Posts tagged with: european commission

How about a tax on fires?

On National Review Online, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg examines the push for a “transaction tax” to solve some of the fiscal problems in the European Union. The move would, Gregg explains, “levy a tax on any transaction on financial instruments (securities, loans, deposits, derivatives, and various asset classes) between banks, hedge funds, insurance businesses, investment companies, and other financial organizations whenever one contracting party is located in the EU.” That may not sound like much, but would apply to literally millions of financial transactions daily. The scheme has drawn the support of “EU apparatchiks” but the opposition of the British who see the tax proposal as a threat to London’s financial competitiveness. Gregg sees what’s behind it:

In short, the EU’s transactions-tax scheme reflects a long-standing desire to “throw sand” in the wheels of financial globalization. Its origins lie in what’s called the “Tobin tax,” named after the American economist James Tobin, who argued in 1972 for the levying of a 0.5 percent tax on all spot-currency conversions. The point, for Tobin, was to discourage “speculators” who “invest their money in foreign exchange on a very short-term basis.”

Unfortunately for its advocates, there’s considerable evidence that Tobin-like taxes on financial transactions don’t reduce volatility. In the midst of financial crises, long-term and short-term investors behave in very much the same way — they get out, and transaction taxes don’t prevent them from abandoning ship. Greece, for example, currently applies a transaction tax to the sale of Greek-listed shares. That, however, isn’t doing much to prevent the present exodus of capital from Greece.

Taking the broader view, it’s hard to avoid concluding this latest EU harmonization boondoggle is about two things. First, it’s a way for EU officials and governments to appear to be punishing European financial institutions for their contributions to Europe’s economic crisis. Second, it reflects the general European failure to come to grips with some of the deeper problems contributing to Europe’s debt crisis.

Read “Financial Fiddling while the Euro Burns” by Samuel Gregg on NRO.

Doubtful, at least on these terms. Does the institutional church have to officially advise the government in order to have influence?


European institutions “more open than ever” to church co-operation
By Jonathan Luxmoore

Warsaw, Poland (ENInews)–A senior ecumenist has welcomed growing co-operation between leaders of European institutions and churches, and predicted a growing advisory role for religious communities.

“I think we’re seeing a greater openness today than ever before,” said Rudiger Noll, director of the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches (CEC). “Our latest meeting was triggered by the Arab uprisings and European response, and by Europe’s financial and economic crisis, and in both areas the institution presidents were very clear. What’s needed is a new value-based, community approach in Europe, rather than just an economic system. They’re turning to the churches for this.”

The United Church of Westphalia pastor was speaking after a Brussels meeting on 30 May between 20 religious leaders and the Portuguese president of the European Union’s governing commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, as well as the European Council’s Belgian president, Herman van Rompuy, and the Polish president of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek.

In an ENInews interview on 30 May, he said religious leaders now had regular “institutionalized meetings” with senior European officials, including the EU’s rotating presidency, and “dialogue seminars” on issues of common concern, in line with Article 17 of the EU’s 2008 Lisbon Treaty, which guarantees churches an “open, transparent and regular dialogue” with EU institutions. However, he added that church leaders also hoped to strengthen the structural contacts with a “deeper culture of dialogue.”

“EU leaders have said they didn’t need the Lisbon Treaty to have a relationship with us,” said Noll, whose organization, founded in 1959, groups 125 Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican and Old Catholic churches, and 40 associated organizations.

“Although it would be naive to believe all our member-churches speak the same language, we should at least singing, at the end of the day, from the same hymn sheet – playing different instruments, but making up a single orchestra.”

In his address to the annual meeting, the religious leaders’ seventh with European institution presidents, CEC’s Orthodox president, Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, said the world of faith could “prove a powerful ally in efforts to address issues of democratic rights and liberties.”

A 30 May CEC press release said the mostly Orthodox and Protestant representatives had reiterated their commitment to promote “the rights of minorities and migrants, economic justice, participation, solidarity, freedom of speech and expression as well as religious freedom.”

The meeting followed a 25-28 May annual plenary of CEC’s Church and Society Commission in Brussels, which was attended by religious affairs specialists from the EU’s European External Action Service, Bureau of European Policy Advisors and European Parliament presidency.

A 27 May CEC statement said the commission had agreed to finalize a human rights training manual for European churches and join the Sunday Alliance network, adding that member-churches were committed to operating as “responsible and competent partners for the European institutions,” while seeking to “speak with a common voice and make sure this voice is heard.”

The inclusion of the Church and Society Commission on a new EU Transparency Register, requiring companies and organizations lobbying the EU to have their activities publicly recorded, would “allow for regular and non-bureaucratic exchanges to complement the formal dialogue process,” the statement said.

In his ENI interview, Rudiger Noll said the current openness to churches and faiths was a “common sentiment among EU officials,” but added that CEC also counted on the appointment of a “permanent facilitator” in the 736-seat European Parliament, to ensure dialogue was maintained during an upcoming change of leadership from the center-right European People’s Party to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats.

“When it comes to relations with the institutions, the churches are always surprised to see how much they have in common–the context in which we live is much more important than any theological or confessional divergences,” the CEC Commission director told ENInews.

On Wednesday the European Commission again delayed a decision on whether European farmers may grow more genetically modified (GM) crops. The commission claimed that more scientific analysis is needed before three new crops can be approved. But curiously, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has already twice analyzed the crops and found that they pose no danger to public health.

Divisions seem to have broken out within the commission on how to proceed with GM food. This comes at a time when biotech investors are increasingly exasperated with European procrastination on the issue.

The intra-Commission conflict on GM food is most bizarrely expressed in the open attempts by Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas to discredit the EFSA, an agency set up by the Commission in 2002 in order to specifically investigate food safety concerns. By undermining the authority of the EFSA, Dimas is colliding with Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, who has defended the agency. The result is a complete stalemate which may leave the Europe years behind in biotech investment compared to the US and other countries.

Dimas’s hostility to GM food is cheered on by some environmental NGOs, in particular Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Greenpeace boasts that it orchestrated a campaign of 130,000 emails in order to obstruct the approval of the crops.

These NGOs have virtually no expertise in the area of consumer health research but join Dimas’s ritual attacks on the risk assessments done by the EFSA. It is particularly striking that they try to bring the EFSA into disrepute by implying that the World Health Organization (WHO) is speaking out against GM crops. But here’s what the WHO actually says:

“GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

European worries about food safety are to a large extent based on the experience of the 1990s when a number of food scandals, in particular BSE or mad cow disease, caused understandable anxiety among consumers. All of these scandals, however, were entirely unrelated to GM food; it is irresponsible to exploit these fears in the current debate on biotechnology.

It is not difficult to see that at bottom the controversy is not so much about health and science but about politics and whose ox is being gored. In the European Council of Ministers, more agrarian-based countries like Greece (Dimas’s home country), Italy, Austria and Poland tend to vote against GM foods while states where traditional farming is not as dominant like the UK and the Netherlands are more open to biotech.

The politicization of the GMO debate is especially damaging at a time of global food price inflation. Future improvements in agricultural productivity will become increasingly necessary and biotech can play an important role in this area. The Commission must not allow pseudo-scientific excuses to stand in the way of serving the interests of the European, and indeed the global, consumer.

John Berthoud of the National Taxpayers Union has a piece in today’s Washington Examiner about the battle between Microsoft and the European Commission. Berthoud writes that it is part of a larger “anti-American” program, and “another example of old-guard European protectionism.”

Berthoud writes, “The EC’s actions against Microsoft are not isolated. It has acted against other American businesses as well. For instance, in 2001 the EC blocked General Electric’s planned acquisition of Honeywell. Assistant U.S. Attorney General Charles A. James said at the time that the EC’s decision ‘reflects a significant point of diversion’ with U.S. American antitrust regulators.”

It’s true that Microsoft isn’t the only target, although it is the one of the biggest and perhaps the most significant in the digital realm. It seems that any American company that successfully innovates and offers a valuable product can be threatened by EU regulators. The Commission has launched an investigation against Apple for potential violations of EU law, by selling music for different prices in different countries.

Berthoud gives the following advice to the EU, “Rather than try to stifle American innovation, perhaps Europe should focus more on encouraging homegrown entrepreneurial advances to vie with U.S companies.”

But it seems pretty clear that in the case of operating systems and software, the EU has chosen its horse to favor: open source. Next week we’ll examine some of the claims of superiority that might be influencing the EU’s adoption of open source software.