http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136792/Brussels-orders-EU-flag-fly-Whitehall-day--fined-fail-comply.html
The European Commission has its own dedicated "myth buster" which aims to explain to the masses and media how terrific the EU budget is, and that all claims to the contrary are "euro myths". Despite making some fair points, overall the list is generally silly and counterproductive. For example, it claims that an EU subsidy to a dog fitness centre in Hungary (that never was built) is a "myth", as the money was since paid back. However, it fails to acknowledge that the dog centre was only forced to pay back the EU subsidies once Open Europe and others brought the sorry episode to the attention of international media. The Commission was blissfully unaware at the time we highlighted the example, and showed little interest in investigating the case (even claiming that the finding wasn't "serious"). To then come back and present it as a "myth" is laughable (for exactly how laughable, see here).It illustrates how the Commission likes to take the moral high ground on facts and figures, but often itself engages in spinning exercises that would make Malcolm Tucker proud.
Its presentation for its proposal for the 2013 EU budget, which includes a 6.8% increase in spending, is a case in point. In fact, it was so full of dodgy figures that we felt it was in need of a serious fact-check. So this morning we published one. Here goes (the full fact-check note is available here):
FACT CHECK: THE COMMISSION’S EU DRAFT BUDGET
1. IS THE EU REALLY CUTTING STAFF?
The claim: “[The Commission is] cutting its staff by 1%, the first step towards the goal of a 5% reduction of staff in 5 years”.
The reality: The EU will only cut 6 jobs net out of 41,000 jobs in 2013 while the Commission will reduce its workforce by 0.5%.
2. IS EU ADMIN SPENDING ACTUALLY FROZEN?
The claim: “[The budget] also freezes the Commission's administrative budget at well below inflation level…The vast majority of people across the EU feel the daily pain of the crisis as their national, regional and local governments have to make cuts, therefore a ‘business as usual’ attitude from the EU institutions is simply not acceptable.”
The reality: Overall EU administration spending to increase by 3.2%.
3. DO THE OTHER EU INSTITUTIONS REALLY SAVE “WHEREVER POSSIBLE”?
The claim: “[The draft budget] includes a strong emphasis on savings and cost efficiency…pressure was exerted on every EU institution and agency to seek savings wherever possible. Most EU agencies will actually see a real cut in their annual budget.”
The reality: Apart from the Commission, many of the EU’s other institutions, committees, quangos and agencies have seen their budgets go up despite adding no discernible value or duplicating tasks, although it is welcome that many of the EU’s decentralised agencies have indeed had their budgets frozen or cut in absolute terms.
4. WILL THE INCREASED SPENDING REALLY PROMOTE JOBS AND GROWTH?
The claim: “€62.5 billion in payments are devoted to job friendly growth in Europe”.
The reality: As several studies have concluded, the EU’s jobs and growth programmes are inefficient and their overall impact is inconclusive, while too much money is still wasted on farm subsidies to landowners with no link to any meaningful economic activity.5. DOES THE COMMISSION REALLY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO INCREASE SPENDING?
The claim: “The EU budget must meet its contractual obligations of current and previous years vis-à-vis the Member States and other recipients.”
The reality: Yes the Commission is legally obliged to make certain payments based on previous years’ commitments. However, both national governments and households also have to pay bills at the end of the month or year. The Commission must likewise learn how to prioritise and find savings if there is not enough money in the pot (the last two years have produced surpluses in the EU budget).
So as austerity sweeps Europe, is this a serious budget proposal? You decide....
Brussels orders EU flag must fly over Whitehall every day... and we could be fined if we fail to comply
By GLEN OWEN
|
Storm: Eric Pickles is angry that the EU flag must fly outside his office
Eric Pickles reacted with fury last night after being ordered by Brussels to fly the EU flag continuously over Whitehall.
The Cabinet Minister said the demand showed a ‘deep sense of political insecurity’ and called on the European Union to ‘grow up’.
Mr Pickles is currently obliged to fly the flag – a circle of 12 golden stars on an azure background – for a week each year, starting from Europe Day on May 9.
But under the proposed change, drafted by the European Commission and due to take effect within the next two years, the flag would have to fly permanently outside any organisation which managed development funding from Brussels.
Under the new rules, Mr Pickles, who is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, could even face being fined by the EU if he fails to comply.
When the proposal landed on his desk Mr Pickles erupted because civil servants advised that, as drafted, it would mean more than 1,000 bodies being forced to comply, including Cambridge University, Jamie Oliver’s 15 restaurant in Cornwall and The Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, known as the ‘home of snooker’.
But last night, the Commission said the only stipulation was that Mr Pickles should fly the EU flag outside his local government headquarters in Westminster.
His HQ, Eland House, has two flagpoles – allowing officials to display the Union Flag in the ‘dominant’ position.
A Commission spokesman said: ‘The proposal on flags is limited to national managing authorities.
Outrage: New rules mean, Mr Pickles, who is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, could even face being fined by the EU for not flying their flag
Most of them already fly EU and national flags and sometimes regional ones too. Every funding body everywhere – including no doubt Mr Pickles’s department – requires visible recognition of its funding role on project sites, and the Commission is no different.
‘Nobody is yet expected to comply. This is a proposal on the table for discussion.’
However, Mr Pickles hit back: ‘Any organisation which forces others to fly its flag betrays a lack of confidence and a deep sense of political insecurity. Will forcing people to fly the flag help balance the EU budget? I don’t think so.
‘Flying a flag should be a pleasure not a chore.There needs to be a more grown-up approach and a sense of proportion on this whole issue.’
The Minister was joined by Chris Heaton-Harris, Tory MP for Daventry, Northamptonshire, who last night said: ‘In a free country people should be able to choose if they want to fly a flag.
‘This symbolises much of what is wrong in the EU – using propaganda tactics to prove they have influence over people. It is completely unacceptable and this idea should be dumped.’
The new rules also demand that organisations should give ‘the widest possible media coverage’ to any activities funded by Brussels money and, on the internet, describe what is being done with the money in an EU language other than English.
The rules amount to an extension of current demands put in place by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which require organisations that have received grants to put EU branding on their publicity material: they are even required to take a photograph of material and email it to the European Commission to prove that the regulations were being observed. If they fail to do so, they face being fined.
Because the regulations are drawn up by the European Commission, and not voted on by the UK Parliament, they do not form part of UK law, so the Commission imposes ‘financial corrections’ for ‘non-compliance’. During the past five years the Commission has punished dozens of British organisations for failing to display the EU’s branding.
These have included the National Museum of Labour History in Manchester, which was fined £7,223 for failing to put a Brussels logo on a billboard and Doncaster Council, which was hit for £5,250 for ‘failure to advertise ERDF support during a radio advert’.
The Commission spokesman said: ‘The rationale is that all projects should have information in a language not of their country so that non-national businesses and others can find out what is going on and possibly identify funding/procurement opportunities for themselves.
‘The biggest winners out of this will probably be the UK and Ireland as most projects Europe-wide will put up info in English.
‘I confirm that these rules, like all EU rules, will not be handed down by so-called Brussels bureaucrats but negotiated by national Ministers, including Mr Pickles, and by elected MEPs in the European Parliament. The UK always plays a full role in key EU negotiations.’
and.....
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/fact-checking-commissions-eu-budget.htmlFact-Checking The Commission's EU Budget Claims (It Ain't Pretty)
The European Commission has its own dedicated "myth buster" which aims to explain to the masses and media how terrific the EU budget is, and that all claims to the contrary are "euro myths". Despite making some fair points, overall the list is generally silly and counterproductive. For example, it claims that an EU subsidy to a dog fitness centre in Hungary (that never was built) is a "myth", as the money was since paid back. However, it fails to acknowledge that the dog centre was only forced to pay back the EU subsidies once Open Europe and others brought the sorry episode to the attention of international media. The Commission was blissfully unaware at the time we highlighted the example, and showed little interest in investigating the case (even claiming that the finding wasn't "serious"). To then come back and present it as a "myth" is laughable (for exactly how laughable, see here).It illustrates how the Commission likes to take the moral high ground on facts and figures, but often itself engages in spinning exercises that would make Malcolm Tucker proud.
Its presentation for its proposal for the 2013 EU budget, which includes a 6.8% increase in spending, is a case in point. In fact, it was so full of dodgy figures that we felt it was in need of a serious fact-check. So this morning we published one. Here goes (the full fact-check note is available here):
FACT CHECK: THE COMMISSION’S EU DRAFT BUDGET
1. IS THE EU REALLY CUTTING STAFF?
The claim: “[The Commission is] cutting its staff by 1%, the first step towards the goal of a 5% reduction of staff in 5 years”.
The reality: The EU will only cut 6 jobs net out of 41,000 jobs in 2013 while the Commission will reduce its workforce by 0.5%.
2. IS EU ADMIN SPENDING ACTUALLY FROZEN?
The claim: “[The budget] also freezes the Commission's administrative budget at well below inflation level…The vast majority of people across the EU feel the daily pain of the crisis as their national, regional and local governments have to make cuts, therefore a ‘business as usual’ attitude from the EU institutions is simply not acceptable.”
The reality: Overall EU administration spending to increase by 3.2%.
3. DO THE OTHER EU INSTITUTIONS REALLY SAVE “WHEREVER POSSIBLE”?
The claim: “[The draft budget] includes a strong emphasis on savings and cost efficiency…pressure was exerted on every EU institution and agency to seek savings wherever possible. Most EU agencies will actually see a real cut in their annual budget.”
The reality: Apart from the Commission, many of the EU’s other institutions, committees, quangos and agencies have seen their budgets go up despite adding no discernible value or duplicating tasks, although it is welcome that many of the EU’s decentralised agencies have indeed had their budgets frozen or cut in absolute terms.
4. WILL THE INCREASED SPENDING REALLY PROMOTE JOBS AND GROWTH?
The claim: “€62.5 billion in payments are devoted to job friendly growth in Europe”.
The reality: As several studies have concluded, the EU’s jobs and growth programmes are inefficient and their overall impact is inconclusive, while too much money is still wasted on farm subsidies to landowners with no link to any meaningful economic activity.5. DOES THE COMMISSION REALLY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO INCREASE SPENDING?
The claim: “The EU budget must meet its contractual obligations of current and previous years vis-à-vis the Member States and other recipients.”
The reality: Yes the Commission is legally obliged to make certain payments based on previous years’ commitments. However, both national governments and households also have to pay bills at the end of the month or year. The Commission must likewise learn how to prioritise and find savings if there is not enough money in the pot (the last two years have produced surpluses in the EU budget).
So as austerity sweeps Europe, is this a serious budget proposal? You decide....
No comments:
Post a Comment