Guest essay by Eric Worrall
European Parliament politicians have vowed to overcome objections from governments of member nations to the imposition of their new 35% renewable energy target.
European Parliament push for clean energy package faces resistance
MEPs agree to increase EU’s renewable and energy efficiency goals but that’s not going to sit well with national governments.
ANCA GURZU
1/17/18, 7:13 PM CET
Updated 1/18/18, 8:50 PM CET
The European Parliament’s evident self-satisfaction over Wednesday’s vote to boost the EU’s green energy ambitions is likely to be punctured in the coming brawl with national governments.
MEPs’ push to speed up the bloc’s transition to clean energy puts it on a collision course with the Council of the EU, where several countries are angry at the possibility of being forced to shoulder an extra, and expensive, burden.
“We are expecting long and tough negotiations,” a Central European diplomat said, adding that the Parliament’s position “is more ambitious and challenging than what we agreed in the Council.”
MEPs said the EU should get 35 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, as well as achieving a minimum 35 percent gain in energy efficiency over the same period. They also agreed on strong rules for ensuring countries are on track to meet their goals.
…
Parliament’s higher targets are a lot more than many EU countries are prepared to accept.
“I expect the negotiations on all files from the Clean Energy Package to be tough,” said Martina Werner, a German MEP from the Socialists and Democrats. “The risk is to end up with the lowest common denominator.”
…
National opposition is not too surprising considering the bitter talks over setting the 2030 energy and climate goals in the first place back in 2014. There was strong resistance from several Central and Eastern European countries who felt things were going too far, too fast; many still rely on coal, and were worried about the financial and economic costs of shifting to other power sources in a short period of time.
In the end, EU leaders committed to 27 percent targets for both energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Those promises have to be translated into laws, and now Central Europeans are outraged that Brussels and the Parliament are trying to push beyond the leaders’ 2014 deal by pressing for higher targets in the process.
“The targets are way beyond what is feasible. We cannot come up with commitments like that out of thin air,” said an Eastern European diplomat.
…
Read more: https://www.politico.eu/article/european-capitals-will-rain-on-parliaments-green-parade/
This kind of conflict between the EU and member states is common.
The problem I suspect is that European Union Democratic institutions are very weak.
The elected EU parliament, the only elected body of the European government, does not have “legislative initiative”, the right to draft new laws. The parliament can only vote on laws proposed by the European Commission.
From Wikipedia;
… Although the European Parliament has legislative power that the Council and Commission do not possess, it does not formally possess legislative initiative, as most national parliaments of European Union member states do.[6][7] The Parliament is the “first institution” of the EU (mentioned first in the treaties, having ceremonial precedence over all authority at European level),[8] and shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council (except in a few areas where the special legislative procedures apply). It likewise has equal control over the EU budget. Finally, the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, is accountable to Parliament. In particular, Parliament elects the President of the Commission, and approves (or rejects) the appointment of the Commission as a whole. It can subsequently force the Commission as a body to resign by adopting a motion of censure.[6] …
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
The European Commission is responsible for proposing new laws, and is also responsible for oversight of the implementation of laws which they proposed.
From Wikipedia;
… Through Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union the Commission has several responsibilities: to develop medium-term strategies; to draft legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process; to represent the EU in trade negotiations; to make rules and regulations, for example in competition policy; to draw up the budget of the European Union; and to scrutinise the implementation of the treaties and legislation.[43] The rules of procedure of the European Commission set out the Commission’s operation and organisation. …
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Powers_and_functions
Members appointed to the European Commission frequently have curious backgrounds, backgrounds which would likely not stand the public scrutiny of an election campaign. Some European Commission members have been appointed despite substantial criminal convictions, or were former high ranking members of the Soviet Government.
The following is an old video of Nigel Farage, who spoke at President Trump’s election rally in Jackson, MS, listing the criminal convictions and communist affiliations of appointed European commissioners.
Why does European leadership from former members of the Soviet government and people with criminal convictions lead to conflict between the EU and elected politicians from member nation states over green policy?
The answer in my opinion is straightforward. Elected politicians who want to keep their jobs have to care about the suffering of voters, when their political decisions cause hardship. Appointed European leaders, not so much.
Folks, I think we’re missing the point. We really, really want the European Union to be totally engaged in this charade. Complete buy in. Exceeding goals. Pushing for faster roll-out. Why?
Because it [1] ensures that our own cheap power infrastructure will be more competitive at powering the manufacture of product, smelting of ores, you name it. It also [2] gives competitive-pricing advantage to us for delivery-of-equipment to Europe for them to address this new need. Oh, Germany and Italy and perhaps the feckless French and Spanish aim to get a lot of the business internally. But they also like competitively priced stuff from the US. We can make it metric, too.
The Chinese turn out to be ALL OF OUR competition. They’re the 600 lb gorilla we’re to duke-it-out with. It isn’t even clear that ANY European or American or Western manufacturing nation can actually compete with them at all, pricewise. Yet, for national security and self-sufficiency reasons, we need to. I like tariffs myself. Border import tariffs. They serve to “level the playing field” in ways that macroeconomists admit, but liberals rail against. Yet, they’re good, when executed well.
How do you think it is that Japan imports essentially no cars from the US? Think its because the Japanese cars are really all that much cheaper in Japan? Think again: they have an 85% import duty on American cars. All of the fine-sounding east-west most-preferred-trade-partner agreements notwithstanding.
LOL
GoatGuy
Judging from some of the socialist squealing in the comments above, perhaps Eric’s post should have been titled “EUtopian EUSSR Vows To Overcome…..”?
Sarchasm and humorous derision of politics is a time honored and 1st Amendment guaranteed unalienable right, as illuminated by the United States of America Constitution. ‘Climate Targets’ are political targeting of free market capitalism, dressed up in the pseudo-science variously called man made global warming, anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate ‘weirding’, ad nauseum.
Like the Paris Climate Accord, ‘We the People’ reject this political fallacy.
It is of course purely coincidental that the Brussels Bureaucrats are going hell for leather to have a Land Army under their exclusive control
Perhaps they are thinking of invading Russia. Or ‘disciplining’ places nearer to home….
Without making it too obvious, it is the only way for Germany to have effective control over an effective army for one last push. Third time lucky?
SteveT
Why must all agree. The convinced can do the CO2 cutting and go forward with the good example.
Then all the reluctant will follow (when they see how wel it works?) It is more or less the political mantra, when the peoble say that it wont help because of India and China.
Why would the same not work inside the EU?
Excellent. The more the EU government shits on member countries policies and economies, the sooner that failed globalist experiment will crumble.
Viva Brexit!
I’ve read most, and scanned the rest, of the comments thus far, and am somewhat surprised that no one has noted the common error in the majority: there is no functioning democracy in any country today. All of those governing organizations (or, more accurately, groups, since there frequently is no evidence available to support accusing them of being organized) which have been denoted democracies actually are comprised of mostly elected, with some appointed, representatives. While there are some that have ‘at large’ members of their single/upper/lower houses of legislation, most are elected as regional or other subgroup representatives. A democracy would involve all citizens (or, at least, those who have been granted or stolen the privilege) voting on all issues. In the US, we term our currently non-funded structure a ‘republic.’
The difference is NOT just academic. While it is showing large cracks in the foundation as people move toward voting for those who promise the greatest government-funded largesse, the US’ republican form of government (NOT a party designation) has worked better than most other forms of governance in terms of allowing development of country-wide sharing of economic, military and political power. The fact that it appears to be heading down the path to socialism that has ultimately resulted in cascading failures whenever it has been tried, only serves to prove that bridled (as opposed to ‘unbridled’) capitalism still provides the highest standard of living for its members.
Please choose whatever definition of ‘socialism’ with which you are most comfortable, as long as it is based on extracting resources from the group deemed to have more than they ‘should,’ transferring it to those who ‘deserve it,’ and empowering a select group (means of initial selection differ, but all appear able to become self-sustaining) who make and enforce their personal opinions on all the rest.
The US cannot be considered a democracy with the apparent complete lack of voter identification and control of how many times one may vote Well, this is what it looks like from outside. Please correct me if I have the wrong idea. Thanks.
SteveT
The European Communities Act (1972)
‘Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act (1972) was a measure unknown in the previous history of the modern British constitution, making provision for the legislation of a body other than Parliament, the EU, to have direct effect in Britain. Section 2(2) makes provision for the detailed implementation of EU law by secondary legislation.’
– David Campbell, Professor of Law, Lancaster University School of Law
‘The greatest Henry VIII clause in our history, over the past 46 years has been the European Communities Act (1972) which meant that EU legislation has become binding upon British citizens with Parliament powerless to amend or reject any such legislation – even if every British MP voted against it.’
– Former MP Peter Lilley
In other words, Britain’s government is impotent to protect the interests of its own citizens if the EU imposes laws which affect their well-being, security, property, prosperity, health, welfare etc. as long as Britain remains in the EU.
This is what the EU Referendum was about, this is what the current British government is trying to change, and this is what the EU ‘remainers’ and their political allies are trying to keep on behalf of the EU.
Lots of misunderstandings here. While the piece’s assessment is quite right, all this is (very) old news, as others have remarked. Some of us reading this blog have been in it for over 25 years. “EUSSR” also seriously stale; not funny any more.
Easy to see why some conservatives regard the EU as the “continuation of communism by other means”, but it doesn’t quite hit the mark. You would understand it better to regard it as the “continuation of fascism by other means”. The EU’s ideological roots in fascism were charted by John Laughland in his 1997 book “The Tainted Source: the undemocratic origins of the European idea” (1997: Little, Brown; 1998 Warner) ISBN 0 7515 2324 0.
For your “serious reading” list.
Farage should have finished his work on the Brexit file. He must have known that it would be handled very halfheartedly by Conservative Gov who threw their lot in with the “stay” side.
Just love the graphic! Captures it in one image. SSR for sure.