BS: Move EU headquarters to London

Subject: BS: Move EU headquarters to London
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:04 AM

If the EU headquarters were transferred to London, would that stop the Brussel bashing comments that don't make any sense e.g." we're fed up with Brussels telling us what to do", as if "Brussels" was some foreign power, rather than an organisation that we belong to.

Subject: RE: BS: Move EU headquarters to London
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:32 AM

Far more useful would be to get the EU (and other governments) to be OPEN and transparent. Ban "commercial confidentiality", if you want to do business with government, it's every citizen's business. One of the problems with public acceptance of the EU is the perception that it is bent. Perhaps not groundlessly:

The way in which the EU spends its budget has been criticised by the Court of Auditors for the 16th year in a row...

In its most recent report it has found that over a third of the €35.5bn allocated by the EU for regional funding was affected by errors, either unintentional or possibly fraud.

There is also the torrent of directives issued, many of which are considered pointless within the industries they target, and appear to be the result of powerful lobbying. Perhaps the nadir is the Electromagnetic Fields Directive, which has no scientific credibility, but plenty of (German) manufacturers with "solutions" to the non- problem. As originally draftyed, this would have outlawed the use of MRI in hospitals.

So I don't care where the EU is based, I just want a better one.

Subject: RE: BS: Move EU headquarters to London
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:40 AM

Could it be true that "BRUSSELS" is really calling for honey makers (at great expense) to inform the public that their product may contain pollen albeit a miniscule amount of GM. I blame the bees!! Don`t they know where the GM crops are being grown?

Subject: RE: BS: Move EU headquarters to London
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:48 AM

"if you want to do business with government, it's every citizen's business."

You never cease to amaze me. I'm gonna steal that line and send it to our Official Opposition in Canada.

Thank you again, Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Move EU headquarters to London
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:23 PM

wouldn't work, because you'll always have those in other parts of Britain moaning that they don't want London telling'em what to do, mind you that's been happening for years anyway....

Subject: RE: BS: Move EU headquarters to London
From: Musket
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:40 PM

Ban Paul Burke from saying there should be no commercial confidentiality?

Tongue firmly in cheek there, but I am a huge supporter of commercial confidentiality as I don't, as a tax payer want to be shafted by contractors. If one knew how the other pitches their price, the market could (and has many times) be stitched up. The "Dutch auction" approach ensures bids are kept low, and it is up to the government body to assess whether they are sustainable. Mind you, that's asking lot..

I reckon the real issue there is using commercial confidentiality as an excuse to hide information that has nothing to do with awarding a contract in the first place, (the actual reason for the confidentiality) but stating it as a clause to hide poor contract monitoring. Most financial abuse in contracts and service level agreements occurs after the contract has been awarded in my experience. Contracts look good when commending them to your governing body, but the Devil is in the detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Move EU headquarters to London
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:07 PM

That's a fine theory Ian, but in practice it works the other way round. The contracting firms DO form cartels, there are sweetheart deals with those holding our wallets at every level from UDC to EU, and as you correctly point out, the post- contract manoeuvring for additional payments that blow a reasonable- looking initial outlay into something eyewatering. There can be no argument for confidentiality at this stage- every extra penny should be strictly accounted for. And while it makes sense to keep the bids secret pre- contract, there's no argument for secrecy once it has been awarded. Along with reasons why the contract was awarded (it often, perhaps usually, doesn't go to the lowest bidder).

There is also the matter of civil servants and even ministers moving into private industry after selling off public assets on the cheap (see Qinetic, CDC etc.) Nearly happened to forests, will happen to British Waterways (now a "charity"- watch its property portfolio mysteriously vanish for the very best of reasons).