The latest Eurobarometer is out (PDF), charting the changes in public opinion in the EU (plus a few non-member states) over the last six months. (For some reason I imagine it delivered phone-directory-like, in a plastic coated bundle across Brussels and posted out to rare subscribers). I wasn't going to comment on it, because while I think the Eurobarometers are good for showing trends and indications of public opinion, I distrust reading into such polls as support for X policy or Y general philosophical outlook on the EU (or anything else, for that matter).
So Eurobarometer Day arrives (it's a public holiday in La Réunion, you know), and bloggers, Tweeters, and perhaps even journalists, look into the entrails of public opinion, to divine the way forward. Support for the EU is down by an average of 6% (42%, down from 42%; distrust now at 47%): proof that the public's patience with the EU project is approaching its end, say Eurosceptics. But distrust in national governments is at 66%, compared to a 47% distrust in the EU, say opponents (distrust in national parliaments averages at 62%). Now, the sharp drop in support for the EU is a concern - and indeed, the very low levels of trust in national institutions should be of great concern, given the (thankfully on the whole so far limited) rise in extreme right-wing rhetoric - but it's hard to say exactly what should be done about it. Because it's a steep drop, sudden, the reasons must be recent. Is it the Eurozone crisis (and does it mean people want more/less co-ordination, or were just disappointed/disillusioned with the heads of state/government arguing and hesitating over a solution?) or do they expect the EU to do more/less/something different to what its doing now? Is it the start of a trend, or purely a reaction to current events? We just don't know.
It's impossible to say, because the Eurobarometer is trying to measure satisfaction, trust, and concern for certain issues in people's lives. So it is by definition, vague. We can only say that there are certain issues that people want addressed, and that they are open to European co-operation on these. Beyond that, policy makers and supporters will have to make the cases for their ideas and try and win support for them. We can't tell if the EPP, PES or even the EFD would win the EP elections on their policy platforms (or even what theoretical policy platform would win), so let's stop pretending that this Eurobarometer is proof for support for X.
So, given that my take on the Eurobarometer, was "I don't think we can take much from this", I wasn't really going to write anything about it. But then I saw this post by Open Europe, criticising the Commission for holding up the Eurobarometer results as proof of support for stronger economic governance, and it annoyed me. Strange, perhaps, since I agree with Open Europe that the results cannot be read to automatically translate into support for economic governance, but the whole subsequent argument - that if the question of Commission scrutiny of national budgets, or of economic governance had been asked, then the opposite would most likely be the case - got to me.
That's right, instead of basing policy on survey questionaire results, we should act instead on what the results might have been like had other questions been asked. Not exactly an improvement, in my opinion.
However, I doubt that questions such as "should there be more economic governance" or "should there be an EU tax" would necessarily be very revealing. After all, the term "economic governance" hasn't been defined yet, so the responce is hardly going to reveal much in the way of support for or opposition to different forms of economic governance. And what sane person would say that asking "do you think there should be another tax", independent of specifics, context or a public debate of the advantages and disadvantages would produce a result which would provide a good basis for taxation policy? (Yet note the useful spin that can be generated for attacking the spin of another party, while suggesting that other vague and hypothetical questions would have produced your favoured result...).
This use of statistics - and worse yet, theoretical statistics - is what annoys be about these types of polls.** So while "only 26%" favour EU action (the highest percent, compared to national governments, the USA and the IMF***), can't tell us whether we should integrate more, or disintegrate more when it comes to economic policy (or how to do either), it does show that there is room for the arguments of closer integration (or the opposite) to be made.
In other words, let's debate our options, rather than look to the statistical entrails of Europe for a modern mandate from heaven. If you asked me, we'd be at least 46% better off if we did.
* Sorry for the bad pun of an over-used cliché. It was all I could think of as a title.
** And survey questioners. If you answer them, they can steal your soul, you know.
*** If you really want to know, the institutions people think are most able to tackle the crisis are: EU (26%), IMF (14%), USA (7%), G20 (14%), National governments (19%), None (6%) [not an official option], Other (1%) [not an official option], Don't Know (13%). So a nice spread of results allowing people to read into them what they want. Though I doubt that anyone running on a "Don't Know" ticket will be elected any time soon.
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Thursday, 26 August 2010
The Moral Authority of Europe
Despite the rhetoric of the EU as the "EUSSR", a neo-liberal project or as some sort of Papist plot, Europe holds an - at times, surprising - amount of moral authority, even in the more Eurosceptic member states. This is probably because of the practice of using "Europe" as a continental yardstick (e.g. highest cancer death rate in Europe; lowest teenage pregnancy in Europe), and because of the legal certainty the EU and ECHR can lend to policies (if the European Court of Human Rights rules on something, it carries a lot of legal and moral authority, even if legal academics continue to argue and debate the reasoning).
Which is why I wrote an open letter to President Barroso, Commissioner Reding and European Council President Van Rompuy on the Roma issue, urging them to speak out (NOTE: the refusal of the Commission website to relay my email to Barroso, and the chore of moving house have meant that I only managed to send a paper version to Barroso earlier this week). While the EU has issued statements that they will monitor the legal status and treatment of the Roma, there is an important role for the Europarties and EU institutions to speak out for equality and rights (though they obviously need to be held to account on this score as well). So it was good to see Commissioner Reding finally making the wider argument for tolerance (hat tip @dicknieuwenhuis and @Anna_EU_webteam).
However, the argument against mass explusions and for equal treatment needs to be made continuously, and, in the future, the response should be faster. France's calls for a exclusive immigration summit and calls that the EU decide a "coordinated response" on how to "deal" with the Roma's deportation show that national politicians and leaders who support discrimination against the Roma as a group know that the nation-state is a badly tarnished vehicle for carrying out their prejudices. These summits and immigration meetings are attempts to legitimise Roma explusions as "the norm" and "legally acceptable".
So we need to keep making the case for tolerance and equal treatment at the European level. If we don't, one day we'll find discrimination being legitimised in Europe's name.
Which is why I wrote an open letter to President Barroso, Commissioner Reding and European Council President Van Rompuy on the Roma issue, urging them to speak out (NOTE: the refusal of the Commission website to relay my email to Barroso, and the chore of moving house have meant that I only managed to send a paper version to Barroso earlier this week). While the EU has issued statements that they will monitor the legal status and treatment of the Roma, there is an important role for the Europarties and EU institutions to speak out for equality and rights (though they obviously need to be held to account on this score as well). So it was good to see Commissioner Reding finally making the wider argument for tolerance (hat tip @dicknieuwenhuis and @Anna_EU_webteam).
However, the argument against mass explusions and for equal treatment needs to be made continuously, and, in the future, the response should be faster. France's calls for a exclusive immigration summit and calls that the EU decide a "coordinated response" on how to "deal" with the Roma's deportation show that national politicians and leaders who support discrimination against the Roma as a group know that the nation-state is a badly tarnished vehicle for carrying out their prejudices. These summits and immigration meetings are attempts to legitimise Roma explusions as "the norm" and "legally acceptable".
So we need to keep making the case for tolerance and equal treatment at the European level. If we don't, one day we'll find discrimination being legitimised in Europe's name.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Is nursing war by another means?
It has been reported by EUReferendum and by the Daily Express in the UK, that EU law is preventing safety checks (and in the caase of the Daily Express), language checks on nurses from other EU countries that want to be registered as nurses in the UK. In a follow up post, EUReferendum spelt out just how dastardly this is:
I'm not selectively quoting the one paragraph that has war-like imagery; read both EUReferendum articles, and you'll see that the whole affair is really just a re-run of the Battle of Britain.
The law that supposed to be the cause of these restrictions isn't mentioned in the articles, but I assume that it's Directive 2005/36/EC, or the Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive (PDF). It's aim is to allow the free movement of professionals with equivalent qualifications in other member states, including nures (Articles 31-33). This means that if a nurse has an equivalent recognised qualification in, say, France, then s/he will be treated the same as a a UK trained nurse. Not less strictly than a UK national, as EUReferendum suggests, but the same. So the aim of the legislation is to set down rules for the recognition of qualifications so that professionals from other EU states are treated equally in the host state if they've equivalent qualifications.
You can read the list of recognised nursing qualifications from this PDF. From this, and Articles 31-33 of the Directive, it's clear that the training has to include a theoretical element and clinical experience. The recognition of qualifications are "harmonised" in that there's a list that has to be respected throughout the EU, but these have been chosen on the basis of meeting the training requirements. There are other qualifications that might be treated differently, and the member state can use "compensatory measures" (tests, etc.) to check skills not included in that qualification's training. But the list of automatically recognised qualifications is set out to include qualifications that meet these standards, and therefore there should be no further tests that would not be applied to nationals of the same professional training.
But what about recent work experience - whether the nurse has worked in healthcare recently? I've asked the Commission representation in the UK what the position is, and I got this reply:
If UK nurses have to fulfil extra requirements if they haven't been "active" in the last three years, then so do the nurses from other EU states. In addition, further training that UK nurses have to receive can be required of other EU national nurses, though it seems that this is independent of the registration on the basis of their autonmatically recognised qualification. I will try and contact the UK Department of Health to check on the actual treatment of nurses.
When it comes to language, Article 53 of the Directive states that the professionals in question shall have knowledge of the languages necessary to do the job. The Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is the UK regulating body, says (PDF):
It's important to note that being registered doesn't automatically mean that you start working as a nurse straight away, and employers can add some extra requirements.
The Directive isn't exactly the most terrifying World War II weapon I've ever seen...
"...Seventy years ago, "foreigners" were trying to kill us. Today, largely the same bunch of foreigners are still trying to kill us. And it really does not matter whether it is a bomb or an ill-trained nurse. You are just as dead."
I'm not selectively quoting the one paragraph that has war-like imagery; read both EUReferendum articles, and you'll see that the whole affair is really just a re-run of the Battle of Britain.
The law that supposed to be the cause of these restrictions isn't mentioned in the articles, but I assume that it's Directive 2005/36/EC, or the Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive (PDF). It's aim is to allow the free movement of professionals with equivalent qualifications in other member states, including nures (Articles 31-33). This means that if a nurse has an equivalent recognised qualification in, say, France, then s/he will be treated the same as a a UK trained nurse. Not less strictly than a UK national, as EUReferendum suggests, but the same. So the aim of the legislation is to set down rules for the recognition of qualifications so that professionals from other EU states are treated equally in the host state if they've equivalent qualifications.
You can read the list of recognised nursing qualifications from this PDF. From this, and Articles 31-33 of the Directive, it's clear that the training has to include a theoretical element and clinical experience. The recognition of qualifications are "harmonised" in that there's a list that has to be respected throughout the EU, but these have been chosen on the basis of meeting the training requirements. There are other qualifications that might be treated differently, and the member state can use "compensatory measures" (tests, etc.) to check skills not included in that qualification's training. But the list of automatically recognised qualifications is set out to include qualifications that meet these standards, and therefore there should be no further tests that would not be applied to nationals of the same professional training.
But what about recent work experience - whether the nurse has worked in healthcare recently? I've asked the Commission representation in the UK what the position is, and I got this reply:
"UK authorities require EU trained nurses without recent working experience to pass a “return to practice training”. The UK authorities are planning to drop this training for nurses who obtained their qualification in another Member State, as it might go against the Directive.
The Professional Qualifications' Directive does not forbid organising such training; it just cannot be a prior condition in view of recognition of a nurse qualification obtained in another Member State.
[...]
However, if an automatically recognised EU trained nurse has been inactive for more than three years in the home Member State, this nurse has to fulfil all obligations UK registered nurses have to respect. Thus, if Continuing Professional Development is an obligation for UK registered nurses, also these recognised nurses from other Member States must follow CPD trainings allowing them to keep their skills and competences up to date and fit to the practice in the UK while being registered and exercising the profession.
In conclusion, the "return to practice" training cannot be imposed as a requirement for the automatic recognition of an EU nurse qualification. However, the Directive does not prevent the UK requiring continuous professional training for EU trained nurses who are already registered in the UK, but do not possess recent working experience."
If UK nurses have to fulfil extra requirements if they haven't been "active" in the last three years, then so do the nurses from other EU states. In addition, further training that UK nurses have to receive can be required of other EU national nurses, though it seems that this is independent of the registration on the basis of their autonmatically recognised qualification. I will try and contact the UK Department of Health to check on the actual treatment of nurses.
When it comes to language, Article 53 of the Directive states that the professionals in question shall have knowledge of the languages necessary to do the job. The Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is the UK regulating body, says (PDF):
"Under EU law the NMC cannot require evidence of your ability to communicate in English for the purposes of registration. However, you need to make sure that you have sufficient knowledge of English in order to practise professionally (Article 53 of the Directive). Employers will expect this and have the right to require evidence of English language competence to ensure that they employ nurses and midwives who are able to communicate effectively. Therefore it is possible that any offer of employment in the UK may depend upon you being able to demonstrate competence in the English language through a test."
It's important to note that being registered doesn't automatically mean that you start working as a nurse straight away, and employers can add some extra requirements.
The Directive isn't exactly the most terrifying World War II weapon I've ever seen...
Monday, 23 August 2010
The Role of the High Representative and the EU's CFSP
Dan Smith has written a very interesting and well thought-out post on the state of the External Action Service (EAS) and its potential as well as what aims it should have. The Institute of International and European Affairs had a guest lecture on the topic back at the start of March 2010 on the role of the HR and the President of the European Council. I've embedded the video below.
Northern Ireland continues to Fail to implement EU law
A few months ago the big news in Northern Ireland was that a failure to properly administer CAP funds (e.g. built on land and some land not belonging to the farmers in question was claimed for) led to the Commission itself investigating the procedures of the Department of Agriculture and Regional Development, leading to a €60 million+ penalty being imposed. Now it seems that the BBC have uncovered the long-term failure of the NI Executive to implement EU legislation on protecting horse mussels. It seems that the original complaints were made 6 years ago.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC obtained 24 months worth of documents, which show how anxious the civil service was that the lack of progress in protecting the horse mussels would be uncovered, yet nothing was done.
It wasn't as if the Agriculture and Environment Ministries - and Ministers - didn't know that something had to be done about this: in January 2009 the ministers jointly proposed action, and that exclusion zones would be set up to protect the mussels:
While it can be argued that there have been difficulties in restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland that would have delayed descisions being taken, it's hard to believe that since the St. Andrews argeement in 2007 that these decisions couldn't have been taken.
It's interesting to see how this story is being picked up. The communal blog Slugger O'Toole picked up on the story earlier this weekend, and asked whether the NI government was dysfunctional or just incompetent. The BBC focused on the issues and explained how long the situation was going on for, and what had been going on within the civil service. The main thrust is about how local government is spending - or misspending - European money and living up to its commitments under European law.
In comparison, last week BBC Newsnight covered a story on English local councils being fined for non-compliance with EU obligations, but focused on the fact that some councils would have to pay for not flying the European flag, despite being in receipt of EU money. There was then a discussion on whether the European flag should be flown more in the UK (or England, since the pointed out that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland doesn't seem to have a problem with it). Since councils were being fined money for non-compliance, I would have thought that it would be useful to focus on what areas caused the most trouble, and what problems stopped the councils from successfully carrying out legal obligations.
However, setting that aside, since the flag discussion isn't a bad idea in and of itself, looking at how the discussion was lead, it didn't seem as if the BBC knew exactly why the councils had to fly the flag. It wasn't mentioned whether it was by law or under contract that the flag had to be flown (in fact, the Belgian Ambassador on the programme said it was just contractual, rather than by a general law, as was implied). That it was contractual wasn't challenged by the presenter, but she continued to asked whether council should be forced to fly the flag by law. It seems that the lack of clarity was meant to drag out the discussion (perhaps another sign of the silly season), since I doubt that there would be much disagreement that if it's in the contract, it should be followed. While a debate on the value of European symbols could be a good one (unfortunately this debate didn't live up to that billing), I would have preferred to have seen a exposé on how European money is being (mis)spent by councils and what role the councils are playing. Surely such an angle would be more in keeping with the idealised role of the 4th estate?
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC obtained 24 months worth of documents, which show how anxious the civil service was that the lack of progress in protecting the horse mussels would be uncovered, yet nothing was done.
"Even as late as June last year, six years after the initial complaint was made, one civil servant warned: "If the Commission asks what progress has been made... the departments will be exposed"."
It wasn't as if the Agriculture and Environment Ministries - and Ministers - didn't know that something had to be done about this: in January 2009 the ministers jointly proposed action, and that exclusion zones would be set up to protect the mussels:
"In January 2009, the Environment Minister at the time, Sammy Wilson and Agriculture Minister Gildernew called a press conference at which they claimed they were riding to the aid of the horse mussels.
By then a restoration project was had begun although there were still no non-disturbance zones and today, they still don't exist.
In the last batch of emails and minutes of meetings the BBC has seen little has moved on.
The two departments are still arguing over what size the non-disturbance zones should be and where they should be, they can't even agree over whether lobster and crab fishing is damaging the mussel beds."
While it can be argued that there have been difficulties in restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland that would have delayed descisions being taken, it's hard to believe that since the St. Andrews argeement in 2007 that these decisions couldn't have been taken.
It's interesting to see how this story is being picked up. The communal blog Slugger O'Toole picked up on the story earlier this weekend, and asked whether the NI government was dysfunctional or just incompetent. The BBC focused on the issues and explained how long the situation was going on for, and what had been going on within the civil service. The main thrust is about how local government is spending - or misspending - European money and living up to its commitments under European law.
In comparison, last week BBC Newsnight covered a story on English local councils being fined for non-compliance with EU obligations, but focused on the fact that some councils would have to pay for not flying the European flag, despite being in receipt of EU money. There was then a discussion on whether the European flag should be flown more in the UK (or England, since the pointed out that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland doesn't seem to have a problem with it). Since councils were being fined money for non-compliance, I would have thought that it would be useful to focus on what areas caused the most trouble, and what problems stopped the councils from successfully carrying out legal obligations.
However, setting that aside, since the flag discussion isn't a bad idea in and of itself, looking at how the discussion was lead, it didn't seem as if the BBC knew exactly why the councils had to fly the flag. It wasn't mentioned whether it was by law or under contract that the flag had to be flown (in fact, the Belgian Ambassador on the programme said it was just contractual, rather than by a general law, as was implied). That it was contractual wasn't challenged by the presenter, but she continued to asked whether council should be forced to fly the flag by law. It seems that the lack of clarity was meant to drag out the discussion (perhaps another sign of the silly season), since I doubt that there would be much disagreement that if it's in the contract, it should be followed. While a debate on the value of European symbols could be a good one (unfortunately this debate didn't live up to that billing), I would have preferred to have seen a exposé on how European money is being (mis)spent by councils and what role the councils are playing. Surely such an angle would be more in keeping with the idealised role of the 4th estate?
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Further dictionary explanations of European Integration
EU President (Noun):
another term used for the position of the President of the European Council, especially when the user wishes to denote the awe-inspiring power and importance of the post. Best described as a modern day Holy Roman Emperor, the office-holder is chosen by 27 electors: the heads of state and government of the European Union. Presiding over the European Council with an iron fist, President Van Rompuy demands regular fedual oaths of loyality, in ritualised meetings known euphemistically as "cosy fire-side chats". Van Rompuy owes his position to the influence of the Bilderberg group, which he won over during a improvised talent contest at the end of a conference, through his inspiring use of poetic forms, particularly that of the Haiku. Similar to the Holy Roman Empire, the President in turn owes fedual allegiance to the Pope in the Vatican.
Papacy/Holy See (Noun):
refering to the office of the bishop of Rome (the leader of the Catholic Church) and the headquarters of the Catholic Church in the Vatican, respectively. The Catholic Church has influenced the direction of European integration from the start, with the aim of reuniting Christendom and reversing the effects of the Reformation on its spiritual and temporal power. Those who highlight the Church's influence point to the frequent references to the Christian God in the Treaties and the Papacy's direct line with the EU President, who frequently ends his speaches with "God Bless Europe". Competition comes in the form of Whitehall, which constantly rigs elections across the EU to further its neo-liberal goals (See also: Anglo-Saxon/Neo-Liberal Project).
Bilderberg Group (Noun):
a group consisting of the political, economic and military elite of the world, concerned with influencing the course of government, including in the EU. They were the main backers of Herman Van Rompuy to the position of EU President. However, their influential position is under threat in Europe from a shadowy group known as the Buchgemeinschaft der schwaebische Hausfrauen, which has assured the influential positioning of people and families from Swabia (e.g. the Habsburgs or Hohenzollerns) as well as their allies. The Bilderberg Group has recently tried to counter the Buchgemeinschaft's influence by sabotaging the opinion poll ratings of their client German federal government.
"Brussels has decided" (Phrase):
a phrase used to denote that something has been decided by the Minister-President of the Brussels-Capitol region of Belgium on behalf of the entire European Union. The Minister-President of the Brussels-Capitol region has been empowered by certain enabling legislation to pass certain legislative proposals into law across the European Union ("ordonnances"). This is occasionally used as a legal method of bypassing subsidiarity requirements, since technically such decisions taken by the Minister-President were taken at a level lower than the European one. This method of governance also allows for reductions in the European civil service, as periodically demanded by some member states.
another term used for the position of the President of the European Council, especially when the user wishes to denote the awe-inspiring power and importance of the post. Best described as a modern day Holy Roman Emperor, the office-holder is chosen by 27 electors: the heads of state and government of the European Union. Presiding over the European Council with an iron fist, President Van Rompuy demands regular fedual oaths of loyality, in ritualised meetings known euphemistically as "cosy fire-side chats". Van Rompuy owes his position to the influence of the Bilderberg group, which he won over during a improvised talent contest at the end of a conference, through his inspiring use of poetic forms, particularly that of the Haiku. Similar to the Holy Roman Empire, the President in turn owes fedual allegiance to the Pope in the Vatican.
Papacy/Holy See (Noun):
refering to the office of the bishop of Rome (the leader of the Catholic Church) and the headquarters of the Catholic Church in the Vatican, respectively. The Catholic Church has influenced the direction of European integration from the start, with the aim of reuniting Christendom and reversing the effects of the Reformation on its spiritual and temporal power. Those who highlight the Church's influence point to the frequent references to the Christian God in the Treaties and the Papacy's direct line with the EU President, who frequently ends his speaches with "God Bless Europe". Competition comes in the form of Whitehall, which constantly rigs elections across the EU to further its neo-liberal goals (See also: Anglo-Saxon/Neo-Liberal Project).
Bilderberg Group (Noun):
a group consisting of the political, economic and military elite of the world, concerned with influencing the course of government, including in the EU. They were the main backers of Herman Van Rompuy to the position of EU President. However, their influential position is under threat in Europe from a shadowy group known as the Buchgemeinschaft der schwaebische Hausfrauen, which has assured the influential positioning of people and families from Swabia (e.g. the Habsburgs or Hohenzollerns) as well as their allies. The Bilderberg Group has recently tried to counter the Buchgemeinschaft's influence by sabotaging the opinion poll ratings of their client German federal government.
"Brussels has decided" (Phrase):
a phrase used to denote that something has been decided by the Minister-President of the Brussels-Capitol region of Belgium on behalf of the entire European Union. The Minister-President of the Brussels-Capitol region has been empowered by certain enabling legislation to pass certain legislative proposals into law across the European Union ("ordonnances"). This is occasionally used as a legal method of bypassing subsidiarity requirements, since technically such decisions taken by the Minister-President were taken at a level lower than the European one. This method of governance also allows for reductions in the European civil service, as periodically demanded by some member states.
Friday, 20 August 2010
Quoting Auditors
I read this yesterday, when I was looking at the Wall Street Journal's article on member states who contribute the most to the EU pot per head of population (both with and without the more direct streams of revenue, showing that it is possible to have clear data on how much is collected where through a direct tax). I've often read the arguments against the use of the Court of Auditors' reports on the EU accounts as simply proof of corruption, due to the lack of oversight in the member states' spending of the EU pot, and the requirement that all the accounts need to be cleared for the overall accounts to get the clean bill of health.
Well, this is the quote from the financial report, 2008 (PDF):
Of course, this doesn't mean that more scrutiny isn't necessary (see this article for a diagram on how money is spent in the EU). It may be sensitive for national administrations to audit themselves and present clearer accounts. It was disappointing when a Dutch suggestion for member states producing a certificate of good health of their own spending of EU funds was given the cold shoulder. As recent events have shown, sometimes visits from European auditors can turn up interesting facts in national and regional administrations.
Well, this is the quote from the financial report, 2008 (PDF):
"Clean bill of health on EU acc ounts by auditors
The European Court of Auditors’ annual report delivered promising news in 2008.
It confirmed the positive trend in the management of payments, showing that the majority of payments checked were correct, with most policy areas only affected by less than 5 % of errors and, in certain areas, such as direct aid to farmers and administrative expenditure, less than 2 %. Errors were still too frequent in certain areas, particularly where grants have been managed by national authorities, such as for cohesion policy.
Acknowledging the results of the Commission’s sustained efforts to modernise its accounting systems, the European Court of Auditors lifted its last remaining reserves on the EU accounts. The Commission is currently one of the few public administrations worldwide that operates full accrual accounts, giving it a comprehensive overview of its current and future assets and liabilities. Together with FEE, the European Federation of Accountants, it jointly organised a conference on the state of play and future prospects of accrual accounting in the area of public sector management. The main documents related to the conference can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/documents/conf_accounting_1008_en.htm"
Of course, this doesn't mean that more scrutiny isn't necessary (see this article for a diagram on how money is spent in the EU). It may be sensitive for national administrations to audit themselves and present clearer accounts. It was disappointing when a Dutch suggestion for member states producing a certificate of good health of their own spending of EU funds was given the cold shoulder. As recent events have shown, sometimes visits from European auditors can turn up interesting facts in national and regional administrations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)