Why the budget didn鈥檛 go as far as Mr Brown would like
Europe鈥檚 prime ministers and presidents will meet in Brussels today for their spring meeting. What will they be talking about?
鈥Green tax
The chancellor announced in the Budget but he didn鈥檛 go as far as the prime minister would have liked. 
For that Mr Brown has to come to Brussels. Much of today鈥檚 summit of the European Union鈥檚 prime ministers and presidents will be spent endorsing the details of .
But Mr Brown thinks they should go further and cut tax on green-friendly goods, whether energy-efficient refrigerators or loft insulation. But the EU鈥檚 rules say that sales tax - VAT - has to be set at a minimum of 15%. There are a whole load of exemptions for individual countries, but even then VAT can鈥檛 be set below 5%.
Will he succeed? You would think the other European leaders would be enthusiastic.
Their diplomats have already signed up to a text which urges the adoption of coherent policies which improve energy efficiency and 鈥渞ecognise that addressing energy and climate change is also a matter of shaping values and changing citizens鈥 behaviour.鈥
The French president . 
But the German leader Angela Merkel won鈥檛 back the plan. The last time this was raised, so many other countries asked for exemptions on their pet projects that it was abandoned.
But if this is a serious way to fight what the EU identifies as one of the biggest threats of our time, should they be prepared to squirm a little as they open a can of worms?
鈥Energy row
Mr Brown also intends to fire a few shots in the long-running war over Europe鈥檚 economic direction. The current battle is over . It鈥檚 happened in Britain, but not in France and Germany.
Fans of economic liberalism, such as the commission and the British government, say the single market can鈥檛 work properly while electricity companies own both power stations that generate the energy and the grid that distributes it (the same goes for gas companies too).
While the two are linked, it makes it very difficult for any other company to get into the market, so there鈥檚 no real competition.
The British government argues that making the single market work properly would mean more opportunity for British companies, and lower prices for consumers in the rest of Europe.
Ministers say that it would also benefit consumers because it makes energy supply more certain by encouraging fresh investment in equipment.
The commission鈥檚 first simple proposal to break up the companies was met with howls of protests from France and Germany.
They, along with Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Luxembourg, Latvia and Slovakia, have come up with an alternative plan. They argue that splitting up the companies鈥 network doesn鈥檛 cut prices or encourage investment and has 鈥渘egative social consequences鈥.
They propose instead that there should be Chinese walls between the two halves of an operation.
The commission has hit back in a speech by who argues .
For a while now, the commission, clearly feeling aching muscles in this tug-of-war, has been urging Mr Brown to 鈥減ull on the other end of the rope鈥 and perhaps haul Mr Sarkozy across the line.
Diplomats say Mr Brown will give 鈥渟trong support鈥 to the commission and will pull as hard on the rope as is needed to keep the main proposals alive.
The commission is feeling confident. Not because of any support from Mr Brown but .
It鈥檚 the Germany energy giant which has agreed to break itself up and sell off its energy grid to avoid legal action by the commission. This row will be aired today, but perhaps not resolved until the next big meeting in June.
鈥How climate change could flood Europe: not with water but with people
Foreign affairs high representative Javier Solana will present . 
He suggests that, as island states and coastal areas disappear beneath the waves, and as fertile areas in Africa dry up, there will be increased conflicts over land, water and food.
These conflicts could fuel radicalisation. Shortages and disorder could mean a refugee crisis for the European Union. It鈥檚 a rather apocalyptic vision, perhaps appropriate given .
鈥Taking Sarko too 'littorally'
The French have watered down . This was originally a wheeze proposed by Nicholas Sarkozy during his election campaign, apparently to appease the Turks, whom he doesn鈥檛 want inside the EU.
The Germans felt that it could be a threat to the European Union itself, creating a club from which the landlocked and those next to rougher seas than the Med were excluded.
More practically they were concerned about EU funds being siphoned off to the Maghreb via this new organisation. They appear to have come to some agreement where it would supplement an existing link-up of countries in the region, .
The French President has also given way by turning a planned celebration of the Mediterranean Union on 14 July in aris into a summit of the European Union.
As ever, none of these may turn out to be what dominates the summit, indeed it may turn out, as people have been saying for weeks, that this is a summit with a lot substance, but no story.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
In 1979 Thatcher campaigned for office promising to fund cuts in income tax by raising VAT from 7% to 15%. The Labour and Liberal parties condemned this as regressive taxation, but no British party could today reduce VAT to pre-Thatcher levels because EU law requires VAT to be at least 15%. This shows how our democracy has been diminished by EU membership even in areas like taxation where the EU is said by its apologists not to have competence.
"They propose instead that there should be Chinese walls between the two halves of an operation."
Quite naive if one remembers that even Berlin War didn't stop an eventual merger of 2 allegedly opposite sides.
P.S. Re the prophesy portal you've bumped into...
666 analogy is quite appropriate, although, for me personally, Solana is to wimpish to be the Beast.
The recent announcement of obscene profits by energy companies in Britain does not argue well for the neo-liberal position on "competition" in energy markets. I've always thought this system was a sham.
Gas and electricity come down the same pipes and wires whoever your "supplier" is. All you've got now is a cartel of middlemen creaming off the top.
What was wrong with the old gas and electricity boards? At least you knew who you were dealing with.
If Mr Brown had any conviction about lower VAT on "green" goods he would tell the EU what to do with their 15% minimum rate (but that would be out of charater for a man who has presided over the largest series of tax hikes since William Pitt the younger)
Well the biggest scam the world has or will ever see is in progess ,the info they use is false and very misleading ,the models they use are not even proven and all in 100 yrs time ,you must be joking ,they cant even predict the weather more than a week in advance with more than a sixty per cent accuracy ,the navier model used by the fanatics has never been worked out and they know that and were warned by 100 scientists that the whole model is wrong so i hope they get sued for fraud for billions because just like gore they will lose the info is not based on known facts only supposition .
Energy: According to a report in a Bucharest newspaper this morning, Romania has been instructed to artificially raise the costs of its internal natural gas supplies to match those of imported gas "in order to ensure a real competition in the European market".
Surely, competition is about achieving the best prices for consumers, but perhaps inflating the EU budget takes a higher priority.
35000 pounds to RUN a Range Rover for 10 years. That's less than 300 pounds per month.
Gordon/Alistair/Loony Politician, this will not put off someone one can afford a Range Rover in the first place. The 4.4 is upwards of 50000 to buy.
You will not stop rich people buying big cars (with monetary disincentives). You may get them to use them less with a world class public transport system.
Come into the real world. Please.
Religious nuts said the same thing about Kofi Annan, which is where I first heard of it. If only there were one literal, testable interpretation of the Bible, the world would be a much more peaceful place.
Hello Mark,
I enjoy reading your comments, not so much for the information you provide but for the fun with which you display your literary skills.
Today, one of your phrases got me thinking: `...fighting climate change麓. I know you're not the only one to use those terms but I think they're wrong. They remind me of the [English] King Canute. To illustrate his powerlessness when faced with the forces of nature, he showed his barons that no matter how he ruled against the tides and waves that come crashing on the shores, his words/deeds were useless...
I don't think we can fight climate change. At best, we can fight the nasty behaviours that promote climate change. But, will this have any meaningful effect?--the damage is so serious, we mustn't delude ourselves into thinking we will reverse the trend. Instead of fighting, we should adapt to the changes...
Please organise a competition to find the right wording...
Cheers,
P
Its amazing all this wheeling and dealing that goes on in europe thats pretty much independant of the countries electorate, multinational lobbies probably have more influence. Don't really understand the new constition thing but I hope it doesn't make things worse.
also Sarkozy sounds like a big racist when it comes to turkey.
I almost wish that prophesy interpretation were true considering how neat it is! That would be an amazing way to slip a dictator under our noses, while everyone was looking at the president.
Anyway about the VAT thing, what projects have people tried to get support for before?
Gordon Brown go home. UK energy business is a mess with confused overpaying customers. Leave our energy alone - its none of your business. We dont want UK mess here!
It's kind of frightening seeing EU polititians fighting so called "climate change" while it is still not certain if we are causing it and if we are able to do anything about it.
The only consequence of all this talk and new taxes will be reduced EU competitivness on the world market and that is the real problem here, not some imaginary catastrophic warming. They are showing us pictures of melting ice, but no one shows ice grow back during winter times. They show us an island dissapearing under the sea and fail to explain, why the rest of the coasts are not dissapearing too. Whole global warming is beginning to show for what it really is - a global scam. Reminds me of church selling forgivnesses...
I love the arrogant sceptics of climate change who watch one 30 min EXXON funded climate documentary and then think they know more about the issue than all of the worlds climate scientists put together.
just spend a few hours reading about the facts with your mind open to the possibility you might just be wrong, have the dignity not to be a puppet of the oil and car industries.
I partly agree with "NL", albeit that I do not know much about the UK's energy market. The problem European countries and that their big energy companies encounter is not one of liberalising the markets, or unwillingness to do so (Generally spoken, the German market is by far the most liberal one in Europe). The fear of (continental) Europe is that by splitting up energy companies, their respective parts will be an easy subject for takeovers. People might not consider that such a problem when looking at the European market. At least, I wouldn't mind a Dutch energy company being overtaken by a German one: my energy will be taken care of anyway, by our biggest trading partner. The fear however, is projected at the East, and foremost at Gazprom. With the current legal conditions, a takeover of Gazprom is just as easy as one by an other EU company. Are we looking for a Russian, state-controlled company to provide us with energy and then, every time something happens that annoys the Russian government, threaten our energy-security? No. Look at Ukraine(although this might be a rather extreme example). It is very dangerous. Britons might not feel that way, since they are not very dependent on Russia. But in the case of Germany, this is a very relevant issue.
I can't wait for when the EU starts enlarging its "carbon trading scheme" in a few years time, when people will hopefully wake up, smell the coffee and stop being blinded by the lights by all the nonsense that is the new quasi religion of "climate change"
They may not care now as it only effects large industries, but they will when they have to send money to the EU to run their car, washing machine, breathe...
...Think i'm joking about breathing?
Carbon allowances ( rationing to you and me ) are coming in the not to distant future, mark my words.
Based on the 'United States Department for Agriculture' figures that the average human produces approximately 900 grams of co2 per day, which makes it approximately 328.5kg per year per person, or approximately a third of a ton
That is the equivalent of driving 1711 miles(2738 km) per year assuming the car meets the 120g/km EU standard just from breathing alone
So take that figure and assume a household has four occupants in it and you are nearly at 8,000 miles per year per household equivalent of co2 emissions in a car just from breathing ( coincidentally the same amount of mileage as the 'average' car in a year ) before even taking any other activities into account
Now consider how much tax to "save the planet" is levied on a motorist today, but will be applied just for the average household to be able to breathe, as the same amount of co2 would have been produced won't it.
What is even more intriguing is what exactly are the EU going to do when nobody will pay for the privilege of being alive ?
If ever I wanted Gordon Brown to be like Maggie Thatcher (at least a little bit!),it is now. Let him be part of stopping the german energy monopolies so favoured by german governments. The feeble suggestion of Mrs. Merkel, that chinese walls would do the job is rather pathetic considering the german "tradition" of corruption. That applies to her party as well as to german businesses, particularely the larger ones. They have problems accepting that bribes are not tax deductible any longer. A massive cultural change is required in Germany, as such things go a lot of time will be needed.
So, power to your elbow Gordon Brown and Jos茅 Barroso of course.
Dear Willem (at number 15),
please note that the german electricity market is geographically divided into 4 regions and in each exists one quasi monopoly that reapes exessive profits partly because of underinvestment in the infrastructure. Their views about their own practises may be liberal, the market unfortunately not.
Willem's point (15) - about the possibility of the takeover of EU energy companies by Russian (eg Gazprom), Chinese, or even Middle/Far Eastern government funds - is a real threat.
At present the control of European energy companies is in mainly European hands. Thus, European interests still count. Let them fall into the hands of non-EU suppliers, then it will be non-EU interests that count.
Also, in such a (highly possible) scenario how stands the EU competiton policy (which seeks to separate separation of supplies from delivery)?
The Milk Marketing Board gave thousands of dairy farmers bargaining strength that was controlled by government, streamlined the collection and processing, provided a fair and guaranteed payment system that allowed farmers to get on with the job of farming, and their marketing experts to do the selling.
It's disbanding in around 1992 has resulted in a catestrophic drop in income for farmers, a huge increase in collection and distribution costs, retail milk prices increased year on year, and massive administration - all done for under the guise of 'competition' and EU legislation. While mega co-ops survive in Europe, in Britain we have small co-ops competing.
The same could happen in energy, for similar reasons. Large and integrated is not always bad for the customer.
Yours
I wouldn't normally respond to a posting as that is not the point of the blog, but this one is an exception -
* 14.
* At 01:29 PM on 13 Mar 2008,
* mark wrote:
I love the arrogant sceptics of climate change who watch one 30 min EXXON funded climate documentary and then think they know more about the issue than all of the worlds climate scientists put together.
just spend a few hours reading about the facts with your mind open to the possibility you might just be wrong, have the dignity not to be a puppet of the oil and car industries.
-----------------------------
I'd like to take issue with the IPCC report for a start, that is the document that is acclaimed as the New Testament by all the religious "global warming" fanatics.
The key words in IPCC is "Inter-Governmental"
Does it not occur to you that the government are using the "green" agenda to raise taxes, as who could possibly argue against it, are you saying by opposing rediculous tax hikes you want to kill the planet as a result?
This is the emotive rubbish that is spouted from politicians and single issue lobby groups and their like.
You state Exxon etc. funded scientists, one hates to break it to you, but most "deniers" in the scientific community are no such thing and quite the opposite.
You only have to look at universities where scientists are told that they will get no more funding unless they find evidence of "climate change"
Don't believe me, well I can quote many examples of occasions where people have gone for funding for a particular project and been told no, yet get the funding when they say they want to see what effects "climate change" have had on the same said subject.
I believe it was all started in this country by Margaret Thatcher, as she required an excuse to use against the coal miners to shut the mines and funded research to prove that coal was bad, and do you know what, they did. Now there is a coincidence?
Do you know where the source of that information comes from?
Lord Lawson of Blaby the then Chancellor of the Exchequor who funded the "research" and is also a "denier"
One final point, do you think the Earths climate has always been as it is today? Because i am going to shock you again, it hasn't, and will continue to change in the future regardless of human beings and more importantly, it needs to change constantly.
Why?
Because if the Earths climate hadn't and didn't change then we wouldn't have evolved to be here today?
Think about it !
"The British government argues that making the single market work properly would mean more opportunity for British companies, and lower prices for consumers in the rest of Europe. Ministers say that it would also benefit consumers because it makes energy supply more certain by encouraging fresh investment in equipment."
Well, I suppose the first bit is likely to be true -although that may not help (continental) Europe much.... Is "competition" supposed to help customers -or to help national companies? How does that affect other countries if one country's businesses take over? Don't agressive business practices lead to market dominance by just a few companies -and thus automatically lead to the destruction of the "free market" (if it ever existed in the first place)?
However, isn't the second half of the quote even more dubious? Didn't 91热爆 (domestic) TV once run a special "disaster scenario" based on the lack of investment by British privatised companies? Didn't the lack of investment by private companies lead to high levels of imported energy (from Russia, etc.)? I seem to rememeber reading that lots o new nuclear power stations would be needed soon -because of lack of timely investment. Has the situation now dramatically improved?
So Mark, have privatised British companies really invested enough? How does British investment in the future energy supply compare with other (Continental) countries?
In the so called "information age" shouldn't politicians statements be backed up by more factal references?
right ok, I鈥檓 really bored at work so I鈥檓 going to bother replying to you..
Did u bother to read a single line of that new scientist article? It has a series of clear and precise answers to your questions by someone who knows a lot more about the issue than I do.
It鈥檚 a shame science education and the opinion of science has fallen to such a low point in the world. If it wasn't for science you probably wouldn't be alive now. Its true that a lot of sciences have been corrupt, wrong, stupid or downright dangerous but its important to realise scientific method is one of the greatest creations of human society and if we begin to let it be clouded, ignored, ridiculed and forgotten we'll descend into another dark age.
It is important to logical examine the issue with rigorous scientific method with an open mind and scepticism. Most scientists do this but I guess the problem is that if you鈥檙e not an expert on the issue it still comes down to trust. Oil/car companies, governments and environmentalists realise this and very effectively clouded the issue. I don't think people like Al Gore helped at all because he鈥檚 a self-gratifying loser but he鈥檚 also sensationalised the issue and used dodgy facts. I freely accept that a lot of governments and environmentalist have twisted the facts to support their own politic goals however this doesn鈥檛 mean the underlying science is false. It is very important to step back and weigh up the scientific evidence as best you can.
Scientific consensus on human caused global warming (inside and outside of the IPCC) is overwhelming, of course there are scientists who disagree but they鈥檙e scientists that think the earth is 4000 years old. The debate is how bad it is going to be.
I admit there is a big problem with the vested interests in the funding of the studies. It may be pressuring scientist to support the current view of climate change however it also the case that scientists with more alarming predictions have also been refused funding and shouted down.
I know the climate has shifted a lot in the past this is in part what worries me. It tells you that the climate is a finely balanced system and our impact however small might tip the scales allowing positive feedback mechanisms to run riot. I'm sure the planet and the life it supports will be fine in the long run (they鈥檝e been around for 4 billion years), it鈥檚 us humans that should be worried. Human beings believe they鈥檙e the centre of the universe but we should realise that we're totally and utterly dependent on the planet for all of our needs. It seems a little stupid to be treating it so badly and just hoping everything will be ok, surely we should be doing everything we can to look after and protect it.
Yes climate change could be another doomsday myth but then again maybe its not. Your taking a huge risk totally dismissing it. It could result in human suffering and death on a scale never seen before in the history of our species. I鈥檓 not prepared to take that risk and don鈥檛 want something like that on my conscience.
p.s. Its important to realise that even if climate change turns out to be hype reductions in fossil fuel use will have many benefits.
Stop floods of money into dodgy regimes in Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and reduce the influence of these states.
Save billions spent in countries like Iraq securing our oil supplies along with soldier and civilian lives.
Cause a change in our historically immensely selfish and destructive foreign policy in the Middle East that has among other things has created a dangerous group of fundamental religious terrorists.
Reduce the vulnerability of our economy to high oil prices.
Reduce environmental pollution (other than CO2).
And loads more I haven鈥檛 thought of鈥.think I might get the sack.