The Temptation of Protectionism
I think most French would agree that the presidential election debate has been pretty poor since its beginning in February. No nuances, small media stories turned into polemics, little content overall – all very frustrating for those who enjoy a decent confrontation of ideas on what matters for the country. If you missed the saga of halal meat labelling (no joking), feel lucky.
Up until now, the role of France in the EU had been more or less absent from the debate. We had heard little about what any of the serious candidates would do in Brussels, with the exception of François Hollande, who said he would renegotiate the EU Fiscal Pact signed by 25 Member States at the European Council earlier this month.
On Sunday I was in Villepinte, north of Paris, to listen to Nicolas Sarkozy for what was announced as his first very big “meeting” (ironically that’s how we call political rallyes in French). Probably under the influence of Henri Guaino (his special counsellor who voted against the European Constitution in 2005), his speech contained far-reaching proposals in connection with the EU. Sarkozy is of the opinion that the divide between the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ Europe is more significant in France than the right/left divide (based on unidentified polls).
Sarkozy promises to submit several proposals to the European Council: he first wants to reform the Schengen Treaty, introducing reinforced border controls, the possibility to exclude a country and political governance for the area. If within a year Schengen rules are not tightened, France would take a unilateral decision to leave the Schengen area. Funnily enough Sarkozy had already raised the issue last year following the Arab Spring and work is already underway to amend Schengen rules.
The other idea Sarkozy wants to introduce at EU level is an obligation to reserve large public procurement to European companies or companies manufacturing in Europe, replicating the US ‘Buy America Act’. “If the US, the most liberal country, does it, we can do it as well”, he justified. France would also also decide to unilaterally apply the idea should it not be popular amongst other Member States. While France under Sarkozy had so far spearheaded EU reforms (with Chancellor Merkel), in these conditions it would certainly turn into a difficult member, an outsider that is more a problem than a solution. The proposal on public procurement would have large consequences for non-EU companies. Third countries would be tempted to introduce retaliatory measures, potentially even more damaging for the EU. At a time when the EU ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) is considered as a market distortion measure by third countries and that a trade war is threatening European airlines and aircraft manufacturers, it’s unlikely that Member States will agree to embark onto such a overtly protectionist measure.
As a believer in European integration and free market I’m naturally sceptical towards these attempts to build a ‘fortress Europe’, a continent that would have no other choice to maintain growth than to isolate itself from free movement and free trade. But it’s not just Sarkozy: none of the candidates really support a free market approach. I’m even more worried about Sarkozy’s new ‘Blame Brussels’ attitude. His comments about “the technocrats and tribunals” of the European Union are typical of candidates looking for scapegoats outside their national territory when they have run out of solutions to propose.
Clara
NB: French colleagues at Fleishman-Hillard will regularly contribute to Public Affairs 2.0 until 6 May to provide their views on the French presidential elections and their likely impact for the EU – you’re welcome to join the debate!
Greek debt report reinforces doubts on bail-out deal
It’s no surprise that the “disciplinary” elements of this week’s Greek bail-out deal have been badly received by many in Greece. Strengthening of the Commission Task Force in Athens to provide an “enhanced and permanent presence” to oversee Greek government measures, and deposit of quarterly debt repayment funds in an escrow account to ensure their availability are difficult for anyone to accept. It’s as bad as having the IMF dictate your economic policy!
But the European Financial Stability Facility must be ratified in the parliaments of 17 countries across the eurozone, so further oversight is inevitable to boost confidence in Greece’s ability to keep its side of the bargain, especially as the economic case for the whole exercise is beset by doubt.
Just as Eurogroup ministers were drawing up the conclusions of the February 21 Brussels meeting, Reuters news agency got hold of the EU’s Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis for Greece, circulated as a confidential background document on February 15, in advance of the Council. It makes fairly gloomy reading but provides a template against which actual outcomes for the next eight years can be judged.
For many commentators the analysis has proved that the whole project is condemned to fail, because Greece would never be able to achieve the targets specified in the Eurogroup agreement. Recession in the Greek economy has been deeper than expected, structural reforms are slow to come and debt reduction might be slower than anticipated. It is not an optimistic scenario.
Some factors such as the haircut on private debt seem already to improve on the assumptions of February 15. The Eurogroup has also agreed measures on interest rates and on ECB and national bank transfers which may be helpful. But there are so many other unknowns. The document calculates that a one per cent annual reduction in Greece’s economic growth would increase Greek debt to 143 per cent of GDP by 2020 compared with the 120 per cent Eurogroup target, whereas a one per cent higher growth rate would cut the debt to 116 per cent. The gloomiest prognosis would have Greek government debt at 160 per cent of GDP by 2020.
All these figures must seem purely academic to many people in Greece who are struggling to survive cuts in pensions, salaries and jobs, and increases in tax, but it is surely the case that only far-reaching social and structural reform and a surge in competitiveness and economic growth will save Greece from descent towards third world status. Some estimate that an actual devaluation, replacing the euro with the drachma, would cut wages by half.
The current year will see a further 4 per cent decline in the Greek economy. Then the “internal devaluation” identified by the Sustainability Analysis, with its squeeze on labour costs and the whole panoply of structural reforms, should be taking effect. The analysis charts a projection for economic growth of 2.3 per cent in 2014 and 2.9 per cent in 2015 (see the blog from Felix Salmon of Reuters, where he also discusses the pros and cons for journalists of publishing complete documents), but delays in achieving privatisations and other measures will further postpone a return to sustainable debt levels.
Commentators and markets have been generally sceptical about the February 21 deal, while accepting that it gives a breathing space for recovery of Europe’s economy and strengthening of banks’ and governments’ creditworthiness. In the end it will be Greece’s own efforts in transforming its economy which will determine whether this deal can work.
Like this:
Managing the word on the (Brussels) street
What does it take to weather a reputation storm in Europe’s capital? FH Brussels mulls it over at European Public Affairs Action Day.
Reputation. Built over time; destroyed in an instant. Coveted but capricious, it can seem uncontrollably fragile when disaster hits. But it is possible to keep reputation safe and sound in the face of adversity – if you nurture a reputation nest egg when the going’s good. We invited two industry professionals with reputation success stories to tell to join our panel at this year’s European Public Affairs Action Day, a yearly get-together for public affairs types in the know in Brussels.
It’s a tricky thing, the reputation conundrum. As Françoise Humbert, Communications Director at the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), pointed out: we all know when reputation is bad – and the impact this can have. It’s fairly easy, nowadays, to cite examples of companies – even whole sectors – that have fallen unceremoniously from grace, seemingly from one day to the next. At the same time, we all know how crucial a good reputation is for getting your voice heard among Brussels policy-makers. The missing link for many people out there is: what’s the secret to having a good reputation, not just today – but forever?
Our panel – entitled ‘harnessing reputation to succeed in Brussels’ – explored precisely this issue, to the obvious interest and enthusiasm of our audience. Anita Kelly, FH Brussels Associate Director, kicked-off by explaining what makes reputation management so difficult. Reputation, a blurry mix of fact, emotion and gut feeling, is a hungry animal in relentless need of nourishment: to stay strong, it needs constant work – in the good times and the bad. Here are Anita’s four building blocks to building a good reputation:
- Determine your starting point. Work out how people see you. Are you trusted? Are you understood?
- Have a game plan. Do something with the research above. If your stakeholders don’t understand you, what do they want you to do about it?
- Walk to talk. Prove you’re worthy of being understood and trustworthy – be how you wish to be seen.
- Tell people about it. Use all channels available to you – and, of course, those your stakeholders use.
Françoise’s story backed this up. Cefic, keen to jump-start their relationship with stakeholders, launched a survey to ascertain what people really thought about them. The results were mixed: the overwhelming majority of institution officials now believe that chemicals are key to innovation and growth; but they doubt the public’s trust in both chemicals and the industry at large. But Françoise stressed the positive role of the survey as a starting point: Cefic knew where they were and what they had to do – and they’d grabbed a fair bit of media attention in the process. Today, she sees how the survey informs the everyday work of Cefic – not just that of the comms department, but of everyone: people are more switched-on about reputation and less nervous about losing control by telling people what they’re all about.
Our second panelist Florence Ranson, Senior Advisor at the European Banking Federation, agreed that transparency and honesty are at the heart of reputation. Things will go wrong; mistakes will be made – and at these times frankness is essential. This is even more important in a member organisation, she stressed, where control can seem even harder – and the actions of one can impact both the organisation as a whole and all its individual members.
For Florence, honesty and transparency pave the way for trust. With the compulsive need for control and secrecy stripped away, the communication flow can be more fluid, engaged and interesting. You can start building credibility by interacting with stakeholders and the media in a meaningful and pertinent way.
Honesty. Integrity. Transparency. A sure-fire approach to reaching out to people and making them believe what you’re about and what you stand for. And that – if you maintain it – is what reputation building is all about.
Catherine
If you want to learn more about reputation management, follow our Twitter feed at @euroreputation, where corporate communicators from across the Fleishman-Hillard network in Europe share links and insights on corporate reputation.
Fierce troika attack on Greek labour costs
Devaluation was invariably the path to survival for weaker European economies in the days before the euro. But when devaluation is no longer an option, there is evidently no choice for failing economies but to squeeze public spending and slash labour costs in the hope of paying off debt and restoring competitiveness.
A striking aspect of the Greek case is the attack by the troika of ECB, IMF and European Commission on wages and non-wage costs in Greece’s private sector. This also means an attack on Greek trade unions, which have always been extremely powerful players. I well recall a meeting with the CEO of a major firm in Athens which was having trouble with Brussels, and being told that the union chief had his office just down the corridor. That was a big problem for the client!
The negotiations over recent weeks have shown just how tough is the new reality. The Athens talks have demonstrated a fierce determination by the troika to force a transformation in the Greek economy.
The deal now approved by Athens imposes a range of measures which, according to Athens News includes cutting the minimum wage by 22 per cent plus a further 10 per cent for young workers, a freeze in basic wages until 2015, a reduction in pension provisions (still to be finalised), lower social contributions and elimination of the 13th and 14th months’ salary to which private sector workers are entitled. A further reduction of 15,000 people in state employment will be required this year as part of a longer term cut of 150,000 and another €300m of budget cuts as yet unspecified. The scope of the troika’s demands will not be lost on other peripheral eurozone countries.
The troika negotiators are taking nothing on trust. Greece’s main political parties have been obliged to commit themselves to the deal as a condition of receiving the €130bn bailout in advance of April elections. Antonis Samaras, who leads the New Democracy party, was holding out, but all the main parties have now signed. Finance minister Evangelos Venizelos headed to Brussels today in the hope of striking an agreement with the eurogroup.
The German idea of putting a Brussels-based manager in charge of the Greek economy may have been a humiliation too far for Greek sensitivities, but the requirement to channel bail-out funds into an escrow account to ensure that interest on the loans will be paid on time would effectively amount to external control of budget management.
When is a default not a default? When Greece keeps the euro, I suppose. After difficult negotiations with the banks and others there does appear to be agreement on the haircut for private sector debt, with the writing off of 70 per cent of the face value of Greek bonds and an interest rate of 3.5 per cent on replacement paper. As part of the final agreement it seems that ECB president Mario Draghi has said that the ECB will agree to forego the face value of the €40bn of bonds which it acquired at a knock-down price last year, knocking a further €10bn or so off the Greek debt mountain.
So the price to be paid for Greece to remain in the eurozone is high indeed. There is no doubting the suffering faced by the Greek people. The bitter truth is that the alternative of all-out default and quitting the euro could be even worse. The test will be whether a real reduction in labour costs and a freeing-up of the economy will provide sufficient stimulus for Greece to climb out of the abyss.
An accountant friend of mine has proposed a simple solution to the crisis: Give all we other Europeans a voucher for two weeks’ holiday in Greece. That should get the Greek economy moving again!
Human Rights Court under fire
For many British politicians and for much of the UK press, the European Court of Human Rights is the very embodiment of foreign meddling in British life. Two particular findings of the Court have stirred passions in Britain: a 2005 ruling that anyone in prison should be allowed to vote in elections (not currently permitted under UK law); and the recent judgement that the militant Islamist preacher Abu Qatada, currently held in a British jail, could not be deported to Jordan as long as any witness testimony against him in a Jordanian court might have been obtained through torture.
These rulings provoked storms of protest and fed into calls for Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and other European organisations.
Against such a political backdrop it is little surprise that prime minister David Cameron has used the opportunity of Britain’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to demand reform to the workings of the Court.
Cameron’s rendez-vous in Strasbourg on January 25 was played in the British press as if it were to be a full frontal attack on the Human Rights Court, on the Convention and on the Council of Europe as a whole. That’s how the mood music was played for press and politicians in advance of the speech. The reality was more nuanced.
The prime minister’s main aim was to bring down the temperature. He used the classic device of calling for reforms which are in fact well under way, and of assuming progress over time. Attacking the case backlog he cited the 160,000 cases which built up, partly owing to the surge in countries joining the Council of Europe after 1989. The backlog is now being dealt with because of changes in the Court’s practice, although judges are still having to handle more than 50,000 cases a year.
Cameron used the example of “the applicant taking a bus company to court for 90 Euros compensation, because they felt their journey from Bucharest to Madrid hadn’t been as comfortable as advertised” to suggest that the Court of Human Rights was becoming “a small claims court” and said that “we are hoping to get consensus on strengthening subsidiarity – the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally”.
In a most unusual intervention, President of the Human Rights Court, Sir Nicolas Bratza (a British lawyer educated, just like David Cameron, at Brasenose College, Oxford), decided to respond to criticism of his Court in the Independent newspaper (which also outlines the most pertinent ECHR cases involving Britain). Sir Nicolas notes that of 955 applications to the Court against the UK in 2011 only eight were found to violate the Human Rights Convention. He spells out how ECHR judgements have extended human rights in Britain over many years.
Still, there is no question that the European Court of Human Rights must accelerate reform. Until 2010 the Russian Duma blocked a protocol which would have helped speed the handling of cases, but that obstacle has now been lifted.
As to Cameron’s demand that national courts be regarded as final arbiters in human rights cases, it has its dangers. National courts across 47 countries cannot always be relied upon to uphold the provisions of the Convention on Human Rights. It is surely no coincidence that a majority of cases coming to the Court relate to Russia and the Ukraine, where individual rights are often under pressure.
Implementation of rulings is also a big challenge for the Court, but for the UK or others to question the Court’s jurisdiction would make it all the more difficult for the provisions of the Human Rights Convention to extend across Europe – a debate which may have particular topical relevance to Hungary.
The Rise and Rise of Ethno PR in Europe
By Juergen H. Gangoly, Managing Partner of The Skills Group - Fleishman-Hillard’s affiliate in Austria
Nowadays, it seems as though everyone in Europe is talking about the financial crisis and what it means to them. And, for most of us, the outlook is daunting: jobs are harder to come by, innovation is flailing ― and businesses are struggling to grow.
But there is one hugely significant ― albeit surprising ― silver lining to this rather expansive cloud. For years, NGOs, governments and humanitarian organisations have fought tooth and nail to educate the public about the societal benefits of immigrant communities, expelling the flawed perception of these people as economic burdens and driving home the obvious reality that immigrants are key contributors who give back to societies and economies on a daily basis.
Frankly, it’s been a tough fight. But things are getting better ― and it’s thanks to the economic crisis.
You see, for the first time, firms are looking beyond ‘Joe public’ and towards smaller market segments, like immigrant communities, to keep up-and-running. Now, taking their unique needs and interests into account when devising products and services is no longer just about doing what’s ethically right, it’s absolutely vital for economic survival. And that’s what’s making the difference.
What this means in practice is that all over Europe, big companies, banks, insurance companies, retailers, telcos and car manufacturers – among others – are sitting up and taking notice of how immigrant communities consume, earn and play. What they want and need is to tap into what these groups want ― and communicate with them in the most targeted way possible.
And that’s where we come in.
You see, these companies are our clients. To help them meet their targets we also need to raise our game. It’s no secret that immigrant communities are a black spot for our sector too – empirical data on this group is scarce and, where it does exist, it’s far too broad and sweeping to be really valuable.
Well, all that is beginning to change.
We at The Skills Group, the Austrian FH affiliate, have teamed up with the immigrant lifestyle magazine in Vienna, Biber, and the market research firm Meinungsraum to create EthnOpinion.at: the first opinion research firm in the Austrian German-language area that specialises in surveys of immigrant groups.
What we do isn’t original in itself: a combination of multi-language surveys and in-depth interviews in focus groups. Where we differ from other firms out there is that we specifically tap into immigrant populations in a way that can be fed back into advertising, marketing and PR programmes, and for developing new products and services.
And that’s why we’re able attract and retain prestigious clients from across the public and private spectrum.
This should send a clear message to our sector colleagues: we have the power to simultaneously lower social and cultural barriers, pay our own way and see our clients through these hard times.
Like this:
Hungary poses a stern test for Europe
The European institutions have rarely faced a sterner test than in their dealings with Hungary. As defender of the European treaties the Commission must do all in its power to protect the fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracy in the EU, yet any decision to block an EU-IMF aid package until Hungary’s authoritarian measures have been scrapped risks further serious damage to an already fragile European banking sector.
A collapse of the Hungarian currency and subsequent default would hit Austrian banks particularly hard. They have €40 billion in liabilities in Hungary. Italian banks would also suffer with liabilities of €20 billion. The damage would not end there, as contagion spread. No doubt Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party hope to rely on the threat of such collateral damage to secure “precautionary” support from the IMF without having to make too many other concessions.
Hungarian negotiators may say that everything is negotiable and that there are “no preconditions” in talks with the IMF taking place in Washington this week. There may even be a move to restore some independence to the Hungarian National Bank, but there are so many wider issues to be resolved in Hungary-EU relations such as press control, dismantling of the Constitutional Court, weakening of the judiciary, changes to the electoral system, grant of nationality and voting rights to Hungarian minorities in neighbouring countries, limited recognition for religious groups and the arrest of the Socialist party leader – to name but a few. Here is a recent analysis.
Hungary’s new constitution which came into effect on January 1 2012 seems indeed to have many of the trappings of an authoritarian state. The European Commission and the other EU institutions must do all they can to reverse this situation. In the background is always the threat of Hungary’s suspension or expulsion from the EU. A paradoxical outcome in pursuit of democratic principles!
It is a sad irony that the death of Vaclav Havel, standard bearer of freedom for all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, should occur at a time when another country of Eastern Europe is donning the apparel of a one-party state. It’s a further irony that Hungary’s governing party, with a clear parliamentary majority, is apparently intent on entrenching a single party in government. It has some of the hallmarks of Putin’s Russia, including party control of administrative, judicial and constitutional appointments – in other words a “nomenclatura” without the checks and balances vital to a democratic society.
Consequences of Britain’s summit veto
It’s too early to gauge the real impact of David Cameron’s veto at the European Council in the early hours of December 9 and the decision of 26 countries to devise a new treaty, but there have been straws in the wind over recent days which indicate how positions are evolving and which will set the agenda for 2012.
One consequence of Cameron’s self-imposed isolation in Brussels has been a surge in articles and interviews arguing for Britain’s full engagement with Europe. We’ve seen nothing like it for years. The nicely-named “Atlantis” strategy, whereby Britain takes the eurosceptic route, “repatriating” major elements of EU legislation, quitting key parts of Europe’s decision-making process and becoming (as some British eurosceptic MPs have advocated) like Norway or Switzerland, has been widely exposed as a recipe for decline. See for instance Timothy Garton Ash’s Guardian article.
One long-term consequence of the UK position could be to encourage the break-up of the United Kingdom. Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond has already questioned whether Scottish interests will be adequately protected, given the UK’s isolation, reflecting the fact that the Scottish National Party has always seen the future of an independent Scotland as a committed member of the EU. The SNP plans a referendum on independence in 2014 or 2015 where the protection of Scotland’s interests will no doubt figure.
British public opinion has been broadly in favour of the Cameron stance and even puts the Conservative Party ahead of Labour, which is no mean feat in these times of austerity, but those questioned in the YouGov poll showed some popular concern over the economic impact.
As for Britain’s EU partners, Chancellor Merkel’s conciliatory speech in the Bundestag after the summit was a helpful start. She stressed Britain’s role in Europe and so provided some comfort to the British prime minister. This contrasted with President Sarkozy’s attack on Britain’s obsession with the single market which was followed by a stream of criticism about the British economy from various French notables, including the head of the French central bank – further evidence that Anglo-Saxon financial services are seen as the ultimate villain behind the present crisis, and also a sign of the tensions within the Franco-German alliance.
That said, there is no doubting the distress that has been caused among several member states by the UK opt-out. Ireland was quick to promise intensive bilateral talks with London to avoid British isolation and agree common agendas.
There has been some back-tracking and some reassurance. Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne said immediately after the Council that the British veto would prevent the European Court and the Commission being used for implementation of the “fiscal compact”, but after a weekend’s reflection Mr Cameron had “an open mind” on the subject. The lawyers had ruled that the EU institutions could be used, under Articles 121, 126, 136 and 273 of the existing Treaty.
Britain’s draft protocol, presented in the early hours of December 9 to give treaty protection for UK financial services, would have demanded the right for the UK to adopt banking laws which were stricter than provided under EU financial services legislation. It seems there was no need to worry though: Commissioner Michel Barnier has since said that the Vickers report, requiring enhanced levels of bank capital, can be applied to meet the UK’s special situation.
In a previous blog I suggested that David Cameron’s prime motivation for exercising the veto in the small hours of December 9 was to satisfy the eurosceptics in his own party and avert a referendum. I have since been told that he said to Barroso and Van Rompuy during bilateral meetings that his job was indeed on the line. One can only draw the conclusion that the British prime minister found himself trapped by political calculation at home and diplomatic isolation abroad, leaving him little choice but to act as he did.
Little choice for Cameron in Europe à la carte
This week’s summit in Brussels has certainly been a defining moment in the history of the European Union. The UK’s decision to block any revision to the existing EU treaties as part of the package to save the euro is confirmation that we live in a Europe à la carte. Whether it proves to be a “two-speed Europe” only time will tell. That depends on how the eurozone evolves.
Given Britain’s position outside the euro and the fiercely eurosceptic mood in his Conservative party I’m not sure that David Cameron had any choice other than to veto proposed modifications to the EU treaties.
Cameron’s approach is consistent with the coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats. This clearly stated that a referendum would only be triggered if there was a transfer of power from the UK to Brussels. The prime minister does not want to be forced into a popular vote; the best way to avert any such risk is to use the veto and to leave the 17 to work out their own solution.
Suppose Cameron had agreed to support a treaty revision aux 27, it would have been extraordinarily difficult for him to avoid a referendum. Britain is already subject to Article 126 of the EU Treaty concerning excessive deficits and government debt. Any change to the associated protocol to include new rules would surely have raised major problems in the Westminster Parliament. An alternative would be the use of Article 136, which sets out provisions specific to eurozone countries, but that too would seem to implicate the UK, particularly as it would further strengthen the powers of the Commission and the Court of Justice.
Cameron has domestic political reasons to tread carefully. There are quite a few Tory MPs who loathe his partnership with the Liberal Democrats and who would gladly use the European issue to seek to depose him and break the coalition. He may have cited the defence of the City of London as his make-or-break issue, but this seems rather disingenuous, since financial services legislation is governed by the existing treaties, while the imposition of a financial transaction tax, seen as a special danger for UK financial services, would be subject to unanimity.
There is of course an implicit danger here, that the 17 eurozone countries could decide to impose a unilateral tax on their own investment firms, whether operating in London, New York or anywhere else. And pity poor old Ireland, which dreads a eurozone agreement to harmonise corporate taxes and so threaten Ireland’s 12.5 per cent rate.
It is in areas like these that Britain’s longer term negotiating position in Europe will be seriously weakened. It is significant that six non-euro countries are already committed to join the “fiscal compact” agreed in Brussels, while Hungary, Denmark and Sweden will probably do so after consulting their parliaments. The UK will be the odd one out.
One question which the summit does raise is whether the British prime minister has worked hard enough to build alliances with his natural allies in Europe. Briefing after last month’s meeting with Chancellor Merkel suggested that some sort of agreement had been reached between the two of them, but there was no evidence of mutual understanding in Brussels this week.
Former MEP Ben Patterson has just published The Conservative Party and Europe, a comprehensive book tracking how Conservative Party opinion has switched from staunchly pro-Europe in the 1970s to viscerally anti-EU today. This switch led to the decision of the Conservative group in the European Parliament to sever links with the European Peoples’ Party. Patterson argues that this move potentially weakened David Cameron’s position with his natural allies.
The recent EPP meeting in Marseilles was perhaps a case in point, where EPP leaders met informally to agree common positions or at least to clarify reasons for disagreement in advance of the summit.
It could be argued that Friday’s blood-letting has cleared the air. The UK can now concentrate on the overriding priority, to do everything it can – including through the IMF – to help prevent the collapse of the euro. The irony is that it is the weakness of the eurozone structure, and not its strength, which has triggered the need for the new inter-governmental treaty and threatened the future of the whole European project.
Michael
What do Michael O’Leary, Dr Margaret Chan, Vivienne Westwood, Andrew Witty, and Eric Schmidt have in common?
Let me start with telling you who they are. Perhaps that will help.
Michael O’Leary is the Chief Executive of Ryanair we love to hate. Vivienne Westwood is a leading fashion designer; you know the one with the shocking red hair. Dr Chan is the formidable Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO). Andrew Witty is the omnipresent CEO of GlaxoSmithKline Group. And Eric Schmidt is the Executive Chairman of Google, all the way from Mountain View, California.
It’s a tough one, I know, so I’ll end the suspense here.
Turns out some inspired soul at the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation came up with the above, it must be said, rather innovative list of people (amongst others) to speak today and yesterday at DG Research’s first innovation convention. The convention comes one year after the adoption of the EU’s Innovation Union flagship initiative, the EU’s masterplan to exiting the economic crisis by making Europe more innovation-friendly and competitive.
Fueling innovation to help solve all our problems and create more, sustainable jobs sounds like a viable strategy, but finding the right cocktail of ingredients to achieve such innovation is altogether less obvious. Making Europe the leader of such innovation is an even tougher conundrum.
To help Europe on its merry way, Michael O’Leary offered this bit of advice – ‘get the hell out of Brussels as quick as you can’ he said, or risk losing your innovative streak and new ideas, doomed to be dulled by the politicians and technocrats of the EU. Marvelously constructive advice I thought.
Dr Chan and Andrew Witty were more helpful when discussing their views on how innovation can deliver better health care globally. Innovation is seen as the necessary ingredient if we are going to make the next big discovery in healthcare, something we badly need given ever decreasing national healthcare budgets exacerbated by an ever increasing ageing population.
According to Dr Chan, innovation can come from just doing more with existing resources, given 20-40% of all healthcare spending is wasted. But it can also come from the power of collaboration across the international community, as demonstrated by the examples she cited ranging from the creation of a meningitis vaccine for sub-Saharan Africa through collaborations with industry to tackle tropical diseases.
But both Dr Chan and Witty warned that even when innovations are found through investment in research and development, the power of innovation can only be realised through effective delivery. Put simply, Witty said, ‘research for research sake doesn’t work – we need to know what to do with innovation once we achieve it’.
But I was left wondering whether the current policy and regulatory frameworks across Europe facilitate the required speed and depth of collaboration to achieve and deliver real innovation? Will the proposed funds and much promised reduced red tape in the Commission’s newly proposed research and innovation programme Horizon 2020 (the new FP8) help solve the challenges it seeks to address from well-being and excellent science through to industrial leadership? Dr Chan says yes, so long as the goal of achieving innovation is achieving social benefits (even if those ideas did originate in Brussels).
-Aoife
