The paramount question on my mind for a long time has been 'where does the money go?' I, as well as many others, have spent a long time looking into the EU budget and reviewing budget reports. It is very difficult to fathom how the monies spent translates into a practical reality of a better life for the environment, the poor, the marginalised and the refugees.
Many of the stated goals of the EU proposals are laudable on the surface, but when one looks deeper at the practical outworking of these goals it is hard to see the real value added given the budget allocated. It is a very difficult case to argue as one can not know how much of the EU budget is spent on funding unproductive course development, research, meetings, policy writing and expenses as opposed to dynamic research, education and action bringing tangible and practical changes to help humanity and the environment.
For example Climate Change: it is widely accepted that Climate Change is an issue of tremendous importance for the future of humanity. It states here that the EU has agreed that at least 20% of its budget for 2014-2020 (this amounts to as much as €180 billion) should be spent on climate change-related action. Will this money be spent on real change such as the building of wind turbines and solar farms or will this money be spent on simply more meetings, summits and conferences?
The United Nations Climate Change Conferences - Conference of Parties (UNCCC COP) have been held yearly since 1995 to assess progress in dealing with climate change and to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. A very brief look at the history of carbon dioxide emissions shows that there has been little tangible change during these past 25 years. National Geographic Magazine criticised the conferences by stating:
"Since 1992, when the world’s nations agreed at Rio de Janeiro to avoid 'dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,' they’ve met 20 times without moving the needle on carbon emissions. In that interval we’ve added almost as much carbon to the atmosphere as we did in the previous century."
'Fresh Hope for Combating Climate Change' Nov 2015, pg14
The Commentator revealed in October 2012 that even in the UK the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) spent over £1.3 million on 3,114 domestic and international flights between 2010 and 2012. How much of our money will the EU spend on the bureaucracy behind climate change as opposed to real change?
The next UN climate conference (COP22) is to be held in Morocco, Marrakech from November 7–18, 2016 and the EU have committed 12 million Euros to the hosting of this conference. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the enormous sums of money allocated towards Climate Change but it is a small example of a very serious concern. The conference venue itself will cost around 21 million Euros. Will this conference bring real change to the lives of the people? How can the average European determine this? Where is the framework for accountability and an ability for the voter to challenge this spending?
It is relatively easy for me, as a native English speaker to access the European Union archives and to be able to decide for myself what I think about their spending. It must be next to impossible for citizens from other nations with no English, German or French to access this information. Much of the information is held in formats that make copying and pasting into translation websites extremely difficult. I have spent hours researching a variety of Europe Aid case studies and much of the money spent seems to have been used on policy writing and the development of strategies as opposed to the effective outworking of these strategies. Anyone who has ever worked for a government organisation knows how easy it can be to hide behind policy writing and aims with vague actual results. I was deeply concerned to read all this and if it were the UK I would have a reasonable idea about where to start to lobby for change, it is much more difficult to bring any concerns to the attention of the European Parliament.
I repeat that I am seriously concerned that people who have a genuine concern for the lack of accountability in the EU and what that is doing to the poor won't vote Leave as to do so would be to align themselves with the Leave campaigners. I do not want voters to feel they have to vote Remain as a protest vote against the Leave campaign. I believe that the UK citizens need to have permission, especially from the church, to cast a 'compassionate leave vote'.
I believe in the principle of accountability and the bigger the organisation the harder it is for this to be achieved.
Many of the stated goals of the EU proposals are laudable on the surface, but when one looks deeper at the practical outworking of these goals it is hard to see the real value added given the budget allocated. It is a very difficult case to argue as one can not know how much of the EU budget is spent on funding unproductive course development, research, meetings, policy writing and expenses as opposed to dynamic research, education and action bringing tangible and practical changes to help humanity and the environment.
For example Climate Change: it is widely accepted that Climate Change is an issue of tremendous importance for the future of humanity. It states here that the EU has agreed that at least 20% of its budget for 2014-2020 (this amounts to as much as €180 billion) should be spent on climate change-related action. Will this money be spent on real change such as the building of wind turbines and solar farms or will this money be spent on simply more meetings, summits and conferences?
The United Nations Climate Change Conferences - Conference of Parties (UNCCC COP) have been held yearly since 1995 to assess progress in dealing with climate change and to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. A very brief look at the history of carbon dioxide emissions shows that there has been little tangible change during these past 25 years. National Geographic Magazine criticised the conferences by stating:
"Since 1992, when the world’s nations agreed at Rio de Janeiro to avoid 'dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,' they’ve met 20 times without moving the needle on carbon emissions. In that interval we’ve added almost as much carbon to the atmosphere as we did in the previous century."
'Fresh Hope for Combating Climate Change' Nov 2015, pg14
The Commentator revealed in October 2012 that even in the UK the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) spent over £1.3 million on 3,114 domestic and international flights between 2010 and 2012. How much of our money will the EU spend on the bureaucracy behind climate change as opposed to real change?
The next UN climate conference (COP22) is to be held in Morocco, Marrakech from November 7–18, 2016 and the EU have committed 12 million Euros to the hosting of this conference. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the enormous sums of money allocated towards Climate Change but it is a small example of a very serious concern. The conference venue itself will cost around 21 million Euros. Will this conference bring real change to the lives of the people? How can the average European determine this? Where is the framework for accountability and an ability for the voter to challenge this spending?
It is relatively easy for me, as a native English speaker to access the European Union archives and to be able to decide for myself what I think about their spending. It must be next to impossible for citizens from other nations with no English, German or French to access this information. Much of the information is held in formats that make copying and pasting into translation websites extremely difficult. I have spent hours researching a variety of Europe Aid case studies and much of the money spent seems to have been used on policy writing and the development of strategies as opposed to the effective outworking of these strategies. Anyone who has ever worked for a government organisation knows how easy it can be to hide behind policy writing and aims with vague actual results. I was deeply concerned to read all this and if it were the UK I would have a reasonable idea about where to start to lobby for change, it is much more difficult to bring any concerns to the attention of the European Parliament.
I repeat that I am seriously concerned that people who have a genuine concern for the lack of accountability in the EU and what that is doing to the poor won't vote Leave as to do so would be to align themselves with the Leave campaigners. I do not want voters to feel they have to vote Remain as a protest vote against the Leave campaign. I believe that the UK citizens need to have permission, especially from the church, to cast a 'compassionate leave vote'.
I believe in the principle of accountability and the bigger the organisation the harder it is for this to be achieved.