Web skovgaard.org
	READ ALSO: The European Constitution - or Towards "1984" in Europe

The Single European Market - More Imagination than Reality

The Single European Market has been trumpeted by European politicians and the European institutions as a single space where people can move around without restrictions to work, study, or whatever. A recent report titled "Europe in 12 lessons", written by Pascal Fontaine, the European Commission in October 2003 states that:

- "The EU has created a single currency and a dynamic single market in which people, services, goods and capital move around freely" (page 8).

- "The single market was completed in 1993" (page 29), although moderated on page 37 to:

-"The single market was finally declared 'complete' on 1 January 1993 - and even then the project was not quite finished", and further moderated on page 39 to:

- "However, freedom of movement is far from complete" and "The single market is certainly up and running, but it is still very much a 'work in progress' with constant room for improvement".

- "The euro area has enjoyed the kind of stability and predictability that investors and consumers need" (page 43).

- "Gone are the old rules and regulations, tax and customs barriers that once restricted human activity in Europe and hampered the free movement of goods, capital and services" (page 49).

- "The Directive on Television without frontiers gives viewers better access to television programmes produced in Europe" (page 52).

You are not dreaming. The same person from the same Commission is contradicting himself in the same report. You are witnessing the state of the art of European integration. Everything is possible - on paper.

If you believed all the propaganda, moving from London to Madrid should be as easy as moving to Birmingham, you could bring your car without trouble, you could easily insure it in the country you wanted, and so on. It's a great idea in principle.

However, the reality is entirely different. The main players France and Germany keep pushing for further political integration while, at the same time, their governments delay transposition of European Directives into national law beyond the limits set in the Directives. Their objectives seem to be concentrated, political power, while ignoring the wishes of the citizens. Denmark and Britain, sometimes referred to as "the awkward squad", frequently opposes further integration, but they obey the European legislation already passed to a much higher degree. In fact, all Member States are to some degree in failure when it comes to transposing European Directives into national law before the deadlines stipulated in the Directives. Transposing Directives is not an option to the Member States but an obligation. Yet, when Member States disobey Community law, those who pay the price are citizens and businesses. The laws that in some cases should protect them or give them rights simply don't exist and so cannot be enforced without lengthy and costly litigation that includes suing the offending government for breach of Community law. In May 2003, it was reported that France was facing 220 open cases regarding violations of European laws. Even after France has lost cases at the European Court of Justice, the French government frequently ignore the judgement and continue their illegal behaviour, forcing the European Commission to begin new litigation to get France fined. Together with Italy, France has the worst record of the 15 Member States.

To really benefit from the Single Market, you are advised to specialise in international law, European law, multilateral agreements, bilateral agreements, the law of your country of origin, the law of your country of residence, and the laws of each country where you are doing business or have other interests or activities. Don't forget the case law from each jurisdiction. Fortunately, more and more legal texts are available free of charge on the Web, so you have no excuse for being ignorant about the law. If you want to survive the European Shambles, it's in your best interest to be informed, because you cannot rely on the administration to give you the correct information.

The Rotten Heart Of Europe

Bernard Connolly was a high-ranking official in the monetary section of the European Commission until he wrote a book about the EU's monetary policies, the making of the exchange rate mechanism that preceded the Single Currency, and the Single Currency itself. Then he was fired. What's central in "The Rotten Heart Of Europe" is the description of the incessant French manoeuvring to enforce special treatment of France when France wanted it, at the cost of other Member States. The French always wanted to get their hands on the German Bundesbank. Being a highly qualified specialist in his field, Bernard Connolly describes in detail why the monetary models dreamt up by the EU keeps failing, and why the Euro will have serious problems. Needless to say, the corrupt bureaucrats in the European Commission did not want this book published, and the author got to know the Commission's secret security service through nightly visits. The European Commission does not tolerate dissidents - just like "Big Brother"s centralised, all-controlling, all-supervising state in George Orwell's "1984". Mr. Connolly is pursuing his claim for unfair dismissal at the European Court of Human Rights.

When it was to be decided who should be the director of the new European Central Bank, the French made a fierce battle to ensure that Jean-Claude Trichet, the director of Banque de France would get the job after four years. Trichet went to court in France to face charges in connection with the Crédit Lyonnais scandal that cost billions of francs to French taxpayers, and the rest of the Euro zone members were dancing to the French pipe by postponing the time when the present director, Wim Duisenberg resigned, instead of doing the only sensible thing of assigning someone else to the job. Rightly or not, Trichet was cleared and does now hold the privileged position that may see him in charge of breaking up the euro.

When in 1998 it was decided which countries could enter the Single Currency, only very few countries fulfilled the strict economic criteria, and many had fudged their budgets. In came a political decision to leave the criteria on the shelf and let everybody except Greece in (or rather postpone them a couple of years). The Single Currency was fudged from the beginning, and so it came as no surprise that it lost 25% of its value within the first year. The financial markets had no confidence in the politicians and the dirty dealings behind the currency. As the USA positioned their dollar in connection with the second Iraq war, the euro swung to the other side and became so hugely expensive that exports from the eurozone were severely hampered.

Connolly also predicted the difficulties we're seeing now in different countries, because the single interest rate doesn't fit their needs. Many eurozone members are having difficulties, and it looks to get far worse. Massive unemployment in such countries may be the heavy price to pay for the fudging of the currency. As it could be expected, the large countries dont respect the stability pact.

Conolly said that the euro cannot work without a political union. In fact, the introduction of the euro without a political union was an attempt to ram through a political union by the back door.

Now that it is becoming clear that the peoples of Europe do not want a political union the way their leaders had planned, the inevitable is happening: Rumours start flying about the euro breaking up. Now, even the French admit it. In this article in the Daily Telegraph on the 5 June 2005, Nicolas Dupont-Aignant, a member of French president Jacques Chirac's ruling UMP party, is quoted as having said: "France, Italy and Germany would be in a better state without the euro. However, I don't believe we should ditch it now. "But either it is reformed, and the central European Bank kick-starts growth by lowering interest rates and pursuing a more American-style monetary policy, or the euro will explode in mid-air.""

The governor of France's central bank, Christian Noyer answered that the "The euro is a solid currency which brings us a lasting guarantee of stable prices and thus the maintenance of purchasing power for our wages and savings,". Well, Mr. Noyer, is it really so? Why, then, was the French building construction cost index at its highest for 20 years at an annual increase of 4.8% in the fourth quarter 2004? This is the value that is automatically used to calculate the annual increase of people's rent in rented property. How does increasing rent by 4.8% a year "maintain purchasing power" when wages are increasing less?

The illustration below says it all, considering the last 20 years. The figures are from the official French statistical source www.insee.fr.

• Before the euro, the annual construction cost increase was generally getting less and less: Construction cost and thereby rent were stabilising.
• After the introduction of the euro, the annual increase of these costs has generally been accelerating.
• Before the euro, wages generally increased more than the construction cost and rent (figures not available before 1993).
• After the euro, wages are undermined by construction cost and rent that increase more than the wages.

As we are used to from political sources, Mr. Noyer is economic with truth.

In 2005, the French government finally realised that the continous high rent increases were undermining salaries too much and decided to modify the mechanism for rent indexation. From 2006, rent increases are therefore down a bit - 2.3% in 2006. But while this helps tenants, it hides the undermining problem that the euro is making prices increase.

"The Rotten Heart of Europe" is available in French translation: "La sale guerre de la monnaie européenne".

The EU's solution to fraud: Arrest or fire those who reveal it

There is widespread fraud in place with EU funds that in many cases simply disappear without being accounted for. There are institutions in place to investigate fraud, but they are suspected in many cases rather to cover up the fraud than exposing it. Vice-president of the European Commission until 2004 and responsible for anti-fraud measures, Neil Kinnock, has followed a policy of getting rid of officials who expose fraud instead of dealing with the fraud, despite his promises to reform and root out the fraud.

In a move that would have made the KGB proud of themselves if it had happened in the communist era, it was reported on the 20 March 2004 that Hans-Martin Tillack, the Bruxelles correspondent for Germany's Stern magazine, was arrested and held for 10 hours by Belgian police and his home and office and sensitive computer files were raided. His offence was to have critically investigated the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF, accusing it of covering up abuses within the EU system. While no charges have been filed, it is widely assumed that the authorities wanted to snoop in his personal files - there we have "1984" again. In October, the first instance of the European Court of Justice broke with decades of case law supported civil rights and individual liberties by not supporting Mr. Tillack. Effectively, this means that the European Union does not have to respect European Human Rights codes.
Daily Telegraph 20/03/2004
Daily Telegraph 23/04/2004
Daily Telegraph 08/07/2004
Daily Telegraph 18/10/2004.

Marta Andreasen, former chief accountant in the European Commission, was fired in October 2004 after exposing fraud, even though internal EU documents have largely validated her claims. "I encountered evidence of structural fraud embedded in the European Commission systems," she said. "High officials knew this was the case, and still is the case." She was originally suspended in May 2002 after telling the press that the EU's £63 billion budget was "an open till waiting to be robbed". She found a £130 million discrepancy between two sets of books for 2001. This has never been fully explained.

Officials linked to the disappearance of £3 million in "slush funds" are still on full salary more than two years later, though their conduct was described by fraud investigators as a "vast enterprise of looting".

Read the Daily Telegraph's articles about fraud in the EU: 
16/11/2000: Auditors criticise fraud and waste.
19/11/2000: Mismanagement and fraud cost EU taxpayers £4 bn.
07/03/2001: European Court of Justice: Freedom of speech does not include political criticism of the EU.
27/02/2002: cover-up by the commission to protect officials guilty of past misconduct.
21/07/2002: Kinnock hangs whistleblower Dorte Schmidt-Brown out to dry.
02/08/2002: EU accused of budget cover-up.
02/08/2002: Harrassment of whistleblowers.
02/08/2002: Marta Andreasen suspended by Neil Kinnock who was supposed to protect whistleblowers.
27/08/2002: Hard to find anybody possessing "even the slightest sense of responsibility".
10/09/2002: Kinnock and MEPs clash over whistleblower's suspension.
06/11/2002: Financial watchdog discloses EU fraud and error.
24/11/2002: Daniel Hannan: "The only people to have lost their jobs in connection with corruption are Paul van Buitenen, whose revelations set the whole thing in motion, and Miss Andreasen herself".
04/12/2002: Euro-MP Chris Heaton-Harris points out the fraud.
10/03/2003: Neil Kinnock accused of presiding over a "culture of cover-up".
08/06/2003: MEPs accuse commission of 'looting' cover-up.
10/07/2003: Kinnock attempts to curb 'shocking' EU fraud.
19/07/2003: Eurostat row puts Prodi in hot seat.
24/09/2003: Row over 'multi-million fraud' rocks EU.
25/09/2003: Eurostat defrauded EU to fund holidays and their own volleyball team.
26/09/2003: Prodi shrugs off EU scandal over missing millions.
28/09/2003: Whistleblower rejoins fray.
17/10/2003: New scandal hits EC over insider trading.
28/10/2003: Eurocrats let slush funds stay, says audit.
16/11/2003: Prodi turns on EU's 'failing' fraud squad.
19/11/2003: Prodi's fraud action plans not enough, say MEPs.
19/11/2003: EU reforms are a failure.
21/11/2003: Neil Kinnock: "Officials who exercise their statutory duty to report any suspected wrongdoing can do so with full protection for their reputations and careers".
21/11/2003: Heaton-Harris: A failure is a failure.
25/01/2004: Kinnock faces censure over EU 'slush fund'.
29/01/2004: Euro-MPs voice their anger over collapse of cash control.
14/02/2004: Whistleblower to expose Prodi and Kinnock failings.
28/03/2004: Kinnock finally acts against EU whistleblower.
14/10/2004: Marta Andreasen sacked.
17/10/2004: Marta Andreasen strikes back.
13/10/2005: The EU declares whistleblowers mad to get rid of them in best KGB style.
09/11/2007: Marta Andreasen loses in EU's civil service tribunal; will appeal..

Giving taxpayers' money to friends is ok if you're a French commissioner

12/7/2006: Daily Telegraph: Former French prime minister and European commissioner Edith Cresson was found guilty of favoritism and improper conduct by the European Court of Justice in 2006 for having paid friends out of EU funds for bogus work while she was a commissioner. The European Commission had wanted half of her pension stripped as a penalty for her misconduct, but that was rejected by the court. She is guilty but no punishment or penalty will be imposed. Some people are more equal than others, and can anyone really be surprised that a French former prime minister and commissioner will not be punished? If you owe 50 € in tax, the debt will be pursued with all means available - so that highly placed cheats like Mrs Cresson can give your money to friends. People who cheat in tax help assuring that less money is available to crooks a the top to give away - and rest assured that Mrs Cresson is not the only one. She was just unlucky enough to be caught out.

Particular Topics

This section deals with particular problems in particular sectors.

Financial services

Migrating citizens cannot benefit from the best offers in the market, because banks frequently refuse credit if you live in another country or if you have not lived a sufficient number of years in the same country as the bank. The problem is widespread in but not confined to Britain.

Opening a bank account in another country may take months.

Cheques are still national and cannot be cashed in in another eurozone country without paying excessive fees. Consequence 1: You are likely to need a bank account in the Member state where you live, at least if you need cheques, and you cannot take advantage of competition in other Member states. Consequence 2: Paying someone in another Member state a minor amount is still a hassle, because it's no good to write a cheque. My suggestion is to open bank accounts in all the Member states where you regularly or occasionally receive or pay money.

Getting money in and out of a country is frequently connected with fees, commissions, foreign loadings, charge factors, spreads or other ways of paying your bank for the privilege of having access to your own money in the country you want. The exception is using cash and cards and making money transfers in the euro zone. Sometimes, the commission is hidden in the exchange rate. For example, Alliance & Leicester in Britain silently rakes in on what they call a "charge factor" or "spread". They will give you an exchange rate that is typically 3% less favourable than the European Central Bank's official rate and the rate you can obtain in for example Denmark. They don't publish this hidden cost. I suspect that most British banks are doing something similar. Banks are obliged to publish all fees and commissions according to EU law. Yet, Alliance & Leicester doesn't publish the 3% they rake in. According to the European Commission, they are not acting illegally, because they call the 3% a "spread" instead of "commission". The EU legislation obliging banks to publish their commissions is thus totally useless, because all they have to do to avoid publishing it is to call the commission a "spread".

Pension schemes and the legislation covering them are not harmonised.

In 2004, I bought a new car in Belgium for registering it in France, my country of residence. Due to EU type approvals, it is no longer a problem to register it in France (even though a lady at the préfecture - car registering authority - told me that because that particular model was not sold in France, I would have a problem registering it - complete nonsense). However, getting someone to finance it is a problem. The president of the BNP, France, recently said to Le Figaro that he would want to see the Single Market effectively extended to allow for financial services. The same day, his bank refused to finance my car with the reason that it was bought outside France. Hypocrisy comes in many forms, but clearly, the bank is only interested in extending the Single Market for its own profit. The BNP quoted the problem of actually paying the car dealer when cross-border transfers without the EU now cost virtually nothing. Other banks or leasing companies quoted difficulties with type approval when national type approvals are now a thing of the past, an the EU type approval allows for direct registration in any member state without further formalities.

When I made a euro transfer to Denmark through French La Poste in May 2004, La Poste charged the higher fee for non-euro transfers, even though the transfer is clearly subject to the EU Regulation that stipulates that intra-community transfers in euros must cost the same as national transfers. La Poste's own rate sheet correctly reflects this, but the stupid cow I spoke to at La Poste's Lille centre was unable to think, read, hear and understand how to do her job. I had stumbled upon a fonctionnaire of the old school, for whom it is a sadistic pleasure to annoy clients as much as possible, never mind what's correct or not. At this time, I'm waiting for my financial advisor to take care of the matter. Let's not forget that it's always France that's shouting for more integration. How about respecting the existing rules for a start?

Borderless EU closes bank accounts in other Member States

Alliance & Leicester in the UK decided in September 2004 that keeping accounts alive for customers in other Member States would be so dreadful that they would rather close these accounts than verifying each customer's address and identify. This was because of changes made in UK Legislation to accommodate the European Union Savings Tax Directive that should help counter cross-border tax evasion. In a letter dated 14/9/2004, the told me that they would close my UK account with one month's notice because of this. Click here to see the letter. This is yet another example of absurd and paranoid legislation that goes against the stated objective of removing internal frontiers in the EU. Just don't forget that "Gone are the old rules and regulations, tax and customs barriers that once restricted human activity in Europe and hampered the free movement of goods, capital and services". Well, it's true in the sense that this is not an old rule or regulation but a new one, so it's not really a lie. It's just you and me who are applying an incorrect interpretation. Hocus pocus, we remove the old regulations and introduce new ones that are even worse. Brave New Europe!

Car Insurance

Move to Britain with your car and then try to insure it. You've just opened a Pandora's box. Remember, you can move with your car, and your driver's licence is recognised by law in the 15 Member States if it was issued by one of them. Thus, you don't need to worry about changing your licence. The British insurance company will ask you how long time you've held a full UK licence. You then explain them that your licence is Danish, but that according to the law, it's compatible with a UK licence. "Well, you need to have a full UK licence". You try again and explain them that you've actually lived in Britain some years and that you could have changed your licence five years ago if you had wanted. "You need to have a full UK licence!", is the mechanical answer. What about the Single Market, you ask. It was supposed to make everything easier. "You need to have a full UK licence!" - same track again. Well, why do you insist on that, when I could have had one if I had wanted? "Statistics show that drivers with a foreign licence make more accidents". Yes, ok, I understand that, you tell them, but look here, I've already lived in Britain a couple of years, I haven't made any accidents, and I could have changed my licence to a full UK licence, but I didn't want to. Do you believe that my driving depends on what happens to be printed on my licence? "You need to have a full UK licence. Statistics show that drivers with a foreign licence make more accidents!" - same blah blah without any trace of mental activity behind. As you see, nothing is forever, except the stupidity of British insurance companies. 

In France, insurance companies usually accept EU licences without any trouble, but as late as in 2004, an agency of MMA in Paris requested for a Danish licence that the holder go to the préfecture - the French licence-issuing authority - and ask them to write that he has the right to drive with his Danish licence in France. When I challenged the certainly very nice lady at the agency and asked why she wanted the préfecture to repeat what anyone can read in the law, she admitted that it was the head office that required it, but that she didn't know why. Banque Populaire, which is proposing insurance in partnership with Eurofil, refuses to insurance drivers who have not already been insured in France.

And now for the car itself, again regarding insurance in the UK. If you didn't buy it in Britain, half the insurers will turn you down, because the specifications may not the same. 

But at least you have driven sensibly before coming to Britain, so they will take that into account, right? "No, we cannot consider bonus from abroad". Hey, wait a minute, we have a Single Market without borders. Why don't you accept that I've driven 15 years without accidents abroad? I can document it. "We cannot consider bonus from abroad. You must provide a bonus record from a British insurance company". Remember the EU report: "The EU has created a single currency and a dynamic single market in which people, services, goods and capital move around freely".

French insurers usually consider the driving history abroad if it can be documented, but not Direct Assurance - a branch of the large Axa Group. For example, a driver who had had his licence for only 18 months and with a clean driving history should obtain a bonus of 5% in France, but because his driving history is Danish, then they will only allow 1%. When I tried to sign up a British client with them and they realised that the client didn't speak French very well, they immediately declined to accept the insurance, because then they could not deal with the client on the telephone, they said. It made no difference that the client had assigned a professional relocation advisor (me) to deal with her administrative affairs. Eurofil practice the same language discrimination. Such discrimination is prohibited by the EU Treaty, but insurance companies still live in their national fortresses. They've never heard about a borderless Europe, and they don't want to know. It's much more profitable to divide and rule and rake endless amounts of money in by overcharging clients, while making a mockery of the "Single Market". Abba's song "Money Money Money" must be their favorite.

European car insurance companies normally extend the full insurance cover to the whole of Europe as an integral part of the standard cover. Not in the UK. If you want to take your UK insured car outside of Britain, you will only benefit from the mandatory liability insurance that by law must cover at least the EU. If you want the remaining part of your insurance to remain valid, you will pay a hefty surcharge for each day abroad. There is no legal requirement for the insurance to be valid throughout the Community. Supposedly, the logic behind the surcharge is the British tendency of driving at the wrong side of the road, thus crashing into the first available car immediately after arriving at Calais. One would think that people travelling the other way would be exposed to a similar risk in Britain. Yet, other European insurance companies don't find it worth the trouble surcharging.

If you finally find a company that will accept your licence, bonus and imported car, you can expect paying twice the price a Briton would have paid for a British car. The Single Market is great, isn't it? No borders.

So, why don't you just keep the insurance you had already in the Member State you moved from? After all, the "The EU has created a single currency and a dynamic single market in which people, services, goods and capital move around freely" (remember the EU report?). Well, you can in theory insure your car in another Member State than the one where it's registered, but before the insurance company is allowed to sell insurances in another Member State, it must provide a local representative and go through a lengthy procedure to be recognised by the local administration. The insurance company has to go through this procedure in every single Member State where they want to sell insurance. Result: Virtually no insurer does that, and the consumer is left more confused than before. How is he supposed to know which Member States have approved which insurance companies? The reality: The is no Single Market for insurance.

Car Road Worthiness Tests

Not harmonised. If you get your car checked in Germany on the 21 April, move to France on the 22 April with your car, try to register your car on the 23 April, you have to make a new road worthiness test in France, because they do not recognise those of other countries, where the technicians are clearly incompetent amateurs because they don't follow French standards. No internal borders, right?

Buying your new car in any Member State

More and more people buy their new cars in different Member States than their, to take advantage of lower prices. However, thinking that this should be as easy as buying in your own Member State would be a big mistake. Apart from the problem of financing the car (see above), Denmark insists that you take out an approved Danish insurance for the export period, until the car is registered in the destination Member State. Denmark will not hear of simply insuring the car directly in the destination country. This is due to the closed borders for car insurance (see that chapter). Export insurances are hideously expensive. 

If you buy a new car in Belgium for export to another Member State and you want export licence plates from Belgium, so you can drive away in your new car straight away, you have to arrange for a full day going to Bruxelles in person. This is the only place Belgian authorities will issue export plates. If you want the car registered directly in its country of destination, you have to sort out some formalities first: paying VAT and registering the car. In France, that can be done the same day for an individual, but my car financing company said that when they as formal owner of the car have to do it, they have to make an appointment to pay the VAT and that there is a waiting time for that.

In France, it's so easy to register your car now. You just take all your paperwork to your town hall (there is one in nearly every village). Three weeks later, you go and check your paperwork that has been returned by the prefecture with a hand-written note that you should contact your car manufacturer's representative in France for a national identification. For your information, since 1996, all new car models introduced must be issued with a certificate of conformity according to common EU type approvals. With such a certificate, the need for national identifications has been abolished. It would be unreasonable to expect the prefecture to be up to date about the legislation that concerns them, so you ask the town hall to explain the prefecture how it works and send the paperwork a second time. Another three weeks later, you go to the town hall again to pick up your registration document. When you get home, you notice that the prefecture has put the wrong date on the document. Back to the town hall. With a bit of luck, you will get your correct registration document the third time.

Another thing you notice is that the prefecture has kept your original certificate of conformity and your original VAT receipt. If you bring a used car to France from another EU Member State, French authorities require these documents in original to be presented. So what do you do if you move to another Member State one day and need to present the originals that the prefecture has kept in France? How about the free movement of goods? Neither European nor French law says anything that tells them to keep the documents, and neither is anything written to say that they cannot keep them. The Ministry of Transport says that they keep them to avoid fraud with falsified originals. Well, car registration documents are not the only documents that can be falsified. I have a suggestion: Why don't they keep all ID cards and passports too? That would solve a major problem with false ID papers. But this is status quo for "borderless" Europe: Authorities keep documents that you may be responsible for providing later.

And don't forget: "Gone are the old rules and regulations, ... that once restricted human activity in Europe and hampered the free movement of goods, capital and services". Hmmm.

Medical Insurance

If you want good medical treatment in Britain, it's advisable to have a private medical insurance. To be accepted, you will either need to be taken on under a company scheme or sign up individually. The former option is the most attractive, because otherwise you need to declare your complete medical history, following which any medical condition you have suffered will be excluded from cover. Once you're in a scheme without exceptions, you can change to another company without declaring everything again. Now try moving abroad and then moving back. Even if you had a medical insurance abroad, they wouldn't accept your status with the foreign company. You're back to square one. No borders, right.

Driving

Traffic regulations are not yet harmonised. The British and the Irish drive to the left, and the steering wheel is to the right. The asymmetric headlight lights up to the left, not to the right. That means you need to change your headlights if you import or export a car to or from Britain or Ireland. In many countries, you must give way to the right at any junction, unless you are on a priority road or something else is indicated. In Britain, there is no implied duty to give way. Alcohol limits and speed limits are different. Traffic lights are placed differently. In France, it is not uncommon that there is a traffic light in the middle of a junction. You must stop at any red light, where the light is. If there is a red light at the other end of the junction, you must stop there as well. In Denmark and other countries, traffic lights are typically repeated at the other side of the junction for visibility. It does not mean that you must stop again. At roundabouts, you must normally give way for traffic already in the roundabout. In France, they also have another type of roundabouts where you must give way to the right instead. In Denmark and Germany, pedestrians and bicyclists enjoy a high degree of protection, and cars must give way in many places. Not so everywhere. In Britain, you may cross an unbroken line if necessary at a junction. In France, you may not. In some countries, you must use the emergency lights to warn others about a sudden stop of traffic flow. In other countries, it's illegal. Parking regulations are a complete mess.

Opening of the Market for Electricity

To protect the state-owned monopoly EDF in France, the French government keeps dragging out the opening of the European electricity market to competition. To benefit from the open markets in Member States that have already liberalised their electricity markets, EDF has been buying heavily into electricity providers in these countries, backed by financial guarantees from the French government. That is not equal competition, and consumers on the French market still have no choice.

Consumer Protection: 2 Years Warranty

Directive 1999/44 improved consumer protection and extended the minimum legal warranty to 2 years. The deadline for implementation was 1 January 2002. One year later, only Germany, Finland, Austria and Italy had transposed the Directive into national law, leaving consumers in the other 11 Member States without immediate protection. Consumers who want to enforce their rights against a trader in one of these 11 countries will have to attack that country's government for breach of Community law and seek compensation from them.

Immigration difficulties for third-country spouses

Spouses to EU nationals were supposed to enjoy the same rights to live and work and the EU as the EU national on whom they depend. However, they cannot simply move like their EU spouse but must apply for entry clearance or visa before they travel. No limit is imposed on the time consulates may spend considering the applications, and so moves can be delayed for months in uncertainty. Visits to the consulate may require travelling hundreds of kilometres. Free movement of persons without obstacles?

Tower of Babel

France and others have prevented a single language being defined as a common working language and the Community. French would not be a realistic choice, and the French hate Angle-Saxon dominance, so we're deadlocked. Considering the complication of having a Single Market with 11 - and soon 21 different languages, one could reasonably think that governments would have made an effort to improve language teaching. Not so. French school leavers still only speak French, British only English, and so on. How can a Single Market work if people cannot communicate?

When the Market is Free, Companies Refuse to Sell

Sales of ordinary goods and common services like computer software licences etc. has indeed become easier with the Single Market. So, it's great, you'd say, I can finally shop around in 25 countries and purchase my goods and services in the country where I find what I like and at the price I like. Not so! Many companies won't sell to you the moment they hear that you're outside their national territory. No borders, remember! 

For example, a Danish company that both imports and retails hi-fi equipment at attractive prices will not ship abroad because they only have the distribution for Denmark, and they would get problems with distributors in other Member States if they were to ship to them. 

Many British retailers systematically refuse to sell to anyone who cannot provide a UK address. This is particularly a problem for those who wish to buy English software for their computer instead of a localised version they don't want or don't understand. For example, when I wanted to buy MS Works 7, I couldn't find an English version in France and so discovered to my horror that the English version in the UK was nearly twice as expensive as the same program translated to French in France. I never understood why the only version that need not be translated was more expensive, but that's another story. I then came across a number of retailers that sold the OEM version (an OEM version is the same software but without the box and paper manuals and without support from the manufacturer). The OEM version in English cost about the same as the boxed French version in France. The retailers with the lowest prices refused to sell, but I found one in the end.

When I had some used goods to sell that are mostly useful in the UK, like English books, UK car headlights and a UK telephone, I went to the amazon.co.uk auction site, just to realise that I can only sell my goods through them if I live in the UK. Their explanation for this restriction was that they promise their clients that goods are shipped from the UK. Considering that Royal Mail are proud that they lose only 14.5 million letters a year, that would rather be a disadvantage, I'd say. Then I tried the Loot - an advertising paper. Same story. But don't forget: We're all in one big, happy market without borders.

So, what good is the Single Market then, if consumers still only have the choice of national retailers in many cases, you'd ask. My best answer is that the Single Market was never meant to really benefit the consumers much, but rather as a means of allowing powerful corporations to do as they like but without a real obligation to let consumers benefit freely. The Single Market is also great propaganda for use by Eurocrats. How many times have you heard their senseless babble about a borderless EU?

Closed borders for television

Remember the EU report quoted at the beginning of this page: "The Directive on Television without frontiers gives viewers better access to television programmes produced in Europe". The Directive stipulates that a Member State cannot forbid citizens to receive other countries' television, but there's no legislation to stipulate an obligation for encrypted satellite networks to sell a licence to anyone who is willing to pay for it, regardless of the country of residence. The British Sky network for example refuses to sell a licence to anyone living outside of the UK.  Thousands of British expatriates make their parents in the UK sign up for Sky and bring the decoding receiver abroad to where they live, so that they can watch British television. These people have no intention to defraud Sky or pirate the cards. They simply want a way to watch British television, and they are willing to pay for it. No, says Sky. No, says the EU. No law says they are entitled to watch British television when abroad. Could anyone imagine that in order to buy a British book, one would have to produce evidence of residence in the UK? No. Why then do Europeans have to accept a limitation of television reception that reminds more about the former Eastern Germany and their suppression of free communication than a free society? No internal frontiers in Europe, right! Of course, British expatriates can receive the national TV channels in the country where they live, but many countries in Europe dub the original soundtrack in their own language. That leaves many such TV channels of very little interest for anyone who prefers the original soundtrack.

Technical standards

A Single European electrical plug is yet to be invented.

There are three different standards for television broadcasting, each being incompatible with the others.

Plugs for telephones, modems and faxes are consistently different in each country.

Dwelling Tax

French dwelling tax is due for one year at a time, based on the property you occupied on the 1 January that year. If you pack your bags the 2 January and move to another country, the tax is still due for the whole year. In case of dwelling taxes in the country you're going to, you are paying double dwelling tax for a year. No obstacles to the free movement of people, right!

Alcohol and cigarettes to Britain

Despite having no exceptions from Community Law, British Customs and Excise keep harrassing legal cross-border shoppers bringing back cheap French alcohol and tobacco. They illegally stop and search travellers. Under Single Market Law, border controls of goods are illegal. They confiscate legally imported goods and tax and fine legal shoppers bringing back goods for their own use. They illegally confiscate and sell shoppers' cars. "Gone are the old rules and regulations, tax and customs barriers that once restricted human activity in Europe and hampered the free movement of goods, capital and services", said the EU report quoted at the top of this page.

The VAT chaos

The VAT Directive in force is still what was meant to be temporary. The first half of the Directive describes the ideal rules. The other half describes all the temporary regulations that override the first half. Member States have not been able to agree on total harmonisation. This means that businesses throughout the EU are overloaded with cumbersome, illogical and inconsequent VAT administration. Member States still enjoy each their own exceptions to the common VAT rules. A French business can recover the VAT on a business meal in France, but if they jump across the border to Belgium, Belgian authorities refuse to refund. In principle, a VAT registered business is not supposed to pay VAT on its purchases, as VAT is a comsumption tax. Nevertheless, France does not allow businesses to recover VAT on petrol, cars and car supplies, and only 80% of the VAT on diesel can be recovered. 

A business in the EU selling goods or services to other member states must collect VAT for their own member state or for the receiving member state if annual sales exceed a certain limit, and they should only collect VAT for private customers; not businesses. Those other businesses must then declare that they have bought goods or services in another member state, pay the VAT in their own member state and then immediately deduct the VAT to recover it. VAT on some types of services should be paid in the receiving member state; VAT on other types of services in the providing member state. Many businesses are, not surprisingly, ignorant about these chaotic rules and wrongly collect VAT when selling to businesses in other member states or refusing to sell to other member states altogether, because it is too complicated. A business that wants to recover VAT paid in another member state must fill in forms in the language of each other member state in which tax was paid and comply with the different VAT laws of each member state. Many abandon even before trying.

When I took my French company car to service at a Belgian Mercedes dealer, they charged Belgian VAT. At the end of the year, I requested a VAT refund from the Belgian authorities. They refused and said that the dealer should not charge VAT on this type of service. Back to the dealer who admitted the error and refunded - using a cross-border transfer in euros. When I received the payment, 10 € were missing. Back to the dealer again, who tried to explain it with the cross-border fees that are now abolished. He told me to discuss it with my bank, when it was clearly his bank that had made a mistake, but in the end - after 5 minutes discussion - he contacted his bank that admitted their error and transferred the remaining amount.

In its eternal wisdom, the EU has decided that businesses outside the EU selling services to individuals in the EU must add EU VAT to their prices and pay the VAT to the EU. Many businesses of course couldn't bother less. Indeed, if every country in the world did like the EU, it would be virtually impossible to sell to anyone across borders. Other businesses don't understand that they should not collect the VAT for businesses in the EU, and they just collect from the lot. The businesses outside the EU would typically have an EU VAT number, and an EU business cannot recover VAT paid through an EU VAT number, thus leaving them either to pay tax they shouldn't or argue with the foreign providers.

The hopeless way of transposing Directives

As Community law is designed, Directives voted by the European Council contain deadlines for their transposition into national law. Directives are not directly enforceable. They must be transposed into national law in each Member State before national courts can take them into consideration. Government frequently fail to fulfil their obligations to transpose Directives. Individuals or businesses who suffer losses because of failed transpositions can obtain damages from the offending government, but only after an expensive and lengthy legal battle. One can only deplore this hopeless and inefficient system of implementing Community law. As a very minimum, it ought to be possible for anyone to refer directly to a Directive, whether it has been transposed or not.

Legal cooperation

It remains a general problem that laws are frequently incompatible between Member States.

One such example is marital regimes. Pre-nuptial agreements or contracts exist in some Member States. They allow the couple to decide whether or not possessions should be shared and to what degree. If the couple divorce, the judge will have to respect the contract when dividing possessions. Other countries like England does not have such a concept in their legislation, and for that reason, a judge is under no obligation to respect a valid contract that was made before marriage in another Member State. This can have very serious consequences for those who thought they were covered by a contract and who are divorcing in England. Years ago, I wrote a petition to the European Parliament, but I have never received any intelligent answer.

Consumers

In some countries like Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg, consumers must pay a deposit for some types of bottles with beer, soda, juice etc. This is of course refunded when you return the bottles to the place where you bought them. But if you make use of the Single Market for example to buy your favourite beer for a good price in Germany and take them home to France, then what are you supposed to do with the bottles? No obstacles for the free movement of goods in the Single Market, they said! I sometimes end up with some empty, deposited Danish bottles. When my parents visit me in France, they take the empty bottles back to Denmark in their suitcases. Presumably, the additional airplane fuel required to fly them back cost more than the value of the bottles, but deposited bottles are supposed to be environmentally friendly, so flying them back must definitely be the right thing to do.

Warranty issued by a company in one Member State is not necessarily valid in another, even if the same company is represented in that other country. A good example is CARGLASS who repaired my windscreen in Germany and gave 10 years warranty on the fitting. Five years later, a defect appeared on the fitting. CARGLASS France refused to fix it because they only give a 1 year warranty. Only when I could fit a visit to the German CARGLASS into my travel schedule did I get it repaired.

If the neighbour asks you to buy him some boxes of beer the next time you go to a particular shop in the same country, there's no problem. You just do it. If the same neighbour asks you the same when you go cross-border shopping to take advantage of lower prices, lower VAT or lower excise duties, then you become a criminal, because the goods are not for your personal consumption. Free movement of goods, right!

Air travel

Airline companies nearly all have bonus or mileage clubs. But the schemes offered by a particular airline may vary from country to country. British Airways for example offer a much more favourable scheme to British residents than to others. In some countries like France, the only way to telephone them is to call an expensive pay-phone number that they actually earn money on. "To adapt the service to the needs of local residence", they'd say, as if the French have a particular need to pay for surcharged telephone communications. If you want to sign up to the more beneficial UK scheme, they require a British address. No internal borders, right!

Services

The European Commission recently proposed a very sensible service directive under which service providers would be able to offer their services in other member states while applying their home country's legislation. This would liberate them from the impossible task of getting to know 25 different sets of legislation in order to provide services outside of their own member state. Of course, there is no way protectionist France and some of its protectionist friends could accept that. They managed to sabotage it and water it down to uselessness by imposing the principle that service providers must apply the temporary host member state's legislation. French president Jacques Chirac said on TV before the vote on the European Constitution in 2005 that the French should not be afraid of Europe, but by his and his government's own acts, they show the French that they should fear Europe, since they need to protect themselves against competition. If France cannot unilaterally benefit from a European measure in the common good, they sabotage it.

Conclusion

In such a fragmented market as I have briefly described above, it is hardly surprising that the business sector is not growing well. There is no space for niche companies, because their market is in practice limited to their own member state, unless they are prepared to wrestle with 25 sets of national legislation, European legislation and 20 different languages. When I need for example special computer parts, I have found that they are much easier to find in the USA, where niche providers have a market of 250 million people, whereas the biggest European market is Germany with about 80 million people. If I manage to find the part in Europe, it will often be cheaper to have it posted from the USA than getting it from Europe. In the market of online services, such as web hosting and translation, where no postage, packaging and customs get in the way, the USA is much more competitive. You are reading this from a provider based in the USA, which, while providing the same service pack as my former French provider, does it cheaper and more reliably. Not only do they not have to bother with the structural problems of Europe, they are subject to much less taxes, charges, working regulations and red tape. No wonder Europe is a loser.

The workings of the European institutions - when they work

Inefficiency and incompetent management is a major problem for the European institutions. Below are just a couple of examples.

The Parliament Circus

The European Parliament has to move its sessions between Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Bruxelles each month to please the French government that insist on keeping a parliament location in France. The consequence of this childish, French pride is that every month, lorry loads of documents are transported from one of the three locations to another. And of course, the hundreds of elected members have to have facilities at each location, together with all the staff. Not only is it inconvenient for the people involved in this circus, not to mention inefficient, but it is a huge waste of money.

The worst of Italian and French bureaucracy together

The Commission is an incompetent bureaucracy, which appears to be a mix of the worst of French and Italian bureaucracy. The officials are mostly interested in advancing their own careers and fringe benefits. The Commission is responsible for managing the European laws, but it is itself outside of the scope of the laws it makes for the Member States. Minimum working conditions, for example, are not adhered to at the Commission offices. Since the officials are anxious to get their promotions, they are afraid to complain. Even if one complains, nothing useful is done. In fact, more energy is spent trying to obstruct improvements than it would have cost fixing things.

For example, at the computing centre in Luxembourg, the staff had suffered extreme temperatures up to 30 degrees because of a defect air conditioning. Windows could not be opened due to security reasons. Over seven years, binder after binder had been filled with internal correspondence about the problem. So-called technicians would come around at rare occasions to pretend trying to repair the equipment, but without any success. At some stage, measuring equipment was placed in one of the offices in order to document that the offices were too hot, even though anybody would be able to feel that the temperature was far too high. While it was obvious to any sane person that they was a serious heat problem, the Commission official responsible was more interested to add to the paperwork than doing something. One afternoon, an operator had accidentally forgotten to lower the curtain to protect the measuring equipment from the sunlight. On that afternoon, there was an inspection of the equipment, and the poor operator was shouted at by the furious official. Of course, that minor incident led to nothing further being done, since this ridiculous, puffed up official now had justification that the personnel was just causing trouble. As it so happened, an external computer consultant came to work at the offices. During a stroll in the parking basement, he came across a tap for the cooling liquid. He tried to open it just for fun, and since then, the air conditioning has been working.

A broken window where one could cut the fingers was reported. Someone came around to see that it was actually broken. No further action was taken. The building itself was in a state of disrepair with cracks in the walls due to subsidence. Toilets were stinking, except in the part of the building where high ranking officials could be expected. The often pictured Berlaimont building in Bruxelles was a disaster of asbestos and bad construction. Since there was fears that the building could collapse in case of fire, and because of the asbestos problem, it had to be evacuated to be entirely refurbished. New offices were planned in a new shopping complex in Luxembourg, but after the building had been constructed, it became clear that the construction was too weak to support the files of Eurostat, the statistical department.

Tax free cars and shops for the officials

European officials being above national laws, they pay no income tax except a few percent to the Community, and they are entitled to buy new cars without paying VAT. At Community institutions, tax free shops are at their disposal, policed by Community security staff to ensure that ordinary mortals do not access these holy sites. The closing down of duty free sales between Member States did not affect the tax free shops for the officials.

Some personal comments

In my younger days, while I still lived in my own country Denmark, I was very enthusiastic about the development of the EEC/EU. I was interested in all the opportunities it gave for individuals who wanted to experience another country than their own. I believed a Single Currency would be great to simplify travel, foreign payment and all that. So long as I lived in Denmark, I voted yes to EU referendums like the Single Market, and I was deeply worried when Denmark initially voted no to the Maastricht Treaty.

At that time, I believed that in the EU, all Member States would be treated equally and have the same opportunities and influence. I believed that the EU would be a mutual benefit for the Member States, their citizens and businesses.

I've now lived outside Denmark since 1993: 1 year in Germany, 1 in Luxembourg and 3 in the UK. I've lived in France since 1998.

While I lived in the UK, I found the British unreasonably Euro-sceptic - and I still do. I found that the British press never gave the British a fair chance to judge the EU by its merits, as press coverage appeared pretty much to be one-sided propaganda against anything European, leaving out most of the neutral information about EU that they could have written about. It's thus not surprising to find that the opinion of the British population reflects what they've seen.

Having lived in France for 7 years, I've discovered more and more of the true French mentality. The more I understand it, the more I understand why the EU is not working very well. France being a founding nation of the EU, the EU's structures were modelled on the French structure. As we have seen a demonstration of during the run-up to the 2nd Gulf war, the French go their own ways, whatever the consequences for their "allies" (I believe that demonstration is clear whatever one may think about the war). The French as usual have played a very hard diplomatic game to bend things to their own advantage. That is what's so typical French: To make others do what the French want - to suit the French.

The Single Market with free movement is working to some extent. What slows it down is the myriad of different regulations in more than 25 different jurisdictions (bearing in mind that in a country like the UK, Scottish laws are not necessarily the same as English laws), the different way EU regulations and directives are applied in different Member States, the slowness of implementing existing directives, the slowness of issuing the necessary directives, the half-measures in existing directives, and the unwillingness of certain Member States to fulfil the task of creating a true Single Market.

I am more and more worried about the consequences of the intentions of the Franco-German axis, with an underscore under France. Teamwork and sharing work if all involved parties work for the benefit of the team, leaving their personal and national interests in second position. Europe desperately needs that to face competition from the Far East, the USA and emerging economies like China. The trouble is that countries like France are doing the opposite. As always, they focus on their national interests and how the Community can be tweaked to serve them best. The consequences of this is a weakened Europe, as we're seeing all the evidences of in the press every day. Europe needs to get its act tidied up, to get rid of loads of regulations that make life difficult for business, to harmonise legal systems, administration, procedures and everything else that businesses and individuals get in touch with when they move around. Europe needs to be flexible and dynamic. But virtually nothing is being done. No wonder we're going downhill.

On the immigration front, it seems like Europe has been allowing in all the people we don't need. What we need are skilled individuals who can get things going, and fast. But no immigration strategy has been defined. And what do we do with those already here? Pile them up in concrete towers that become breeding grounds for crime, making life even more difficult for those who still have a conscience for society.

Considering the French behaviour, I just wonder how other Member States could ever trust them to give them a fair deal. The new Eastern European members had their first lesson from Chirac who told them to shut up when they spoke about supporting the USA before the second Gulf war. How can you share something with someone who has the intention to keep it all for himself? And if you do it anyway, how could it work? For that reason, I don't at present see any future in deeper political integration in Europe, whether federal or not. I hope at least the 10 new members can help watering out the French dominance, but it will not save the shop.

Are the populations in Europe being asked when important changes are made? No, with a few exceptions. That's of course not important to those politicians who have their own agenda. But if they keep enforcing their will and implement a federation that will help serve the interests of a few privileged countries, I predict that we'll see uprisings, terrorism and other unrest on a scale that's unseen since 1945 in Western Europe. Not that I hope so, and I certainly don't support violent unrest. But I fear that will be the consequence. It won't be immediate either. Maybe in 2020-2030. Perhaps later. Or maybe before if unemployment caused by the Single Currency is concentrated in Member States where populations feel they are being stepped on by France and Germany. If tension begins, will the EU start limiting civil liberties to try to control the situation? The answer seems to be yes, and it could seem that the Islamic terrorism that we are seeing in the beginning of the 21st century comes in quite handy for governments that see an opportunity not to be missed to suppress civil liberties. In February 2005, Tony Blair's Labour government in the UK tried to legislate to give the Home Secretary power to put suspects under house arrest without involving a judge. This attempt was foiled in the last minute. Opening a bank account outside your own country has already been made almost impossible, because banks are now responsible for knowing their customer before opening an account. Your liberty to organise your financial affairs has gone up in smoke. The European Commission and the European Court of Justice have already started creating precedence for not respecting civil liberties, human rights and freedom of press. This could be the beginning of a new, giant tyranny never seen in Europe since the Roman Empire. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

The signs we saw in May 2005 when the peoples of France and Holland said no to the proposed "Constitution" are very positive. It shows that people are aware what they might be facing if the blindly follow their leaders. It looks very much like the political union is stone dead for a long time, but that also means that the breakup of the euro is likely to come sooner rather than later. Such rumours began in June 2005, and the prompt reaction from official sources to call these rumours "absurd" only shows us how sensible the subject is. I would not bet on the euro, and I don't think it would be wise to keep large sums in euro these days. When the breakup comes, it will hit very hard some places. If investors think the same, that may accelerate the fall.

Heavy regulations and high taxes make it expensive to employ people in some Member States like France and Germany. Employment laws in these countries protect employees so much that companies don't hire any more, fearing that they cannot lay off workers if they need to. Not very attractive for investors. As for competition, European produce are too expensive to survive in unregulated markets. Factories are closing. Again, worker protection means there's no more work to protect. Production of goods is moving to Asia and Eastern Europe. We're preparing for a larger and larger underclass of ex-manual workers. They will be easy to manipulate in their frustration if ever unrest comes.

If I could have voted at the Danish referendum about the Single Currency, I would have voted no. But in this undemocratic EU that's being built, those courageous ones who've moved to another Member State cannot vote where they live, and depending on their nationality, they can't vote in their country of origin either, like in the case of Denmark. So, since I emigrated in 1993, I've been deprived of all rights to vote at parliamentary elections and national referendums, being limited to local and EU parliamentary elections. I still have the right to pay taxes though. At a psychological level, this has left me feeling less responsible for society and more responsible for myself - or should I say selfish. Somehow, I feel that if the society where I live deny me my democratic rights, then why should I respect that society? Should I not rather do like the French and think about myself only? Where does that leave the society if everybody else starts behaving similar? If they do, does the society exist, or are we just a collection of individuals fighting for ourselves? Where does this leave European civilisation?

If the EU continues like this and the serious flaws are not addressed, then I personally cannot see how it could not happen that either the Single Currency or the EU or both will break up at some time in the future. I doubt that the EU will see its 100th anniversary in anything that resembles its present form.

Web

skovgaard.org