EU and US Conclude Swift Agreement

The United States and European Union signed an agreement giving the American government agencies access to all bank transactions within Europe, in the name of anti-terrorism intelligence.

The Swift agreement, named after the Belgian-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication that runs the eponymous intra-bank network, was accepted by the EU on Monday 28th June 2010. It allows American collection of data within Europe and the transfer of information about suspicious transactions to the US. An EU official based in the US will maintain oversight for privacy and against misuse.

The agreement follows an earlier interim agreement to give the US data on all transactions, which was signed last November ahead of changes to the Swift architecture. Originally, Swift had two datacentres — one in the US and one in the EU — which mirrored all bank transactions. From 1 January, 2010, a third datacentre was used in Switzerland to maintain redundancy without having EU data in the US, which would have been against European privacy law.

The interim agreement was subsequently opposed by groups within the EU parliament, including the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), who forced a parliamentary rejection of the agreement in February. The S&D amendments were then incorporated.

The European Parliament has adopted the Swift agreement on Thursday, 8th July 2010 allowing sharing EU citizens' bank data with the US authorities. The text was adopted with 484 votes in favour and 109 against. The supporters of the current version claim that the new text was significantly improved by gaining a number of important concessions from the US. These include the limitation of bulk data being transfer to the US or the role of Europol in overseeing the transfer process.

However, there are concerns that the current agreement does not meet the European privacy standards. There is no prior judicial ruling required for transfer of data, the definition of "terrorism" is very broad and there is still no legal redress available for EU citizens in the US against data transfers or the possibly serious consequences thereof. Also, in practice, Swift can't currently limit data searches to specific individuals or single transactions. Actually, it will have to (and has in the past) transfer data about all transactions from a certain country or a certain bank on a certain date. There have been reports that the US Treasury has received up to 25% of all Swift transactions, which number in the billions each year.

As regards the Europol's position, the EU body is far from a judicial authority and it is now authorized to request information from the US searches in the transferred data, which drastically reduces any incentive to limit the transferred amount of data in the first place.

This agreement entered into force on Sunday, 1st August 2010. The current text will be valid for five years and then automatically extends for one year at a time. In order to terminate the agreement, one of the parties has to take an initiative. Even if it is terminated, all transferred data will remain at the disposal of US authorities. The data provided to the American authorities will be subject to a retention period of five years.

The Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the EU to the USA for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program can be read here.

European Conservatives & Reformist Group Abstains On New European Commission

The European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) in the European Parliament has abstained in today's vote on the new European Commission, saying that it cannot offer the same confidence in the new college as a whole as it has in President Barroso.


Following the vote, ECR Chairman, Mr. Michal Kaminski MEP said:

"The 'take it or leave it' nature of the confirmation vote has meant that we must assess the college as a whole. This is lamentable because there were strong candidates who we would have endorsed, and weak candidates who we would have opposed.

"In today's vote we have signalled our support for President Barroso, expressed our concerns about the competence of some of the new commissioners, and conveyed our criticism of the confirmation procedure."

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope MEP, ECR Deputy Chairman, said:

"Having been instrumental in President Barroso's re-election we still have total confidence in him. However, we do not yet have full confidence in his entire team.

"During the hearings, some of the candidates veered away from the Political Guidelines that President Barroso himself set out for his commission's second term. We will work with President Barroso to deliver those aspects of his agenda on which we can agree, but in some cases we were concerned that members of the commission were planning to pursue their own political agendas, even before they were sworn into office."

ECR Vice-President Mr. Jan Zahradil MEP said:

"Some national governments are culpable of not sending the best person for the job, instead opting for political expediency.

"However, now that the commission has been adopted, we do not intend to go into detail regarding those candidates that caused concern. Instead, we will look ahead to a constructive relationship with the new commission in order to deliver our programme of reform for the EU."

Mr. Derk Jan Eppink MEP, who sat through twelve commissioner hearings, said:

"We intend to campaign for reform of the commissioner confirmation procedure. It is imperative that next time the parliament can assess each candidate individually on his or her merits so that national governments think twice about who they send."

European Union Lies and Liberal Democrat Spin - Roger Helmer MEP

Roger Helmer writes on CentreRight today:

"With the wretched Lisbon Treaty coming into force this month, we had a briefing on its implications today in the European Conservatives Group in Brussels. This included, inter alia, a briefing from my good colleague Ashley Fox, who represents South West England, on relations with national parliaments.

"Apologists for the Lisbon Treaty, like the Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff (Eastern England), like to claim that Lisbon enhances the powers of national parliaments. Duff is a pleasant enough chap, and I hesitate to accuse him of the mendacious deceitfulness which characterises his party. But he must know that this claim is nonsense. Let's consider the process.

"Lisbon gives national parliaments certain rights to be informed of EU decisions (as if they could not be so informed). It then offers the right for a third of national parliaments, acting together, to express their reservations to the Commission if they feel that a Commission proposal compromises subsidiarity (a right they presumably had anyway, with or without Lisbon). This is the so-called "Yellow Card". The Commission has to consider this objection but can proceed with its proposal if it doesn´t consider it is justified.

"Should the Commission ignore the "yellow card" then a simple majority of national parliaments (currently fourteen) can raise a second objection to the Commission. This is the so-called "Orange Card". And this requires action: the Commission must then refer the objection to the Council and the European parliament for a resolution.

"So how will this work in practice? For a start, there is no trans-national mechanism for co-operation between national parliaments, so it is difficult to envisage the Yellow/Orange Card procedure being invoked at all. And if it is invoked? The Yellow Card is a paper tiger. It has no teeth: the Commission can ignore it. And the Orange Card? Given that the Council consists of national governments, who broadly control their national parliaments, and given further that the European parliament always favours more, and more rapid, EU integration, it is extraordinarily improbable that the Council and parliament together would act to block a Commission proposal and to support a demand for subsidiarity.

"So the procedure is likely to have no effect at all, even if invoked, which is unlikely in the first place. Why, therefore is the procedure in the Treaty at all? It is merely window dressing and spin. It is there simply so that people like Andrew Duff can talk about "increased powers for national parliaments", knowing those "powers" to be so circumscribed as to be meaningless.

"Needless to say, there is no Red Card."

Open Europe publishes 50 new examples of EU waste

Today, the EU's accountants – the European Court of Auditors (ECA) – have published their annual report on the EU’s budget. The ECA has refused to give the EU’s accounts a clean bill of health for the 15th year in a row, owing to fraud and mismanagement in the budget. Like last year, the auditors did sign off the Commission’s own accounts, saying that they accurately represented how much money was raised and spent.

Although the ECA’s report is about the management of the accounts, the occasion represents an opportunity to take stock of the EU budget as a whole. Because while mismanagement of the accounts continues to be problematic, arguably the most important issue is the fact that the EU budget is hugely wasteful and irrational in terms of what the money is actually spent on, and where the money is spent.

The budget is dominated by two failing policies which even the current UK Government is essentially opposed to: the Common Agricultural Policy, and the so-called Structural Funds. The sheer size and complexity of these two top-down spending programmes means the EU's budget is wide open to waste and mismanagement, regardless of whether the blame lays with the Commission or the member states. The budget therefore represents extremely bad value for taxpayers' money.

To illustrate this, Open Europe has produced a list of 50 new examples of EU waste. The list is by no means comprehensive, but designed to show the types of peculiar projects on which EU money has been wasted in the past. They give a light-hearted illustration of what is wrong with the EU budget, and the need for fundamental reform.

Open Europe Research Director Mats Persson said:

"The Commission tries to put the blame for fraud and waste on the member states, but the real problem is the EU budget itself. The EU’s spending programmes are overly complex, irrational and hopelessly out of date. Until they are subject to root-and-branch reforms, or scrapped altogether, waste and fraud will continue.

"Too often, EU money is wasted on inefficient projects which are based on unrealistic expectations or for which there is no real demand. Because of the way the EU’s spending schemes are set up, bizarre or wasteful projects can receive funding which never would have received money if subject only to national spending priorities. Unfortunately, the focus of the EU budget is to get the money out of the door, not to spend the money wisely.

“Surely, in a recession, we can think of better ways to spend £100 billon a year?"

To read Open Europe’s 50 new examples of EU waste see here:

Here are the top five examples of EU waste:

• €173,000 for a luxury golf resort €173,274 in EU funds were given to the luxury golf resort, Monte da Quinta Club, in the Algarve, Portugal, where guests can choose between “the comfort of a villa with garden and private pool, or be dazzled by deluxe suites”. There is also a luxury spa, health club, several restaurants and bars, shops and a hairdresser.

• €2,500 for Chairman of Porsche’s hunting retreat Wolfgang Porsche, supervisory board Chairman of Porsche, received €2,500 in EU rural development funds for a small estate in Bavaria, Germany, where he goes hunting in his free time.

• €100,000 for a luxury Spanish hotel chain €99,877 in EU funds for 2009 alone were granted to Tils Curt, a chain of luxury restaurants and hotels across Spain, established in 1880. The funds were given as part of the Regional Development Fund.

• ‘Donkeypedia’: the blogging donkey As part of the EU’s €7 million ‘Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ initiative, the European Commission ran an art education project called “Donkeypedia”, in which a donkey travels through the Netherlands, and primary school children meet and greet the donkey. The aim of the project was

"creating a reflection of all European identities. What are the similarities, what are the differences? What is it that makes Europe as unique as it is? Donkeypedia will try to make this feeling tangible by interacting and in dialogue with its surroundings while walking a European route through several countries and collecting data to support this image."

The donkey, named Asino, also maintained a blog throughout the walk. One entry reads:

"We started really early today, Cristian slept in a bed in a house. It was a crazy morning waking up. I was under a chestnut tree sleeping in sand, when I opened my eyes there were animals all looking at me. I was embarrassed! Now I understand a little how people from different cultures may feel in the Netherlands."

• €80,000 for a Swedish ‘virtual city’ in Second LifeIn early 2008, Sweden’s third largest city, Malmo, was given an EU grant worth 800,000 Swedish kronor (€80,000), to create a virtual version of itself in 'Second Life' ­- a virtual fantasy world inhabited by computer-generated residents. The project was an attempt to reach out to young people and envisioned some of Malmo’s most famous buildings - such as its library and university - to be mirrored in Second Life. In addition, the project included plans for a virtual 'citizens' office', in which City officials could do their work and meet with those inhabitants of Malmö who were active in Second Life (the number of Malmo residents active on Second Life is thought to be very small).

In May 2009, Malmo was launched as a 'virtual city'. By then, the budget had been busted – and the project had been subject to massive criticism, as Second Life was no longer regarded as the future of social media – particularly not amongst young people. One of the politicians involved in the project said:

"Malmö wants to be at the forefront of IT, but we’re aware that Second Life is probably not at the absolute forefront anymore."

Joakim Jardenberg, of Swedish IT company Mindpark, added that he thought the project was a 'bizarre joke' at first.

"Second Life has never been particularly popular in Sweden. Facebook would have been a better tool"

. In March 2010 the project will be evaluated. If virtual Malmo does not have enough visitors by then, the project will be shut down.

Conservatives New Policy Towards European Union

The Lisbon Treaty has now been signed by President Klaus and will become part of European Union law Tuesday, 1st December. Given this situation, the Conservatives have announced a series of measures for which they will seek a mandate at the next general election. The measures are:

Unilateral measures which can be taken without reference to European Partners

• An Irish style ‘referendum lock’ on any treaty handing over further powers from Britain to the EU. Achieved through amending the 1972 European Communities Act so that any future treaty which transfers competences (powers) from Britain to the EU would have to be subject to a referendum, as is already effectively the case in Ireland.

• A legal lock ensuring a referendum if any British government tries to take Britain into the Euro. The party are pledged never to take Britain into the Euro. But to prevent any future British Government from trying to do so without a referendum, an amendment to the 1972 Act will be made.

• A United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, to ensure the ultimate sovereignty of the UK Parliament. Unlike many other European countries, Britain does not have a written constitution. Given the increasing amount of EU law with which we have to deal, Conservatives would amend the law to insert a sovereignty clause to make it explicit that, ultimately, Britain’s Parliament is sovereign and cannot be overruled by the European Union against its will. This is similar in principle to the situation in Germany whereby the German Constitution ‘the Basic Law’ is ultimately supreme.

• Full Parliamentary control over the self-amending clauses in the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty contains a number of ratchet clauses (known also as ‘passerelles’) whereby the powers of the EU could be expanded in the future without a new treaty. Conservatives would change the law so that using any passerelle would require a British government to pass an Act of Parliament (rather than a simple motion and a 90 minute debate, as currently proposed under Labour).

These measures can be brought in unilaterally by an incoming Conservative government without the need to seek approval from our European partners.

‘British guarantees’ on the operation of Lisbon and social and employment legislation, which will require negotiation with our EU partners

It is the Conservative Party’s intention to use the forthcoming general election deliberately to seek a mandate to negotiate ‘British guarantees’ on the application of the Lisbon Treaty and on seeking to restore key powers to Britain.

These would include:

• A full opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR. Tony Blair stated that he had obtained an opt-out from the CFR. He had not. As Ministers have subsequently admitted, he only obtained a ‘clarification’ as to how it would apply. The Conservatives want to upgrade this to a full opt-out so that the CFR, which for instance would interfere with our trade union legislation, cannot be made to apply in Britain.

• Greater protection against EU encroachment into the UK’s Criminal Justice System. Lisbon provides Britain with an ‘opt-in’ over criminal justice matters but Conservatives want broader protection provided by an additional protocol. This would protect against EU judges extending their control over our Criminal Justice System, and we also want to ensure that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.

• Restoration of national control over social and employment legislation. Lastly, Conservatives want to restore national control over those parts of social and employment legislation which have proved most damaging to the British economy.

The party intends to establish a European Policy Committee of the Shadow Cabinet, chaired by William Hague (currently Shadow Foreign Secretary), to work on the detail of these proposals.

We will seek to give these measures legal effect by adding them to a future accession treaty. This is the same mechanism that will give effect to the ‘Irish guarantees’ and also the more recent ‘Czech guarantees’ and we would seek to mirror it for the above British guarantees too.

The longer term

The Conservative Party will aim to implement these measures over the course of the next Parliament, if they form the government. Further if, over the lifetime of the next Parliament, they do not succeed in negotiating the return of these powers; or if, in fact, the EU does move in the wrong direction, if those circumstances were to occur, the policy announced yesterday states that Conservatives would not rule out a referendum on a wider package of guarantees to protect our democratic decision-making, while remaining a member of the European Union. However, that would be a judgement for the future, not for this election or for the next Parliament.

Perhaps the Conservative Party’s new policy is best summarised as:

"A Conservative government will never allow us to become part of a federal Europe and we have devised a series of specific measures which will protect Britain from this. We will seek a mandate from the British people to implement these measures at the forthcoming general election."

Daniel Hannan: "The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government"

For those of you yet to see the stinging attack on Gordon Brown by Daniel Hannan MEP I present it here. Notice that our MEP Roger Helmer is sat to Hannan right.

Conservatives and the European Union

It is the Conservative Party’s view that Britain benefits from our membership of the European Union. The EU does much that is worthwhile. The Single Market allows services, workers and goods to move freely across Europe. The tangible benefits such as cheaper telephone calls, air travel and internet access are enjoyed by tens of millions of Britons.

The EU also provides a unique means for us to work together with our European partners on shared challenges which Europe’s nation states by themselves cannot deal with; and with enlargement, the goal of EU membership has persuaded not just governments but whole societies to raise their standards across the board. Britain has an enormous amount to gain through co-operation and free trade in Europe. That is why we want Britain to be a positive participant in the EU, championing liberal values.

I do agree with you, however, that the costs of EU membership are heavier than they should be. There have been improvements – proposed new EU laws are now assessed for their impact on jobs and businesses – but there is still too much red tape coming from Brussels and too much interference in matters that should be decided by Europe’s nation states, not the EU. On issues such as the Working Time Directive the effect on our businesses and public services is potentially serious and damaging. That is why if we win the next general election a Conservative Government will have as a priority the restoration of national control over social and employment legislation.

The EU budget also costs British taxpayers more than it should, not least because this Labour Government signed away £7 billion of Britain’s hard won rebate in return for nothing at all. A Conservative Government would robustly defend Britain’s financial interests in Europe and press for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, which accounts for two fifths of the EU budget.

You may also like to know that Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget is £2 billion this year, forecast to rise to £6.5 billion in 2010/11.

We believe in an open, flexible Europe, so we opposed the EU Constitution in principle, and that is why, now substantially the same Treaty has been brought back as the Lisbon Treaty, we oppose that too. So the Conservative Party wins the next general election and the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force we will put it to a referendum of the British people, recommending a ‘no’ vote, and if it is rejected then the Treaty will be finished. But if the Treaty is in force then in our view political integration in the EU will have gone too far, the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy in this country and we would not let matters rest there.

We have further pledged that a Conservative government will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any new EU Treaty that transfers competences – essentially EU legal language for powers – from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum of the British people. This is because we strongly uphold the principle that people should have freedom and control over their own lives, and it should no longer be possible for Governments to hand over power to the EU without the British peoples’ explicit permission.

We are optimistic that with a firm view of our national interests in mind and a clear vision of Europe’s proper priorities – global competitiveness, global poverty and global warming – we can succeed in reforming the EU so that it is fit for the twenty first century. It will not be fast. It will not be easy. But we believe it can be done.

Conservative MEP team chosen

The Conservative Candidates for the East Midlands European Elections in 2009 have been chosen by a postal ballot of all Party Members. The team is led by Roger Helmer MEP, supported by Emma McClarkin, Rupert Matthews, Fiona Bulmer and George Lee.


Retiring MEP,Chris Heaton-Harris, says

"This is a fantastic team to represent the East Midlands with a real depth of talent and wide range of experience".

The List on the ballot paper will be:

1. Roger Helmer
2. Emma McClarkin
3. Rupert Matthews
4. Fiona Bulmer
5. George Lee