http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120053154686996085.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Europe v. U.S. Business
January 17, 2008; Page A16
EU competition chief Neelie Kroes's determination to cow large, successful American firms with antitrust laws is nothing new. But the latest Brussels sally against Microsoft is a good time for Washington to wake up to Europe's regulatory imperialism.
In September, EU courts upheld Brussels's landmark 2004 ruling and €497 million fine against Microsoft. That case hinged on Microsoft's "bundling" of its Media Player with its dominant Windows operating system and alleged refusal to provide rivals with technology to write software that worked with Microsoft programs. Ms. Kroes is now going for the jugular. The formal inquiry she announced Monday focuses on Microsoft's packaging of its Internet Explorer Web browser with Windows, and the compatibility of its popular Office software suite with rival programs.
Brussels has also set its sights on other large U.S. firms. Just since September, EU antitrust regulators have dialed up a case against Qualcomm, continued processing claims against Intel, charged MasterCard with setting illegal fees, searched for reasons to block Google's purchase of DoubleClick, and forced Apple to cut prices for digital songs (though the iPod maker was cleared of any wrongdoing).
All of these cases target American companies that have already come under antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. But Brussels is an attractive venue for competitors to use European antitrust litigation to hobble a rival. We've seen a stampede of lawyers descend on the European capital since September's Microsoft ruling. The U.S. Justice Department has reacted, at most, with a stern press release. There was no American response as far as we could see to Monday's Microsoft news. Words do matter, as Barack Obama says. So does their absence.
Euro-American regulatory cooperation is currently in vogue, with the first meeting last fall of the Trans-Atlantic Economic Council and Washington's recent acceptance of international accounting standards. If there's one legal area that could benefit from such camaraderie, it's antitrust. We're not talking about an International Competition Court but, rather, mutual recognition of American rulings on U.S. companies and EU oversight of European firms. Other countries that want to sign up to the standards could also be included.
We're under no illusions that an arrangement on antitrust would come easily. Brussels seems to enjoy its newfound power. And while U.S. and EU laws on issues such as mergers have been converging, there's still a great deal of water between the two on the treatment of monopolies. For example, American authorities aren't as quick as their Continental counterparts to dismiss the benefits that dominant firms like Microsoft can offer consumers.
In the long run, Europe would also benefit from mutual recognition. In fast-growing economies like China, antitrust law is developing apace. What will be the reaction in Paris and Berlin when French and German companies start encountering "antitrust" cases in Beijing or Seoul?
Today's antitrust multiple-jeopardy -- Intel currently faces litigation in Europe, Japan, South Korea and New York -- is a potential disaster for business. If antitrust cooperation seems a long way off, that's all the more reason for Washington to start fighting back against European overreach.
Showing posts with label disincentive for investment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disincentive for investment. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
EU Comes Clean on Climate Change Costs: GHG Reduction Rules Will Significantly Harm European Industry Competitiveness
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/10/new-eu-co2-plans-will-affect-heavy-industry
New EU CO2 Plans Will Affect Heavy Industry
January 10, 2008
EU officials have acknowledged that a new plan to tighten greenhouse gas admissions will take a toll on the competiveness of some heavy industries, reports this article. The new rules will be unveiled by the European Commission on January 23.
According to official documents, the aluminum producers would be most affected, while chemical, steel and cement makers, to comply with the new standards, would have to raise prices between 5 and 48 percent. Reportedly, the EU executive is still divided on whether to introduce measures that would protect some sectors, such as energy intensive industries.
[REPORTS LIKE THESE ONCE AGAIN VALIDATE PREVIOUS ITSSD RESEARCH]
Overall, it’s estimated that should the changes occur, Europe’s GDP would drop by 0.1 percent but that jobs lost in the affected industries would be offset by new opportunities in the low-carbon economy.
The commission is also considering a carbon tariff on goods from countries whose emission policies aren’t as strong as Europe’s.
New EU CO2 Plans Will Affect Heavy Industry
January 10, 2008
EU officials have acknowledged that a new plan to tighten greenhouse gas admissions will take a toll on the competiveness of some heavy industries, reports this article. The new rules will be unveiled by the European Commission on January 23.
According to official documents, the aluminum producers would be most affected, while chemical, steel and cement makers, to comply with the new standards, would have to raise prices between 5 and 48 percent. Reportedly, the EU executive is still divided on whether to introduce measures that would protect some sectors, such as energy intensive industries.
[REPORTS LIKE THESE ONCE AGAIN VALIDATE PREVIOUS ITSSD RESEARCH]
Overall, it’s estimated that should the changes occur, Europe’s GDP would drop by 0.1 percent but that jobs lost in the affected industries would be offset by new opportunities in the low-carbon economy.
The commission is also considering a carbon tariff on goods from countries whose emission policies aren’t as strong as Europe’s.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Protectionists Within 110th Congress Toyed With Bringing Global Trade War; Considered Carbon Emissions Limits & Carbon Border Taxes!
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10134052
Climate change - Green protectionism
Nov 15th 2007
From The Economist print edition [ECONOMIST APPROVES OF ALL U.S. LEGISLATION THAT HELPS OUT EUROPEAN INDUSTRIES]
A dangerous flaw in a bill to control carbon emissions
FOR those (such as this newspaper) who argue that the only way to avert dangerous climate change is to set a price on CO2 emissions, what's going on in America's Congress is excellent news. A bill to set such a price has achieved a remarkable degree of cross-party support (see article). Federal emissions controls in America are essential to tackling climate change globally. So it is especially unfortunate that the bill includes a provision that would turn the fight against climate change into a tool for protectionists.
While Al Gore has been strutting his stuff on stage, behind the scenes America's quieter greens have been successfully lobbying powerful interests. Many companies have come round to the view that they would do better with a single federal system than a patchwork of state-level rules. Farmers have bought the idea that they can make money out of biofuels. Christians have been persuaded that they need to be better stewards of the earth. Defence hawks have been arguing that America needs to reduce its dependency on the Middle East.
But two powerful groups have remained determinedly sceptical: energy-intensive manufacturers and organised labour, who fear the effects of higher energy costs in America and their impact on jobs.
The main purpose of the bill is to establish a carbon price through a cap-and-trade system. The proposal is a reasonable one, informed by the experience of Europe's similar scheme.
[IT MUST BE RECALLED IN A PRIOR FINANCIAL TIMES ARTICLE POSTED IN THIS BLOG THAT THE EU COMMISSION HAS ADMITTED ITS FLAWED ENERGY POLICY FOCUSING ON EMISSIONS CAP LIMITS!!!]
But to placate the manufacturers and the unions, the bill also includes a measure which Europe has rightly abjured (although some member states have recently been demanding one) for a border tax on carbon-intensive goods. Imports would have to be certified as to their carbon content, and would be taxed accordingly.
Proponents of the idea argue, first, that American producers would otherwise be disadvantaged by the higher costs that their country's stricter standards impose on them. Second, they maintain, a tax would encourage developing-country governments to cut the carbon-intensity of their economies for fear of losing lucrative export markets.
Be green and grow
[IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT THE FRENCH ATTALI COMMISSION RECENTLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, WHICH SERVES AS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ENACTING SUCH DRACONIAN RULES REFLECTS THAT 'ENLIGHTENED' PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE-BASED ENVIRONMENTALISM IMPOSES LIMITS TO GROWTH]**
On the first argument, if America establishes a carbon price, an energy-intensive industry such as aluminium would very likely choose to expand capacity elsewhere. Yet it is not clear that, in the long run, environmental regulation does much to suppress economic growth. After all, California imposes tighter rules on companies than do most other American states, but its long boom suggests that greenery and growth can coexist comfortably. [CALIFORNIA, TO BE SURE, IS A VERY EXPENSIVE STATE TO DO BUSINESS IN, LET ALONE TO LIVE IN!!!]
[IF IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT GROWTH IS IMPAIRED BY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, WHY REGULATE IN THIS MANNER???]
China and India might well come more swiftly to the negotiating table if they faced the possibility of losing their export markets. [CHINA AND INDIA WOULD BE IMPAIRING THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP WERE THEY TO ADOPT UNREALISTIC CARBON EMISSIONS LIMITS AND CARBON BORDER TAXES!!]
But the experience of America and Europe suggests that threatening trade sanctions is not the only way to bring a country round. After all, Europe set a carbon price without imposing tariffs on American goods, and America looks like following its lead anyway. What's more, the costs of a border tax could be huge, not just because of the massive bureaucracy needed to certify the carbon content of different goods imported from different factories in different countries, but also because such a tax would be a dangerous weapon in the hands of America's growing gang of protectionists.
The people who worry most about the costs of trying to constrain carbon emissions are the very ones demanding protectionist measures. But if those measures are passed, America risks something far costlier than a switch to cleaner energy: a global trade war.
Climate change - Green protectionism
Nov 15th 2007
From The Economist print edition [ECONOMIST APPROVES OF ALL U.S. LEGISLATION THAT HELPS OUT EUROPEAN INDUSTRIES]
A dangerous flaw in a bill to control carbon emissions
FOR those (such as this newspaper) who argue that the only way to avert dangerous climate change is to set a price on CO2 emissions, what's going on in America's Congress is excellent news. A bill to set such a price has achieved a remarkable degree of cross-party support (see article). Federal emissions controls in America are essential to tackling climate change globally. So it is especially unfortunate that the bill includes a provision that would turn the fight against climate change into a tool for protectionists.
While Al Gore has been strutting his stuff on stage, behind the scenes America's quieter greens have been successfully lobbying powerful interests. Many companies have come round to the view that they would do better with a single federal system than a patchwork of state-level rules. Farmers have bought the idea that they can make money out of biofuels. Christians have been persuaded that they need to be better stewards of the earth. Defence hawks have been arguing that America needs to reduce its dependency on the Middle East.
But two powerful groups have remained determinedly sceptical: energy-intensive manufacturers and organised labour, who fear the effects of higher energy costs in America and their impact on jobs.
The main purpose of the bill is to establish a carbon price through a cap-and-trade system. The proposal is a reasonable one, informed by the experience of Europe's similar scheme.
[IT MUST BE RECALLED IN A PRIOR FINANCIAL TIMES ARTICLE POSTED IN THIS BLOG THAT THE EU COMMISSION HAS ADMITTED ITS FLAWED ENERGY POLICY FOCUSING ON EMISSIONS CAP LIMITS!!!]
But to placate the manufacturers and the unions, the bill also includes a measure which Europe has rightly abjured (although some member states have recently been demanding one) for a border tax on carbon-intensive goods. Imports would have to be certified as to their carbon content, and would be taxed accordingly.
Proponents of the idea argue, first, that American producers would otherwise be disadvantaged by the higher costs that their country's stricter standards impose on them. Second, they maintain, a tax would encourage developing-country governments to cut the carbon-intensity of their economies for fear of losing lucrative export markets.
Be green and grow
[IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT THE FRENCH ATTALI COMMISSION RECENTLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, WHICH SERVES AS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ENACTING SUCH DRACONIAN RULES REFLECTS THAT 'ENLIGHTENED' PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE-BASED ENVIRONMENTALISM IMPOSES LIMITS TO GROWTH]**
On the first argument, if America establishes a carbon price, an energy-intensive industry such as aluminium would very likely choose to expand capacity elsewhere. Yet it is not clear that, in the long run, environmental regulation does much to suppress economic growth. After all, California imposes tighter rules on companies than do most other American states, but its long boom suggests that greenery and growth can coexist comfortably. [CALIFORNIA, TO BE SURE, IS A VERY EXPENSIVE STATE TO DO BUSINESS IN, LET ALONE TO LIVE IN!!!]
[IF IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT GROWTH IS IMPAIRED BY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, WHY REGULATE IN THIS MANNER???]
China and India might well come more swiftly to the negotiating table if they faced the possibility of losing their export markets. [CHINA AND INDIA WOULD BE IMPAIRING THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP WERE THEY TO ADOPT UNREALISTIC CARBON EMISSIONS LIMITS AND CARBON BORDER TAXES!!]
But the experience of America and Europe suggests that threatening trade sanctions is not the only way to bring a country round. After all, Europe set a carbon price without imposing tariffs on American goods, and America looks like following its lead anyway. What's more, the costs of a border tax could be huge, not just because of the massive bureaucracy needed to certify the carbon content of different goods imported from different factories in different countries, but also because such a tax would be a dangerous weapon in the hands of America's growing gang of protectionists.
The people who worry most about the costs of trying to constrain carbon emissions are the very ones demanding protectionist measures. But if those measures are passed, America risks something far costlier than a switch to cleaner energy: a global trade war.
[CONSIDERATION BY US LEGISLATORS AND INDUSTRIES OF SUCH RIDICULOUS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN NO DOUBT TRIGGERED BY A MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT EUROPE'S GLOBAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ENVIRONMENTAL JUGGERNAUT WILL SUCCEED!!]
Friday, January 25, 2008
French Rethinking the Precautionary Principle?? Jamais!!!
Communique From ITSSD Journal Advisory Board Member, Dr. Sorin Straja About France and the Precautionary Principle:
January 23, 2008
Dear Dr. Kogan,
I just came from a trip in France. While there I heard the news about the recommendation of the Jacques Attali commission regarding the Precautionary Principle. Apparently, this commission felt that this principle should be discarded as it is a hurdle for development. However, the reaction was quite strong (the commission was labeled as the ATTILA commission) and the draft document released this week does NOT mention the precautionary principle. Please let me know if you want me to follow up with the recommendations of this commission (may be released in the near future).
... Apparently, the French President Sarkozy has already rejected two proposals of the Attali Commission: the administrative reorganization of France abolishing the counties ("départements") and ... the precautionary principle.
Please See: "Sarkozy rejette deux propositions du rapport Attali", reported on the website of "Le Figaro" one of the most popular French daily papers:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/2008/01/23/04001-20080123ARTFIG00421-sarkozy-rejette-deux-propositions-du-rapport-attali.php .
The subheadline prominently reads:
Nicolas Sarkozy a relevé quelques désaccords avec les propositions formulées par Jacques Attali. Le chef de l'État est contre la suppression des départements et celle du principe de précaution
Thank you very much for your help.
Sorin Straja
Here is the news report in French:
Commission Attali: les premières propositions suscitent la polémique
PARIS (AFP) — Les premières propositions de la Commission pour la libération de la croissance française (CLCF) présidée par Jacques Attali, qui devait remettre lundi après-midi au président Nicolas Sarkozy un rapport d'étape sur le pouvoir d'achat, ont déjà déclenché la polémique.
Selon des informations de presse publiées vendredi, les membres de la commission suggéraient notamment de retirer de la Constitution le "principe de précaution", considéré comme un frein à la croissance, ce qui a suscité une levée de boucliers.
Le ministre de l'Ecologie, Jean-Louis Borloo, s'est fermement opposé lundi à cette suppression, rappelant que "le principe de précaution fait partie de traités internationaux que la France a signés".
La secrétaire d'Etat à l'Ecologie, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, avait auparavant qualifié cette position de "réactionnaire". "Il faut cesser de considérer que l'environnement est une limite à la croissance", a affirmé celle qui fut rapporteur de la Charte de l'environnement, qui avait inscrit ce principe dans la Constitution en 2005.
Dès vendredi, la CLCF avait souligné que ses propositions étaient "en cours de finalisation" et que "les documents qui ont pu être diffusés jusqu'ici ne correspondent pas à l'état actuel des propositions".
La commission Attali contre le principe de precaution
La Commission pour la libération de la croissance propose, dans son rapport d'étape, de le retirer de la Constitution ou encore d'abroger les lois Royer, Galland et Raffarin sur la distribution.
Présidée par Jacques Attali, la Commission pour la libération de la croissance (CLCF) va suggérer au président de la République de retirer le principe de précaution de la Constitution, d'abroger les lois sur la distribution, de lancer des mesures pour le logement et la stimulation du pouvoir d'achat, écrit Le Figaro dans son édition de vendredi 12 octobre.
Selon la une du quotidien, transmise jeudi soir à Reuters, qui cite le rapport d'étape de la commission remis lundi prochain au président de la République, "les membres de la commission demandent à Nicolas Sarkozy de retirer le principe de précaution qui figure actuellement dans la Constitution. Ils y voient un frein majeur à la croissance".
Grande consommation et logement
La commission propose également une libéralisation radicale de la distribution, poursuit Le Figaro. "En abrogeant les lois Royer, Galland et Raffarin, sur le commerce, il serait possible de faire baisser de 2 à 4% les prix des produits de grande consommation", écrit le quotidien.
"Pour relancer le logement, la commission propose neuf séries de mesures: alléger le contrat de bail, instaurer la TVA à 5,5% pour les jeunes, créer des villes nouvelles ultraécolos…", poursuit-il. La Commission suggère également une vaste restructuration des 850 organismes de HLM dont le nombre serait réduit afin d'augmenter leur efficacité.
La commission livrera également "une trentaine de recommandations pour libérer les contraintes qui pèsent sur les revenus des ménages", lit-on également sur la une du Figaro, sans plus de précision. (Reuters)
...The PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is questioned by the Attali Commission Report providing 316 proposals “to liberate the French growth.”
Jacques Attali gave on January 23, 2008 to the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Prime Minister Francois Fillon the “Report Of The Commission For The Liberation Of The French Growth”. Please find attached the original document (in full in French). The major goals are to obtain an additional 1% of growth, to bring back the rate of unemployment to 5 %, and to reduce the national debt.
One of the most unexpected proposals is to repeal, or if this is not possible then to very strictly specify, the precautionary principle.
Also attached is...my translation of the section where the precautionary principle is mentioned.
Jacques Attali, between 1981 and 1991, was a French presidential adviser as part of the country's socialist government. In April 1991 he became the first President of the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development established to assist the former communist countries in their transition to democratic market economies.
Sorin Straja
OBJECTIVE: To rethink the precautionary principle
The constitutional law n° 2005-205 of March 1st, 2005 inscribed in the constitutional text the “Charter of the environment of 2004”. It thus meets an increasing concern of the citizens with regard to their environment and testifies to the interest that the Parliament carries to these questions. However, article 5 of the Charter introduces a new provision in constitutional law, by referring to a “precautionary principle”, already present in the legislative corpus, and whose normative range remains uncertain.
This reference generates judicial uncertainties and installs a context prejudicial to the innovation and the growth, because of the risks of dispute of responsibility against the most innovating companies in front of the courts of law. It also burdens with a heavy presumption the decisions of administrative police force.
The need for protection is undeniable. It is established and recognized by the European texts.
If the constitutional text intends to prevent the realization of damages harmful to the collectivity, its very open drafting leaves place to potentially divergent interpretations, likely to paralyze the economic activity and that of the administration.
In effect, the concept of damage affecting the “environment in a gravely and irreversible way” is not defined by the constitutional text. Moreover, the reality of the “damage” is only very vaguely specified there: it is enough that its realization be “uncertain in the state of scientific knowledge” to oblige the administration to act. This fuzzy formulation opens to the judge the possibility of interpreting the founding text of the Republic. This situation is not ideal from the point of view of democracy.
Moreover, article 5 of the Charter of the environment risks to inhibit the fundamental and applied research, insofar as an innovation which potentially would generate a damage whose realization would be “uncertain in the state of scientific knowledge” could open recourse of responsibility, against the companies or institutes of research as well as against public collectivities charged with administrative police force. Moreover, sometimes this sanction would intervene only at the end of a long legal procedure, thus paralyzing the activity of the public and private laboratories.
In addition, the administrative action itself would be very slow due to this vague formulation. In virtue of this constitutional text modified in 2005, the administration is supposed to be able to follow the whole scientific research, which appears not very realistic. Not being able to do it, the administration will thus resort very often to prohibition, the solution that is judicially the most sure, administratively the most comfortable, and the more penalizing for our growth.
Finally, article 5 of the Charter of the environment is not dissociable from article 7 that imposes that the decisions of precaution be taken with the participation of the citizens. Under French reality, the precautionary principle leads to situations of indecision that are penalizing for the industrialists and, in a general way, for the long-term investment.
The constitutionalisation of the principle solidifies reality and constitutes an obstacle to the growth: the legislator should be able to preserve a room for maneuver to define precise conditions of application of the principle.
Consequently, it seems convenient to repeal, or if this is not possible then to very strictly specify the range of article 5 of the Charter of the environment of 2004, with respect to both the private operators and the public authorities, by a revision of the constitutional text, which will make it possible to specify the nature of the “damage” and the conditions of its compensation.
January 23, 2008
Dear Dr. Kogan,
I just came from a trip in France. While there I heard the news about the recommendation of the Jacques Attali commission regarding the Precautionary Principle. Apparently, this commission felt that this principle should be discarded as it is a hurdle for development. However, the reaction was quite strong (the commission was labeled as the ATTILA commission) and the draft document released this week does NOT mention the precautionary principle. Please let me know if you want me to follow up with the recommendations of this commission (may be released in the near future).
... Apparently, the French President Sarkozy has already rejected two proposals of the Attali Commission: the administrative reorganization of France abolishing the counties ("départements") and ... the precautionary principle.
Please See: "Sarkozy rejette deux propositions du rapport Attali", reported on the website of "Le Figaro" one of the most popular French daily papers:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/2008/01/23/04001-20080123ARTFIG00421-sarkozy-rejette-deux-propositions-du-rapport-attali.php .
The subheadline prominently reads:
Nicolas Sarkozy a relevé quelques désaccords avec les propositions formulées par Jacques Attali. Le chef de l'État est contre la suppression des départements et celle du principe de précaution
Thank you very much for your help.
Sorin Straja
Here is the news report in French:
Commission Attali: les premières propositions suscitent la polémique
PARIS (AFP) — Les premières propositions de la Commission pour la libération de la croissance française (CLCF) présidée par Jacques Attali, qui devait remettre lundi après-midi au président Nicolas Sarkozy un rapport d'étape sur le pouvoir d'achat, ont déjà déclenché la polémique.
Selon des informations de presse publiées vendredi, les membres de la commission suggéraient notamment de retirer de la Constitution le "principe de précaution", considéré comme un frein à la croissance, ce qui a suscité une levée de boucliers.
Le ministre de l'Ecologie, Jean-Louis Borloo, s'est fermement opposé lundi à cette suppression, rappelant que "le principe de précaution fait partie de traités internationaux que la France a signés".
La secrétaire d'Etat à l'Ecologie, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, avait auparavant qualifié cette position de "réactionnaire". "Il faut cesser de considérer que l'environnement est une limite à la croissance", a affirmé celle qui fut rapporteur de la Charte de l'environnement, qui avait inscrit ce principe dans la Constitution en 2005.
Dès vendredi, la CLCF avait souligné que ses propositions étaient "en cours de finalisation" et que "les documents qui ont pu être diffusés jusqu'ici ne correspondent pas à l'état actuel des propositions".
La commission Attali contre le principe de precaution
La Commission pour la libération de la croissance propose, dans son rapport d'étape, de le retirer de la Constitution ou encore d'abroger les lois Royer, Galland et Raffarin sur la distribution.
Présidée par Jacques Attali, la Commission pour la libération de la croissance (CLCF) va suggérer au président de la République de retirer le principe de précaution de la Constitution, d'abroger les lois sur la distribution, de lancer des mesures pour le logement et la stimulation du pouvoir d'achat, écrit Le Figaro dans son édition de vendredi 12 octobre.
Selon la une du quotidien, transmise jeudi soir à Reuters, qui cite le rapport d'étape de la commission remis lundi prochain au président de la République, "les membres de la commission demandent à Nicolas Sarkozy de retirer le principe de précaution qui figure actuellement dans la Constitution. Ils y voient un frein majeur à la croissance".
Grande consommation et logement
La commission propose également une libéralisation radicale de la distribution, poursuit Le Figaro. "En abrogeant les lois Royer, Galland et Raffarin, sur le commerce, il serait possible de faire baisser de 2 à 4% les prix des produits de grande consommation", écrit le quotidien.
"Pour relancer le logement, la commission propose neuf séries de mesures: alléger le contrat de bail, instaurer la TVA à 5,5% pour les jeunes, créer des villes nouvelles ultraécolos…", poursuit-il. La Commission suggère également une vaste restructuration des 850 organismes de HLM dont le nombre serait réduit afin d'augmenter leur efficacité.
La commission livrera également "une trentaine de recommandations pour libérer les contraintes qui pèsent sur les revenus des ménages", lit-on également sur la une du Figaro, sans plus de précision. (Reuters)
...The PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is questioned by the Attali Commission Report providing 316 proposals “to liberate the French growth.”
Jacques Attali gave on January 23, 2008 to the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Prime Minister Francois Fillon the “Report Of The Commission For The Liberation Of The French Growth”. Please find attached the original document (in full in French). The major goals are to obtain an additional 1% of growth, to bring back the rate of unemployment to 5 %, and to reduce the national debt.
One of the most unexpected proposals is to repeal, or if this is not possible then to very strictly specify, the precautionary principle.
Also attached is...my translation of the section where the precautionary principle is mentioned.
Jacques Attali, between 1981 and 1991, was a French presidential adviser as part of the country's socialist government. In April 1991 he became the first President of the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development established to assist the former communist countries in their transition to democratic market economies.
Sorin Straja
OBJECTIVE: To rethink the precautionary principle
The constitutional law n° 2005-205 of March 1st, 2005 inscribed in the constitutional text the “Charter of the environment of 2004”. It thus meets an increasing concern of the citizens with regard to their environment and testifies to the interest that the Parliament carries to these questions. However, article 5 of the Charter introduces a new provision in constitutional law, by referring to a “precautionary principle”, already present in the legislative corpus, and whose normative range remains uncertain.
This reference generates judicial uncertainties and installs a context prejudicial to the innovation and the growth, because of the risks of dispute of responsibility against the most innovating companies in front of the courts of law. It also burdens with a heavy presumption the decisions of administrative police force.
The need for protection is undeniable. It is established and recognized by the European texts.
If the constitutional text intends to prevent the realization of damages harmful to the collectivity, its very open drafting leaves place to potentially divergent interpretations, likely to paralyze the economic activity and that of the administration.
In effect, the concept of damage affecting the “environment in a gravely and irreversible way” is not defined by the constitutional text. Moreover, the reality of the “damage” is only very vaguely specified there: it is enough that its realization be “uncertain in the state of scientific knowledge” to oblige the administration to act. This fuzzy formulation opens to the judge the possibility of interpreting the founding text of the Republic. This situation is not ideal from the point of view of democracy.
Moreover, article 5 of the Charter of the environment risks to inhibit the fundamental and applied research, insofar as an innovation which potentially would generate a damage whose realization would be “uncertain in the state of scientific knowledge” could open recourse of responsibility, against the companies or institutes of research as well as against public collectivities charged with administrative police force. Moreover, sometimes this sanction would intervene only at the end of a long legal procedure, thus paralyzing the activity of the public and private laboratories.
In addition, the administrative action itself would be very slow due to this vague formulation. In virtue of this constitutional text modified in 2005, the administration is supposed to be able to follow the whole scientific research, which appears not very realistic. Not being able to do it, the administration will thus resort very often to prohibition, the solution that is judicially the most sure, administratively the most comfortable, and the more penalizing for our growth.
Finally, article 5 of the Charter of the environment is not dissociable from article 7 that imposes that the decisions of precaution be taken with the participation of the citizens. Under French reality, the precautionary principle leads to situations of indecision that are penalizing for the industrialists and, in a general way, for the long-term investment.
The constitutionalisation of the principle solidifies reality and constitutes an obstacle to the growth: the legislator should be able to preserve a room for maneuver to define precise conditions of application of the principle.
Consequently, it seems convenient to repeal, or if this is not possible then to very strictly specify the range of article 5 of the Charter of the environment of 2004, with respect to both the private operators and the public authorities, by a revision of the constitutional text, which will make it possible to specify the nature of the “damage” and the conditions of its compensation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
