The European Journal

EU Regulations have cost business £53bn

According to the British Chambers of Commerce's Burdens Barometer "the total cost of the major regulations to business approved since 1998 is now £76.81bn." 69.4% of the regulations have EU origin and have cost business £53,3bn.

The European Journal has moved offices

Please note our new address: 83 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HW Tel. +44 (0) 20 31787038

"Devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government"

On 24 March, Gordon Brown addressed the European Parliament. He said "I believe we in Europe are uniquely placed to lead the world in meeting the wholly new and momentous challenges of globalisation ahead precisely because of what we have achieved in our union."

Daniel Hannan has given a very good speech on the ocasion. He described Gordon Brown as the "devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government." He criticised Gordon Brown for "saying one thing here and another thing to your electorate." Listen to his speech here.

Topolánek toppled: loses vote of no confidence

The EuropeanVoice reports: "The Czech government, which currently holds the presidency of the EU, tonight lost a vote of no confidence in the national parliament by 101 votes to 96. The vote throws the EU presidency into disarray and throws into doubt ratification of the Lisbon treaty." Read the article here.

Spending or regulating that is the question

On 19-20 March the EU leaders met in Brussels for the spring European Council. The European Council is confident that the EU is able to tackle the financial and economic crisis. According to the EU leaders “By acting together, the EU can put its financial sector on a sound footing, get credit flowing to the real economy and protect its citizens from the worst impacts of the crisis. Measures taken to support recovery can also be shaped to help the EU to build a stronger economy for the future.”

The Community facility providing medium-term financial assistance enables loans to be granted to one or more Member States experiencing difficulties in their balance of payments on current or capital account. Solely those Member States that have not adopted the euro may benefit from this facility. The outstanding amount of loans to be granted to Member States under this facility was limited to €12 000 million. Last December, the maximum ceiling of the facility was raised to €25 000 million.

In order to deal with their balance of payments Hungary (€6.5 billion) and Latvia (€ 3.1 billion) have already received around €10bn and Romania will follow.

José Manuel Barroso had suggested to the European Council that the EU should double the emergency funding ceiling to €50bn.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, has said "I wonder if increasing this would lead to potential recipient countries leaning back and neglecting their homework because they know that there is a European way out for them." Germany also believed that such increase was not necessary but in the end Angela Merkel agreed to raise the ceiling.

The European Council has stressed “the solidarity between Member States as a fundamental value of the EU.” The EU leaders have therefore agreed to double the emergency funding ceiling to €50bn to help non-eurozone member states with their difficulties in their balance of payments. The European Council Conclusions read “(…) the Community stands ready to provide balance of payments support for eligible Member States that need it and, to this end, welcomes the Commission's intention to make a proposal for doubling the ceiling for the Union's support facility for balance-of-payments assistance to €50 bn.”

On 2 April it will take place in London the G20 summit which is expected to coordinate a global response to the crisis. The European Council stressed that “The G20 Summit in London has a crucial role to play in reshaping the global financial system and rebuilding the confidence of economic actors across the world.”

According to US officials the EU stimulus plans are insufficient to tackle the crisis, consequently they believe that injecting large amounts of additional public money into the economy is, now, the main priority.

The US administration has been pressure the EU to contribute more to global efforts at recovery through economic stimulus. The US has called for the EU to raise its budgetary stimulus to 2% of GDP.

The UK has been generally in favour of pumping more money into its economy. However, France and Germany are strongly opposed to a larger stimulus. In fact, France and Germany united forces and agreed that the forthcoming G20 meeting should focus on greater financial regulation rejecting, in this way, the US calls.

In a joint letter to the Czech EU presidency and to the president of the European Commission, on 16 March, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy wrote "The first priority is to build a new global financial architecture. The European Union must assert a common position and take the lead on this issue." Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel want from the G20 meeting “Concrete results” for further action to strengthen international financial regulation. The letter states “The EU shall propose that all hedge funds and other private pools of capital which may pose a systemic risk must be brought under appropriate registration, regulation and supervision.”

Last December, the European Council adopted a Recovery Plan which calls for a co-ordinated fiscal stimulus of €200 billion equivalent to 1.5% of the EU´s GDP however the EU leaders have stated that the economic stimulus measures in 2009 and 2010 worth 400 billion euros representing 3.3 percent of the EU's GDP which takes into account automatic stabilisers, the budgetary effect of unemployment and welfare spending.

Mirek Topolánek, the Czech prime minister said: “Some haven't implemented their national recovery plans yet, and this is why we still don't know what their impact will be. It is therefore meaningless to start adopting any new rescue packages.” According to the European Voice Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, said: “We want the G20 meeting to focus on financial markets regulation...That is one of the reasons why we told the Americans that we don't want to discuss stimulus packages: we want to sort out the financial markets first.”

The EU leaders have rejected calls from the Obama administration to increase their stimulus package insisting that the estimated €400 billion they are spending is enough. The European Council Conclusions reads “Good progress has been made in implementing the European Economic Recovery Plan adopted last December. Although it will take time for the positive effects to work their way through the economy, the size of the fiscal effort (around 3.3% of EU GDP or over €400 billion) will generate new investments, boost demand, create jobs and help the EU move to a low-carbon economy.”

The European Council has defined the Union's position with a view to the G20 Summit in London on 2 April calling for more regulation of the financial markets. The EU leaders adopted a specific annex to the conclusions entitled “agreed language with a view to the G20 Summit in London.”

The EU leaders want to “continue international coordination of fiscal stimulus measures. Implement swiftly planned fiscal stimulus packages. (…) Give priority to restoring the functioning of credit markets and facilitating the flow of lending to the economy, which is crucial for the effectiveness of fiscal stimuli.”

The European Council agreed that the IMF's resources should be “Very substantially increase (...) so that the Fund can help its members swiftly and flexibly if they experience balance of payments difficulties.” According to the European Council Conclusions “(...)The EU Member States are ready provide on a voluntary basis a fast temporary support of IMF lending capacity in the form of a loan to a total amount of EUR 75 bn.” Such amount would be the EU´s contribution to the general increase in IMF funds, which still has to be agreed. The EU leaders also agreed that the IMF´s system of governance should be reformed. According to the conclusions “Reform the IMF so that it reflects more adequately relative economic weights in the world economy and review the process for the selection of top management for IFIs by making it more transparent and merit-based.”

The European Council has expressed the need for more tighter financial regulation. The US has been rejecting more regulation and Gordon Brown is trying to please both calling for larger stimulus packages and supporting the need for more regulation.

As George Parker from the Financial Times said he “(…) signed up (…) to a sharp tightening of European financial regulation, including some measures that he spent the best part of a decade opposing during his time as Britain's chancellor of the exchequer.”

The European Council called to “Strengthen transparency and accountability to avoid pitfalls of the past, in particular by making macro-prudential supervision a standard part of the financial sector oversight.”

The EU leaders agreed to ask the G20 to “Ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of all financial markets, products and participants that may present a systemic risk, without exception and regardless of their country of domicile.”

The EU leaders commit to regulate hedge funds, private equities, credit derivatives and credit rating agencies. According to the summit conclusions “Subject credit rating agencies to proper regulation and supervision in an internationally consistent manner, to ensure quality and transparency of ratings and avoid conflicts of interest.”

The European Council wants to “Enhance the transparency and resilience of credit derivatives markets, especially by promoting the standardisation of contracts and the use of central clearing counterparties, subject to effective regulation and supervision.”

Moreover, the EU leaders called the G20 to “Protect the financial system from non-transparent, non-cooperative and loosely regulated jurisdictions, including off-shore centres” as well as to “Request the listing of such jurisdictions taking account of recent developments and develop a toolbox of sanctions that permits the application of appropriate and gradual countermeasures.”

The EU will ask the G20 to adopt sound common principles on corporate governance and remuneration practices in order to prevent that compensation schemes incentivise excessive risk taking. According to the EU leaders “Compensation schemes should be reviewed by supervisors, backed-up by an effective enforcement regime.” The European Council also calls for improved regulation relating to banks' capital.

The European Council agreed on the financial arrangements for the €5 billion for the European economic recovery plan

The European Commission’s Recovery Plan called for a co-ordinated fiscal stimulus of €200 billion equivalent to 1.5% of the EU’s GDP. The Commission has recommended the allocation of €5 billion of unspent money from the EU budget to be invested in European energy inter-connections and broadband infrastructure projects.

Last December, the Commission presented a Draft Decision amending the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management as regards the Multiannual Financial Framework, to fund the above-mentioned projects. Re-opening, again, the Financial Perspective 2007–2013 in order to fund such projects, ridicules the process of negotiations of the Financial Perspectives. The EU Member States agreed unanimously on budgetary priorities that should not subsequently be revised through qualified majority. It should be recall that in 2007, the Financial Perspectives were revised to fund the Galileo satellite. The Member States issued, at the time, a declaration stating they had set no precedent for future revisions of the EU's financial Perspectives. Nevertheless, the Commission has said that “In the context of an economic crisis of an unprecedented dimension it suggests (…) to use amounts available within the ceilings of the financial framework which otherwise will remain unspent.”

The Commission has proposed to increase the annual ceilings for commitment appropriations under heading 1A "Competitiveness for Growth and Employment" by €3,000 million for 2009 and by €2,000 million for 2010 which would be offset by a decrease of the annual ceilings for commitment appropriations under heading 2 "Preservation and Management of Natural Resources" by € 3,500 million for 2008 and €1,500 million for 2009.

Several Member States believe that unused money should be given back to them, proportionally to their contributions. Moreover, they have shown, at the last December European Council, their concern with the lack of indications from the Commission on which projects the money would be spent.

Hence, in the framework of the European Economic Recovery Plan, the Commission has adopted a Communication entitled “Investing today for tomorrow's Europe” where it presented a breakdown of how the €5 billion would be divided between energy and broadband projects as well as projects related to the new challenges identified under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Health Check.

The Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy, covering interconnections, offshore wind, and carbon capture and storage. A financial envelope of €3,500 million was proposed for the three sub-programmes. The Commission proposed to use €1.75 billion for gas and electricity interconnection, €500 million would be allocated for offshore wind projects and €1250 million would go for carbon capture and storage. The main volume of payments was foreseen to be made between 2009 and 2012 with the last payments, notably for carbon capture and storage projects, foreseen for 2014/2015.

In order to fund the energy projects, the Commission has proposed to transfer the margin for 2008 of heading 2 of the 2007-2013 financial perspective to heading 1A amounting to €1,5 billion in 2009 and €2 billion in 2010.

In order to improve broadband internet access in rural areas, the European Commission has proposed to mobilize through the existing EU Rural Development Funds €1 billion. The Government supports the Commission’s proposal to fund projects to improve broadband access in rural areas. However, the allocation between Member States would be based on historic allocations under the EAFRD, therefore the UK’s share would be very small and, consequently, not enough to make a considerable impact. According to the Minister for the Natural and Marine Environment, Wildlife and Rural Affairs at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Huw Irranca-Davies, the proposal would entail substantial net costs, the UK would contribute around 15% of the additional financing involved.

The Commission has also proposed to devote €500 million to help farmers to tackle the “new challenges” identified in the CAP health check such as restructuring of the dairy sector, climate change, renewable energy, water management and biodiversity.

According to Commission €1.5 billion could be made available to all Member States via the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development for high-speed internet in rural areas and for the new challenges under the CAP. The Commission has proposed to use the margin under the ceiling of heading 2 for 2009 of the financial perspective.

The Commission would decide the investment available in each Member State on the basis of the current distribution key for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Hence, whereas Germany is entitled to 10% of all spending from the rural development budget the UK is entitled to 2.5%.

According to the Council legal service the money is legally unavailable since there is no possibility of retroactively reviewing the 2008 allocations. Hence, the €3.5 billion margin from the 2008 budget cannot be used but the €1.5 billion may be used since it belongs to the 2009 budget of heading 2. The Commission spokesman, Johannes Laitenberger, has said “We have been aware of this legal position for some time” however "We don't agree with it. In our view, this is not primarily a legal question. It is a question of political will."

Several Member States have raised concerns and asked the Commission to review its proposal. Moreover, they would like to see the money return to their budgets. There are differences between EU Member States, particularly on how to distribute the €3.5 billion allocated for energy projects. Some Member States are not interested in the projects at all. For instances, Germany prefers the Nord Stream pipeline instead of the Nabucco pipeline and the UK does not want to transfer funds aimed at rural development projects to help EU dairy farmers.

Moreover, Germany, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria and France were opposed to use the 2008 budget margin and raised concerns with the proposal to revise the Financial Framework.

There was a deep division among Member States which has led to the list of projects being revised by the Commission for the Energy Council in February. The UK Government has called on the Commission to propose reprioritisation and redeployment of existing resources within both Headings 1a and 2.

The Commission has proposed to allocate €3.75 billion instead of the original €3.5 billion. Under the new proposal €2.1 billion would be allocated for gas and electricity interconnection projects, €1.15 billion for carbon capture and storage and €500 million for offshore wind projects. Under the revised plans there was a reduction of funding from €250 million to 200 million in each of five carbon dioxide capture and storage sites.

As regards broadband internet infrastructure and projects on climate change, renewable energy, water management, biodiversity and dairy restructuring in rural communities the Commission has proposed to allocate €1.25 billion. The Government opposed to this revised proposal because it still drew on the 2008 margin to finance the package.

The Commission was trying with its amends to the sums to reduce the blocking minority of dissatisfied Member States. The Commission has claimed that most member states are pleased with the new list of energy projects. However, the revised list of projects was criticized by several Member States including Greece, Portugal and Spain who deemed it unfair. These Member States have argued that the Commission’s proposed projects affect Northern and Eastern European Member States therefore not much money has been devoted to Southern countries.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council has failed to reach an agreement on how to fund the €5 billion included in the European Commission’s economic recovery plan as well as on the final list of projects to be financed. The EU Foreign Ministers could not agree on the content of the proposals as well as on how to finance them.

The Council concluded that the use of the margin under the 2008 ceilings of the EU's 2007-13 financial framework is not possible. The Ministers have therefore agreed that the money could not come from the EU's budget for 2008 however they could not agree on alternative sources of funding.

Obviously, each Member State is trying to get more money for its projects. The list of projects has been amended in order to address the concerns of several Member States which believe they are not getting enough funding for their projects.

The Member States have also been discussing the time scale for projects. Whereas the UK would prefer to spread spending over a longer period of time because of the CSS projects Germany favours quickly implementation of the projects with spending spread over 2009 and 2010. Angela Merkel has made clear that she would not approve the €5 billion recovery plan except the funding is only available for projects in 2009-2010.

On 20 March, the European Council reached an agreement on the deployment of €5 billion of EU funds for projects in the field of energy and broadband internet as well as CAP Health Check related measures. A deal could not be reached without accepting Germany demands that the funding will only be available for two years therefore the projects which are not ready to begin by the end of 2010 are not entitled to fund. EU leaders specified that the money should be spent within two years in order to ensure that it provides a genuine economic stimulus. The Presidency compromise proposal for financing of the infrastructure projects put forward by the Commission as part of the European Economic Recovery Plan stressed that “It shall be made clear in the text of the Regulation that, due to the urgent need for the stimulus, all legal commitments implementing the budgetary commitments made in 2009 and 2010 should be made before the end of 2010.”

Germany the largest net contributor to EU budget was keen to introduce tight conditions on the use of the fund such as it should be spent by the end of 2010, it should only be available to projects which are already reasonably advanced. Hence, under the compromise text the Commission in assessing the proposals for funding will have to take into account the projects maturity, described as reaching the investment stage as well as the degree up to which lack of access to finance is holding back the implementation of the action.

According to the Presidency compromise proposal €3.98 billion would be allocated for projects in the field of energy which will be spread over two years, €2.0bn will be available in 2009 whilst €1.98 billion will be available in 2010. However, the Presidency proposed amendment of Article 3 of the draft Regulation establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy reads “The financial envelope for the implementation of the EEPR for 2009 and 2010 shall be EUR 4,000 million, allocated as follows: gas and electricity infrastructure projects: EUR 2,295 million, offshore wind energy projects: EUR 505 million, projects for carbon capture and storage: EUR 1,200 million.” Moreover, according to the new list of eligible projects, annexed to the compromise proposal, €1,440 will be spent on gas interconnectors, €910m on electricity interconnectors, €565m for offshore wind projects and €1,050 million for carbon capture and storage projects.

Under the abovementioned list, the gas interconnector Bulgaria-Greece will get €45m instead of €20m. France will get €200m instead of €150 for the Reiforcement of FR gas network on the Africa-Spain-France axis. Germany will get €100m instead of €50m for the Halle/Saale – Schweinfurt electricity interconnector. The electricity interconnection France-Spain New 380 KV AC submarine cable between Sicily- Continental Italy will get €225m instead of the initial allocated €150m. The interconnection Republic of Ireland-Wales will get €110m instead of €100m. The North Sea Grid of offshore wind energy will get €165m instead of €150m. Germany will get €200m for the offshore wind project – Borkum West II.

Angela Merkel has been arguing that no public money should be spent on a project in which Germany has no interest. Angela Merkel has been opposed to fund the Nabucco gas pipeline project with European money. However, there are several Member States, such as Romania, Austria, Poland and Slovakia which have demanded the Nabucco pipeline to be on the projects list. The Nabucco pipeline was included in the list. According to Mark Mardell “In return the Germans get a form of words that suggests German Telecom may get preferential, indeed protectionist, treatment in providing internet connections to rural areas.” The Nabucco pipeline is earmarked to get €200 million.

There was a decrease on the sum allocated to five carbon storage projects which is now €180 million instead of €250m.

According to Gordon Brown “(…) the agreement provides for at least 220 million euros of additional investment in UK carbon capture and storage and off-shore wind projects.”

Moreover, €1.02 billion will be for broadband internet and for measures under the CAP “health check.” Of this sum, €600 million will be taken from margins under Heading 2 in 2009 and €420 million from margins under Heading 2 in 2010. According to the agreement “In order to take into account the requests expressed by majority of Member States, flexibility between the two strands would be allowed.”

According to the compromise text “The financing of all projects would be guaranteed by a political agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in the form of a Declaration annexed to the IIA.” Moreover, the compromise text reads “When the political agreement is reached, the 2009 ceiling of Heading 1a would be increased by the amount of EUR 2 000 mil., offset by a decrease of the 2009 ceiling of Heading 2 by the same amount. This would leave a margin of more than EUR 900 mil. under the 2009 ceiling of Heading 2.” Hence, in 2009, €2 billion will come from a transfer of funds from Heading 2 to Heading 1a. In order to such transfers to take place the multiannual financial framework for 2007-2013 will have to be revised. Given that the sums concerned represent less than 0.03% of the Union’s gross domestic product unanimity is not required but merely qualified majority.

The remaining €2 400m would be funded through a “compensation Mechanism” to be defined. At the conciliation of the 2010 and 2011 budgetary procedure, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission will examine all available sources that could provide for the compensation of funds. However, the €420m for the broadband internet and CAP Health Check related measures in 2010 will be committed first, before the use of the available amount within Heading 2 is considered. According to the compromise text one of the options to compensate the €1.98 billion could be to use all margins left in the different headings at the end of 2009. Moreover, it states that margins left in 2010 and 2011 could be used if necessary.

José Manuel Barroso has stressed that if the €5 billion were not spent within the time limits, the unspent funds would go back to the member states’ except the budget authority decides otherwise.

The compromise text was endorsed by the EU leaders but it still has to be accepted by the Council. The Presidency has a formal mandate to discuss the source of financing with the European Parliament. The deal has now to be accepted by the European Parliament, the second branch of the budget authority. However, according to Claude Turmes, the Socialists, the Liberals and the Greens may form a bloc against the plan.

The European Council has called on the Presidency to speed up contacts with the European Parliament so that the Council and the European Parliament reach agreement before the parliamentary recess. Because of the “urgency” the Commission’s has provided no impact assessment on the projects. Obviously, the behind closed doors meetings would be fully used at the expense of a proper debate and analysis of the proposals.

The Commission strikes again…

On 19 March, the European Commission has sent reasoned opinions to four Member States including the UK for failure to transpose Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community.

Under the Directive, Member States are required to ensure that trucks above 3.5 t gross weight which are not already equipped on the passenger side with wide-angle and close-proximity mirrors be retrofitted with such mirrors.

The deadline for transposition of the directive was August 2008.

The UK has two months to act if it wants to avoid being taken to the ECJ.

Commission to recover €9.5 million of CAP expenditure from the UK

The European Commission has recently decided to claim back a total of € 126.7 million of EU farm money unduly spent by Member States.

The member states are responsible for paying out and checking expenditure under the CAP and the Commission is in charge of ensuring that they have made correct use of the funds.

The Commission verifies, under the conformity clearance procedure, whether the Member States have made correct use of the funds placed at their disposal by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

The Commission recovers sums paid out to Member States where these payments are not in conformity with Community rules or where there are weaknesses in the control and verification system of the Member State.

Under the Commission decision funds will be recovered from Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Greece, Italy and Slovenia. The money returns, therefore, to the Community budget.

The UK will be charged with € 9.5 million for risk analysis used improperly and insufficient verification of documents within export refunds aid scheme.

The European Court of Auditors slammed the European Commission over banking measures in the Mediterranean area in the context of the MEDA Programme

On 18 March, the European Court of Auditors presented a report on “Banking activities covering the Mediterranean basin in the framework of the MEDA programme and earlier protocols.”

The MEDA regulations, which have been replaced by the new European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), covered the period 1996-2006 to provide support for the reform of economic and social structures in the partner countries in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

In order to determining whether projects were being monitored appropriately by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB), and whether they had achieved their objectives, the Court audited the three types of banking activities financed by the EU budget and implemented by the EIB.

The three banking measures funded under the MEDA Regulations or the previous protocols from the EU budget and implemented by the EIB are: technical assistance through the FEMIP (Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership) Support Fund, interest rate subsidies for certain EIB loans and risk capital transactions.

At the end of 2007 such activities represented the equivalent of €1 billion.

According to the Court the European Commission did not carry out its own monitoring activities and relied entirely on the work performed by the EIB. The Court found that until 2005 the EIB’s monitoring work was inadequate. The Court also concluded that coordination was lacking between the EIB's activities and the Commission's, particularly at the local level.

On the achievement of project objectives, the Court found that technical assistance projects had generally achieved their goals. However, the Court’s conclusions were not positive for projects benefiting from low-interest loans and risk capital operations since they only partially achieved their objectives. According to the Court the projects receiving low-interest loans were frequently behind schedule.

According to a member of the Court “The Commission’s response does not contradict our conclusions." Moreover, Igors Ludborzs said “We hope this report will help the budget authority, the Commission and the EIB to assess more accurately the strengths and weaknesses of the MEDA programme.”

EU Commission plans massive interference in second Irish Lisbon Treaty referendum

Anthony Coughlan reports: "According to the Irish Times news report(...), a meeting is taking place in Brussels today between the entire EU Commission and Mr Martin Territt, Head of the EU Commission Representation in Ireland, to discuss how the Commission can influence Irish opinion in the lead-in to Ireland's re-run of the Lisbon referendum next October. It is seemingly planned to spend some ¤2 million on advertisements for this purpose.(...)"

 A few weeks ago the Irish Times carried an advertisement from the EU Commission Representation in Ireland seeking tenders for an advertising campaign in this country to "inform" people better about the EU. Accompanying press reports stated that this advertising campaign is to be specially targeted at women and young people over the next few months, as these are groups which predominantly voted No to Lisbon in Ireland's referendum last June, according to opinion polls."

It is well-known that the EU Commission is itself a highly self-interested party as regards the Lisbon Treaty, for the Treaty, which is a revamped version of the 2004 EU Constitution that was rejected by the French and Dutch peoples in referendums, would greatly increase the Commission's powers and functions and would provide it with many new areas of policy for which it would have the exclusive right of initiative as regards proposing European laws - something that must surely outrage any geuine democrat."

In late 2007 ago, in the lead-in to last year's Lisbon referendum, former Irish Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna and the undersigned complained to Ireland's statutory Broadcasting Complaints Commission about the EU Commission Office in Dublin spending 360,000 on a series of political advertisements on Irish community and local radio stations even though such broadcast advertiments are unlawful in this country, as they are in the UK and various other EU countries."

These EU Commission-sponsored advertisements ostensibly aimed to tell people about the existence of various sources of information on the EU, something that one could not reasonably object to - but they also contained highly loaded and tendentious statements about how much money Ireland had received from the EU over the years, how EU laws had made phone calls and airplane flights cheaper, how the EU had conferred various other benefits on Ireland etc."

These adverts could certainly influence people's attitutes when it came to voting - that being the criterion Ireland's Broadcasting Complaints Commission's uses in deciding whether a broadcast advertisement is "political" or not."

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission upheld our complaint and ruled that the EU Commission's advertisements were indeed political and as such were effectively encouraging Irish broadcasters to breach the statutory ban on political advertising in this country."

If this complaint had not been made and upheld, one can be confident that the EU Commission Office in Ireland would have gone on to repeat these politically potent advertisements on national radio and TV here."

It is quite outrageous from a democratic point of view that the EU Commission and its representative in Dublin, Mr Mertin Territt, should be planning to spend large sums of EU taxpayers' money on seeking to influence Irish voters to reverse their vote of last June on the Lisbon Treaty in order, inter alia, to increase significantly the power of the EU Commission itself."