A 10-year investigation into alleged embezzlement of public funds by the former French president Jacques Chirac may end in a damp squib. In a decision that will provoke allegations of political interference by his successor Nicolas Sarkozy, the Paris public prosecutor's office has decided that Mr Chirac has "no case to answer" in accusations that he ran his political party with officials illegally placed on the Paris town hall payroll from 1983 to 1995. The decision to drop the case must still be approved by a judge. It is, in any case, just one of several allegations of misuse of public funds brought against Mr Chirac, 76. But the recommendation that he should not go on trial, despite considerable documentary evidence suggesting his guilt, is bound to draw attention to Mr Chirac's relationship with President Sarkozy.
A 10-year investigation into alleged embezzlement of public funds by the former French president Jacques Chirac may end in a damp squib.
In a decision that will provoke allegations of political interference by his successor Nicolas Sarkozy, the Paris public prosecutor's office has decided that Mr Chirac has "no case to answer" in accusations that he ran his political party with officials illegally placed on the Paris town hall payroll from 1983 to 1995.
The decision to drop the case must still be approved by a judge. It is, in any case, just one of several allegations of misuse of public funds brought against Mr Chirac, 76. But the recommendation that he should not go on trial, despite considerable documentary evidence suggesting his guilt, is bound to draw attention to Mr Chirac's relationship with President Sarkozy.
That, or Chirac has a file this thick on Sarkozy in a vault in a Swiss bank... Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Commission is to claw back over €200 million in farm subsidies from 18 member states as a result of mis-spending, the EU executive announced on Tuesday (29 September). In total, €214.6 million of EU farm monies unduly spent by countries due to non-compliance with EU rules or inadequate control procedures on agricultural expenditure will return to community coffers. France will have to pay back €71m in mis-spent funds "The commission is keeping up the pressure to ensure the best possible controls over how this money is spent," said agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, commenting on the decision. "The system is working better than ever and we will continue to strive to improve things further," she added. Some €71 million is being demanded back from France in what is the biggest bill for misuse of funds, for weaknesses in on-the-spot checks over the course of 2006 and 2007.
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Commission is to claw back over €200 million in farm subsidies from 18 member states as a result of mis-spending, the EU executive announced on Tuesday (29 September).
In total, €214.6 million of EU farm monies unduly spent by countries due to non-compliance with EU rules or inadequate control procedures on agricultural expenditure will return to community coffers.
France will have to pay back €71m in mis-spent funds
"The commission is keeping up the pressure to ensure the best possible controls over how this money is spent," said agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, commenting on the decision.
"The system is working better than ever and we will continue to strive to improve things further," she added.
Some €71 million is being demanded back from France in what is the biggest bill for misuse of funds, for weaknesses in on-the-spot checks over the course of 2006 and 2007.
But this is what the media want to keep feeding angry and confused people with. Tales of how elected representatives, and public services and servants, are ripping them off.
Keeps them occupied.
France gets over 10 billion euros a year in CAP expenditures. So, this 71 million for two years would be the equivalent of a rounding error.
It's sometimes useful to be remember who owns the EUobserver.
Who does? Is it Murdoch again? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Union must toughen its stance when negotiating with China on investment access, according to the newly elected chair of the European Parliament's delegation to China. Centre-right Italian MEP Crescenzio Rivellini signaled his intention on Tuesday (29 September) to use ongoing negotiations for an upgrade in EU-China relations to step up pressure in this area. Mr Rivellini favours an end to the EU's embargo on selling arms to China "We will try to use the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement to improve investment access in China for EU companies," he told EUobserver following his election to the post. Ties between China and the EU are currently set out under a 1985 Trade and Co-operation Agreement but discussions have been ongoing since 2007 to broaden the formal relationship.
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Union must toughen its stance when negotiating with China on investment access, according to the newly elected chair of the European Parliament's delegation to China.
Centre-right Italian MEP Crescenzio Rivellini signaled his intention on Tuesday (29 September) to use ongoing negotiations for an upgrade in EU-China relations to step up pressure in this area.
Mr Rivellini favours an end to the EU's embargo on selling arms to China
"We will try to use the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement to improve investment access in China for EU companies," he told EUobserver following his election to the post.
Ties between China and the EU are currently set out under a 1985 Trade and Co-operation Agreement but discussions have been ongoing since 2007 to broaden the formal relationship.
That's called using "ongoing negotiations for an upgrade in EU-China relations to step up pressure in this area".
Diplomacy is an art.
The job application procedure for officials in Brussels is changing in 2010. That is good news for Dutch nationals who would like a job 'in Europe'.John Wouters (38) was one of only 159 people left in the running after most of the more than 11,000 initial candidates had dropped out. After a 16-months selection process and an extremely difficult exam Wouters now qualifies for a position in the administration of the European Union in Brussels. But that doesn't mean he is guaranteed a job: people who pass what EU employees call the `concours' are merely placed on a reserve list. Passing the concours means that Wouters is now allowed to apply for a job. Even though he still doesn't have a job in Brussels yet Wouters is already part of a past generation: he was one of the last candidates required to take the infamous European knowledge test. Some of the questions in the test included: `How many presidents has the European Commission had to date?' or 'When was the Single European Act signed?'
John Wouters (38) was one of only 159 people left in the running after most of the more than 11,000 initial candidates had dropped out. After a 16-months selection process and an extremely difficult exam Wouters now qualifies for a position in the administration of the European Union in Brussels. But that doesn't mean he is guaranteed a job: people who pass what EU employees call the `concours' are merely placed on a reserve list. Passing the concours means that Wouters is now allowed to apply for a job.
Even though he still doesn't have a job in Brussels yet Wouters is already part of a past generation: he was one of the last candidates required to take the infamous European knowledge test. Some of the questions in the test included: `How many presidents has the European Commission had to date?' or 'When was the Single European Act signed?'
A backlash was growing last night against the actors and directors who leapt to the defence of Roman Polanski after his arrest on a child sex charge. Celebrated cinema luminaries including Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese called for Polanski to be freed immediately from arrest in Switzerland on a US extradition warrant. He is wanted for fleeing 30 years ago to avoid sentencing after admitting unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Lawyers for the film director have appealed for his release on bail. Luc Besson, the director of Léon, however, refused to sign the Hollywood petition, saying that no one should be above the law, and Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, criticised his Foreign Minister for urging the director's freedom.
A backlash was growing last night against the actors and directors who leapt to the defence of Roman Polanski after his arrest on a child sex charge.
Celebrated cinema luminaries including Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese called for Polanski to be freed immediately from arrest in Switzerland on a US extradition warrant.
He is wanted for fleeing 30 years ago to avoid sentencing after admitting unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Lawyers for the film director have appealed for his release on bail.
Luc Besson, the director of Léon, however, refused to sign the Hollywood petition, saying that no one should be above the law, and Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, criticised his Foreign Minister for urging the director's freedom.
arrest in Switzerland on a US extradition warrant
Interesting tidbit: the warrant upon which Polanski was arrested was issued by the FBI in 2005. Polanski reportedly owns a house in Gstaad and must have been to Switzerland a number of times since 2005.
So why now? [Coincidence, surely] Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
This time they ensured he was actually in the air before they issued the warrant. keep to the Fen Causeway
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, walked out of a television interview while the cameras were still rolling during a series of angry exchanges with broadcasters. Mr Brown was clearly frustrated as he was repeatedly challenged over his personality, leadership and the defection of The Sun newspaper from the Labour cause, complaining that he was not being given the opportunity to debate policy, following his speech at the Labour Party conference in Brighton. Following one particularly testy interview with Sky News, he attempted to walk out of the studio when still connected to a microphone, and while he was expected to remain in his seat for a second broadcast with the BBC.
Mr Brown was clearly frustrated as he was repeatedly challenged over his personality, leadership and the defection of The Sun newspaper from the Labour cause, complaining that he was not being given the opportunity to debate policy, following his speech at the Labour Party conference in Brighton.
Following one particularly testy interview with Sky News, he attempted to walk out of the studio when still connected to a microphone, and while he was expected to remain in his seat for a second broadcast with the BBC.
Gordon Brown played down the damage to his electoral prospects today after The Sun withdrew its support for the Labour Party. The Prime Minister insisted that voters and not newspapers decided the Government, urging people to take a close look at his policies. In a round of broadcast interviews, Mr Brown said: "It's the British people that decide the election, it's the British people's views that I am interested in." Mr Brown told GMTV: "I think Sun readers actually, when they look at what I say, they will agree with what I said."
Gordon Brown played down the damage to his electoral prospects today after The Sun withdrew its support for the Labour Party.
The Prime Minister insisted that voters and not newspapers decided the Government, urging people to take a close look at his policies.
In a round of broadcast interviews, Mr Brown said: "It's the British people that decide the election, it's the British people's views that I am interested in."
Mr Brown told GMTV: "I think Sun readers actually, when they look at what I say, they will agree with what I said."
Tony Blair will end his exile from British politics at the next general election to "fight hard for Labour" in its toughest battle for almost 20 years. Downing Street figures expect the former Prime Minister to be asked to campaign in marginal seats where his appeal to "aspirational voters", those whom Gordon Brown has struggled to reach, will matter most. Mr Blair's presence would also help to counter Conservative claims that the Tories are now the heirs to his progressive agenda. A Downing Street spokesman said that his precise role had not been settled but added: "We look forward to his support at the next election."
Tony Blair will end his exile from British politics at the next general election to "fight hard for Labour" in its toughest battle for almost 20 years.
Downing Street figures expect the former Prime Minister to be asked to campaign in marginal seats where his appeal to "aspirational voters", those whom Gordon Brown has struggled to reach, will matter most.
Mr Blair's presence would also help to counter Conservative claims that the Tories are now the heirs to his progressive agenda.
A Downing Street spokesman said that his precise role had not been settled but added: "We look forward to his support at the next election."
Downing Street figures expect the former Prime Minister to be asked to campaign
way to hand it to the tories, guys...
seeing that sanctimonious smirk again will really fire up the voters, lol! ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
[head explodes]
You do not walk out of interviews. Ever. You amateur keep to the Fen Causeway
And it's not that great a frame. He's been set up as the scapegoat for Blair's many failings, and he's going to take the fall for that. A bit of rough-housing with the media makes him look petulant, and perhaps even somewhat unserious.
Aside form the idiot neoliberal policies, his personality is such he should never have been allowed near the Prime Minister's office keep to the Fen Causeway
Way to go Gord. Did no one prep you on what would happen if you talk to a Murdoch organisation ? Are there any political professionals left in Downing street or have you replaced them with sulk-a-likes ?
Who needs professionals when you have the support of Murdoch? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Following one particularly testy interview with Sky News
A new report commissioned by the EU said that Georgia started the South Ossetia conflict last summer, but also found Russia's response illegal. Both Georgia and Russia have claimed the report supports their version. According to the report, carried out by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini and presented to the European Union on Wednesday, there is no evidence to support Georgia's claim that Russia had already sent troops to annex South Ossetia before Georgia began its attack on the region's capital Tskhinvali on the night of August 7/8 2008. "There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation," the report said. "There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia ... was justifiable under international law. It was not."
According to the report, carried out by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini and presented to the European Union on Wednesday, there is no evidence to support Georgia's claim that Russia had already sent troops to annex South Ossetia before Georgia began its attack on the region's capital Tskhinvali on the night of August 7/8 2008.
"There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation," the report said. "There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia ... was justifiable under international law. It was not."
Russia said the report delivered an "unequivocal answer" on the question of who started the conflict. But Georgia said the investigation proved that Russia had been preparing for war all along.
Russia said the report delivered an "unequivocal answer" on the question of who started the conflict.
But Georgia said the investigation proved that Russia had been preparing for war all along.
"Partout les armées ont attiré d'autant plus la guerre et les maux qui l'accompagnent, qu'elles ont été plus redoutables : il n'en est aucune qui ait préservé son pays d'une invasion. Le vieux proverbe, si vis pacem, para bellum, était bon chez les anciens, où la force décidait tout ; il n'est plus chez les modernes l'expression de la vérité : de grands préparatifs de guerre mènent toujours à la guerre."Jean-Baptiste Say.
Jean-Baptiste Say.
Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has taken the stand in a Paris court, denying any role in a plot to discredit President Nicolas Sarkozy.It is alleged that Mr de Villepin tried to manipulate a judicial investigation to hurt Mr Sarkozy's chances of winning the 2007 presidential election. In court, Mr de Villepin categorically denied sending forged documents to a French judge to implicate Mr Sarkozy. He also said ex-President Jacques Chirac played no part in any smear bid.
Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has taken the stand in a Paris court, denying any role in a plot to discredit President Nicolas Sarkozy.
It is alleged that Mr de Villepin tried to manipulate a judicial investigation to hurt Mr Sarkozy's chances of winning the 2007 presidential election.
In court, Mr de Villepin categorically denied sending forged documents to a French judge to implicate Mr Sarkozy.
He also said ex-President Jacques Chirac played no part in any smear bid.
Germany's Social Democrats are in crisis. And they are not alone. Across Europe, social democratic parties are struggling to connect with a new generation of voters. What's the problem? German Chancellor Angela Merkel's re-election this weekend confirms what many already knew: Europe's social democratic parties have failed to distill any political benefit from the association between the right's reverence for unfettered markets and the economic crises that grip the continent. Historically, Europeans turn to conservatives in times of crisis. But today, the situation is more complex. In Germany, Merkel's Christian Democrats also fared worse than in previous elections. Instead, voters opted for the far-left Left Party, the liberal Free Democrats and the Greens. These parties tapped into modernizing demographic trends: the rise of a progressive younger generation, the continuing rise in educational levels, the growth of the professional class, the increasing social weight of single and alternative households and growing religious diversity and secularism. Despite the defeat of the social democrats, then, one can discern the emergence of new constituencies that favor progressives. These trends are repeated across much of Europe. But why do these groups not vote for the social democrats?
Germany's Social Democrats are in crisis. And they are not alone. Across Europe, social democratic parties are struggling to connect with a new generation of voters. What's the problem?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's re-election this weekend confirms what many already knew: Europe's social democratic parties have failed to distill any political benefit from the association between the right's reverence for unfettered markets and the economic crises that grip the continent.
Historically, Europeans turn to conservatives in times of crisis. But today, the situation is more complex. In Germany, Merkel's Christian Democrats also fared worse than in previous elections. Instead, voters opted for the far-left Left Party, the liberal Free Democrats and the Greens. These parties tapped into modernizing demographic trends: the rise of a progressive younger generation, the continuing rise in educational levels, the growth of the professional class, the increasing social weight of single and alternative households and growing religious diversity and secularism. Despite the defeat of the social democrats, then, one can discern the emergence of new constituencies that favor progressives. These trends are repeated across much of Europe.
But why do these groups not vote for the social democrats?
All political parties sound old fashioned right now, but some sound older than others. keep to the Fen Causeway
The real problem is that there was really no new paradigm ready to take over from the intellectual collapse of neoclassical economics. Old paradigms (say, Marxism, even Keynesianism) don't usually come back from the ashes of intellectual collapse (1989 and the 1970's stagflation, respectively). En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
So far the LibDems seem to be campaigning on being "different". I think they might try focus-grouping the word "modern" instead. Modern, and perhaps, "reasonable". You could contrast that with "worn-out Labour policies" and "irresponsible Tory ideas".
Like I do not have enough to do. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Is it simply the failure of social-democratic echelons that forget whom they are meant to represent? Labourers have become lower (middle) class, but the Labour party has already moved on to upper class...?
all suffer from a similar ailing - selling out to the Third Way. How come that this zeitgeist is present in so many countries?
Nomad:
I didn't think the middle classes (which most UKanians don't identify themselves as anyway) were who a labour party was supposed to fight for
Now, lately the Social Liberals and the Social Democrats are nearly indistinguishable in policy though they remain distinguishable in which social network (or "base") they represent. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Labourers have become lower (middle) class, but the Labour party has already moved on to upper class...?
Note the parentheses. I wanted the focus on the lower class and with bits of lower middle class. I meant the same thing what you're writing.
When policies of Social Democrats shift closer to that of the Liberals, the Overton Window is at work. It only means Social Democrats represent their base in name only.
Brown wasn't interested in any of that. He didn't smile for the camera. He wasn't policy-lite, bobbling along on a froth of publicity. He wouldn't co-operate.
So his very stodginess made him a problem to be derided. And no insult was worse than "Old Labour". Even Prescott, who really was old labour, had to be protected from that slur. keep to the Fen Causeway
Isn't that the definition of Zeitgeist?
Once the labourers become middle class they lose their class consciousness and become individualistic. Pandering to "middle class concerns" tends to result in regressive policies, for some reason.
The 'middle class' is a largely rhetorical category in Anglo-American politics.
Used to be that middle class meant you had some economic power, some economic independence - professionals, successful small business and so on - and working class meant you depended on a boss to pay you.
Still, it is at least on the medium term suicidal for social democratic parties to practice actual middle class politics that negatively affect labour, like, say, labour market flexibilisation and union-busting policies. Or cutting the top income bracket tax rate below 50%.
That should have been obvious, but the third way social democrats seem to have practiced a wilful blindness to longer term political economy.
Ok, that is a bit reductionistic. But according to swedish politicla historians, the last break in swedish political culture came with the rise of television as media. Until then every party tried to build a huge organisation (socialdemocrats were best at it, but all tried) with as many members as possible. After that a small, media-trained, good-looking, fast-moving, party elite becomes better then thousands of activists that might not work on television. Television also becomes the fast medium, activists get to hear from the news that the party line has changed, instead of them participating in forming the party line. Power was centralised, members dropped off, the lack of activists made it even more important to get the television part right, and so on.
The turning point in politics comes a bit later then the rise of television but this is slow processes so that should not surprise. By the time of the 90'ies crisis the parties were centralised and the socialdemocrats bought into the third way - with some hollering and even more lost members.
Total membership in all the parties represented in the parliament:
To put a glimmer of hope, I would say that internet is creating a similar process. It makes huge campaigns easier, makes direct communication faster then through television, increases the weight of the written word. All pointing towards the rising importance of members, which will put demands on rising participation in deciding the parties politics. But it will take time, and newer parties might have it easier to build online then for example the socialdemocrats. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
A modern party would probably run as a media party above all else.
You wouldn't only get a say in making your favourite media content, you'd get a chance to set policy too - a sort of Strictly Prime Minister, or Big Westminster.
You could even make a living from it - shares in the new party could be unitised and traded, with each share giving the owner a vote, and a claim on future income.
However, I am not so sure buying media will do it for everyone. Media will not turn a profit if you can not sell the ads, and your policies will affect your advertising income. It will work if you push for the agenda of those that has the money to buy ads. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
How 20th century.
No - the idea was to use the machinery of government for personal profit, like Berlusconi, Murdoch, Blair and the rest, but with the chance for the public to get involved in the racketeering and profiteering, as seen on TV, with enthusiastic audience participation, covered by the same media channels that everyone has a share in.
MILAN - An Italian prosecutor in the first trial anywhere scrutinizing the CIA's extraordinary renditions asked a Milan court on Wednesday to sentence 26 Americans to jail terms ranging from 10 to 13 years for the abduction of an Egyptian terror suspect. Prosecutor Armando Spataro, completing his closing arguments, argued that a guilty verdict and strong sentence for the defendants, most of them CIA agents, would help restore confidence in Western democracies eroded by tactics employed in the fight against terrorism. Spataro requested the top sentence of 13 years for Jeffrey Castelli, the former Rome CIA station chief, who he said coordinated the 2003 kidnapping with the former head of Italian military intelligence Nicolo Pollari. He also sought 13 years for Pollari. The prosecutor requested 12 years each for Robert Seldon Lady, former Milan station chief, and Sabrina de Sousa, who was in the Rome Embassy and whom prosecutors say worked closely with Lady. Spataro is seeking sentences of 10 or 11 years for the remaining Americans. The prosecution's closing arguments signal the final phase in the more than 2 1/2-year-old trial. Nearly a dozen defense lawyers now must make their case. A verdict is expected possibly by early November. Prosecutors say Egyptian cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a suspected terrorist also known as Abu Omar, was kidnapped from a Milan street in broad daylight on Feb. 17, 2003. Nasr was then allegedly driven from Milan to the Aviano Air Base in northern Italy, flown to the Ramstein Air Base in southern Germany and then onward to Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured. Nasr has been released but remains in Egypt and has not testified at the trial. Human rights advocates charge that renditions were the CIA's way to outsource the torture of prisoners to countries where it was practiced. The CIA has declined to comment on the Italian case, and all the Americans are being tried in absentia and are considered fugitives.
Prosecutor Armando Spataro, completing his closing arguments, argued that a guilty verdict and strong sentence for the defendants, most of them CIA agents, would help restore confidence in Western democracies eroded by tactics employed in the fight against terrorism.
Spataro requested the top sentence of 13 years for Jeffrey Castelli, the former Rome CIA station chief, who he said coordinated the 2003 kidnapping with the former head of Italian military intelligence Nicolo Pollari. He also sought 13 years for Pollari.
The prosecutor requested 12 years each for Robert Seldon Lady, former Milan station chief, and Sabrina de Sousa, who was in the Rome Embassy and whom prosecutors say worked closely with Lady. Spataro is seeking sentences of 10 or 11 years for the remaining Americans.
The prosecution's closing arguments signal the final phase in the more than 2 1/2-year-old trial. Nearly a dozen defense lawyers now must make their case. A verdict is expected possibly by early November.
Prosecutors say Egyptian cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a suspected terrorist also known as Abu Omar, was kidnapped from a Milan street in broad daylight on Feb. 17, 2003.
Nasr was then allegedly driven from Milan to the Aviano Air Base in northern Italy, flown to the Ramstein Air Base in southern Germany and then onward to Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured. Nasr has been released but remains in Egypt and has not testified at the trial.
Human rights advocates charge that renditions were the CIA's way to outsource the torture of prisoners to countries where it was practiced.
The CIA has declined to comment on the Italian case, and all the Americans are being tried in absentia and are considered fugitives.
In his closing, Spataro said Western democracies cannot accept arguments that the rules of engagement have been altered by the threat posed by international terrorism. "We don't have an alternative but to have absolute respect for the law, even where it seems difficult. Only this will give us credibility," Spataro said, wrapping up his closing arguments in the Milan courthouse.
"We don't have an alternative but to have absolute respect for the law, even where it seems difficult. Only this will give us credibility," Spataro said, wrapping up his closing arguments in the Milan courthouse.
For three minor functionaries of the Italian Secret Services, the prosecution asked not to proceed against them because of a state secrecy ruling.
For Pio Pompa the prosecution requested three years imprisonment.
In a Georgian townhouse four minutes walk from Parliament, bankers, lawyers and economists held an off-the-record evening meeting to plot how to fight European Union financial regulation that they deem a threat to London. "I am extremely worried about the City of London," said Ruth Lea, a director at Arbuthnot Banking Group Plc, who agreed after the Sept. 24 meeting at the Institute of Economic Affairs for her comments to be published. "Britain may be able to influence EU regulation, but we won't be calling the shots. Britain should consider the nuclear option of leaving the EU."... The EU last week proposed three regulatory agencies with the power to overrule national authorities. The European Parliament is preparing to debate the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers -- proposed rules pushed by European Socialist Party President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen to limit borrowing by private-equity firms and hedge funds and to enforce them to establish bases within the EU. Added Costs "Bit by bit we'll have these three EU regulators above us," Lea said. "There's one for banking, one for insurance and one for securities inevitably calling the shots." London's hedge fund and private-equity managers argue that the directive targeting their industries will restrict Europeans' ability to invest worldwide and make it harder for non-EU managers to raise money in Europe. The new rules could cost funds as much as 1.9 billion euros ($2.8 billion) through increased compliance costs in the first year and 985 million euros annually thereafter, according to Open Europe. "Everywhere in Europe people feel an unease about the Anglo-Saxon way of doing business in markets," Hans Hoogervorst, chairman of the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets, said at a conference in London yesterday.... Arguments against EU legislation in terms of the threat to London are counterproductive, said Angela Crawford-Ingle, who advises private-equity firms at Ambre Partners. "You're missing a trick here," she said. "If you take the emotion out of the debate for a moment, there are a lot of areas where you can get a European focus."
"I am extremely worried about the City of London," said Ruth Lea, a director at Arbuthnot Banking Group Plc, who agreed after the Sept. 24 meeting at the Institute of Economic Affairs for her comments to be published. "Britain may be able to influence EU regulation, but we won't be calling the shots. Britain should consider the nuclear option of leaving the EU."...
The EU last week proposed three regulatory agencies with the power to overrule national authorities. The European Parliament is preparing to debate the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers -- proposed rules pushed by European Socialist Party President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen to limit borrowing by private-equity firms and hedge funds and to enforce them to establish bases within the EU.
Added Costs
"Bit by bit we'll have these three EU regulators above us," Lea said. "There's one for banking, one for insurance and one for securities inevitably calling the shots."
London's hedge fund and private-equity managers argue that the directive targeting their industries will restrict Europeans' ability to invest worldwide and make it harder for non-EU managers to raise money in Europe. The new rules could cost funds as much as 1.9 billion euros ($2.8 billion) through increased compliance costs in the first year and 985 million euros annually thereafter, according to Open Europe.
"Everywhere in Europe people feel an unease about the Anglo-Saxon way of doing business in markets," Hans Hoogervorst, chairman of the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets, said at a conference in London yesterday....
Arguments against EU legislation in terms of the threat to London are counterproductive, said Angela Crawford-Ingle, who advises private-equity firms at Ambre Partners. "You're missing a trick here," she said. "If you take the emotion out of the debate for a moment, there are a lot of areas where you can get a European focus."
In any other European country, a prime minister like Silvio Berlusconi would have already been swept away, punished for a style of government that is dedicated to protecting his own interests as a business tycoon and demolishing the autonomy and independence of judges to ensure his impunity. His lifestyle is closer to that of an Oriental potentate than to the devout (and hypocritical) supporter of the traditional "God, the motherland and the family", which is the mantra of the right.Needless to say, Italian conservatives mouth these statements to pander to the Vatican. Mussolini, too, paid lip service to being a proud champion of the family, idolising women as angels of the hearth, whereas in reality he was a boastful womaniser.Berlusconi's problems on the domestic stage are mostly to do with rifts in his own governing coalition - mainly with his deputy, Gianfranco Fini (the third power in the state, after President Napolitano and Berlusconi). Opposition does not come from the Italian people or from the opposition - the centre-left Partito Democratico appears to be incapable of offering a plausible alternative to the current government.Why isn't the PD considered as a possible government? I think it's clear: Berlusconi's monopoloy of the media embodies the difference between the two sides. In a country in which hardly anyone reads books (Italian book readership is last but one in Europe behind Turkey) and where schools and universities are painfully neglected, over the last 15 years political and civil instruction have been provided by Mediaset's TV serials, which have "educated" (absit iniuria verbis) at least two generations.
In any other European country, a prime minister like Silvio Berlusconi would have already been swept away, punished for a style of government that is dedicated to protecting his own interests as a business tycoon and demolishing the autonomy and independence of judges to ensure his impunity. His lifestyle is closer to that of an Oriental potentate than to the devout (and hypocritical) supporter of the traditional "God, the motherland and the family", which is the mantra of the right.
Needless to say, Italian conservatives mouth these statements to pander to the Vatican. Mussolini, too, paid lip service to being a proud champion of the family, idolising women as angels of the hearth, whereas in reality he was a boastful womaniser.
Berlusconi's problems on the domestic stage are mostly to do with rifts in his own governing coalition - mainly with his deputy, Gianfranco Fini (the third power in the state, after President Napolitano and Berlusconi). Opposition does not come from the Italian people or from the opposition - the centre-left Partito Democratico appears to be incapable of offering a plausible alternative to the current government.
Why isn't the PD considered as a possible government? I think it's clear: Berlusconi's monopoloy of the media embodies the difference between the two sides. In a country in which hardly anyone reads books (Italian book readership is last but one in Europe behind Turkey) and where schools and universities are painfully neglected, over the last 15 years political and civil instruction have been provided by Mediaset's TV serials, which have "educated" (absit iniuria verbis) at least two generations.
