , which has one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe . Training will only take place for three hours a day and the girls who take part will also be paid £5 towards expenses. The company awarded the funding, First Tel, is run by Antonio Del Prete, Gennaro Iannuzzi and Pietro Vittorelli. Today none of the men was available for comment but the local regional council was adamant the money was not being wasted. A spokesman for the authority said: "Far from training showgirls the money will be used to teach aspiring female entertainers." ( 02/07/03 Evening Standard)

A draft law by the European Union to address sex discrimination may force insurance companies to stop using gender as a basis for calculating premiums, the Financial Times said today on its Web site, citing the legislation. The law seeking to address sex bias outside the workplace is in the final stages of preparation in the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, the FT reported. Drawn up by Anna Diamantopoulou, the EU social affairs commissioner, it would bar insurers from calculating premiums or annuity rates on the basis of gender, the FT said. The European insurance industry is lobbying against the law, it reported. The legislation would ban stereotypical portrayals of men and women in advertisements and the media, the paper reported. That would be open to interpretation by law courts, the FT said. (Financial Times June 23, 2003 )

New programme Active European citizenship: grants to civic participation actions, 2004-2008 action programme   Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION establishing a Community action programme to promote active European citizenship (civic participation)    PURPOSE : to provide a basic act for the funding of programmes actively promoting European citizenship. CONTENT : the European Union is committed to promoting active European Citizenship. For several years support has been provided for this commitment under headings in Part A and B of the EU's budget. They include co-financing for the operating costs of: - the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union; - the "Our Europe " Association;- European think-tanks and organisations advancing the idea of Europe;- the activities of associations and federations of European interest; - the European Council on Refugees and Exiles; - the Jean Monnet House and the Robert Schuman House;- town twinning schemes in the EU; - the promotion of European citizenship ; - measures for civil society by means of grants to non-governmental organisation and trade union organisations; and - the operating costs of the Platform of European Social NGO's. The adoption of an EU Council Regulation on the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities and the decision to base the structure of the Commission budget on an Activity Based Budgeting (ABB) approach require basic acts to be adopted for a number of grants hitherto financed under appropriations entered in administrative appropriations of the Commission section of the budget. The purpose of this Decision is to adopt an act providing a basis for grants towards the promotion of active European citizenship and is to last for a period of five years (2004-2008). The amounts provided for are largely based on those allocated in the budget of the European Union for the 2003 financial year. The total amount proposed is EUR 113.092 million. (WELCOMEUROPE, 5 rue de Douai - F - 75009 Paris Phone: 33+1 42 54 60 64 / Fax: 33+1 42 54 70 04 30/6/03 )

UK-US Extradition Treaty Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Government have already indicated that the treaty excludes the need to produce evidence of guilt to support the extradition claim. Given that the United States of America contains 51 different jurisdictions, and that in some of them the standards of investigation and trial are questionable to say the least, how do the Government justify that? Lord Bassam of Brighton : My Lords, it is the case that we intend to remove the requirement for prima facie evidence to accompany extradition requests. There has been no secret about that. We drew attention to that fact in an Answer to a parliamentary Question by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. We do not see any difference between the United States as an established democracy and the other signatories to the European Convention on Extradition, which comprise some 40-plus countries. (Lord’s Hansard 13 May 2003 : Column 128)

A dangerous and disagreeable piece of legislation comes before the House of Lords today . In order to implement the EU's directive on higher-dose vitamin supplements, the Government proposes to ban nearly 300 products currently on sale in our health stores. The proscription of these vitamins is the first in a series of EU regulations dealing with alternative remedies. A second directive, covering herbal medicines, is already clanking its way through the machinery of state. There are proposals to regulate homoeopathy, and even to require a standard European qualification for herbalists (who, in England and Wales , have operated under a statute dating from Tudor times). The formal justification given for these restrictions is something called "the precautionary principle". This idea, which is very faddish in Brussels , holds that nothing should be legal until it can be shown to be safe. In other words, it reverses the burden of proof. Health stores are being asked to show that their wares are not deleterious to human health - an impossible task, since no one can prove a negative. Herbalists may be able to point out that no one has suffered by buying their products; they might be able to show that a particular substance has been prescribed without harmful side-effects outside the EU for hundreds of years. But none of this is enough for the Commission, for this law has less to do with health than with power and money. It is being pushed by large pharmaceutical corporations, which have seen the opportunity to squeeze their smaller competitors out of the market. These proposals should make you angry, whether you are a regular user of alternative medicine or whether you have never been inside a health shop in your life. Whatever the efficacy of the substances concerned, there is no evidence that they are dangerous. The issue is not one of science, but of freedom. Here is a horrible demonstration of how the EU system can work, elevating corporate interests over individuals, and tossing aside all considerations of liberty and fairness in pursuit of harmonisation. Voting against the legislation is, alas, only a gesture, since EU rules come into force automatically in Britain , but it is a gesture that should be made none the less. (Daily Telegraph 30/06/2003 )