RSS Feed
May 3rd, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda How is the EU reshaping education? Is the EU responsible for student loans
Nathan Allonby
2 May 2012
Around Europe, education, and particularly higher education, is being re-shaped. This has included expansion of the intake to higher education, many changes to courses and the organisation of universities, and (most controversially) introduction of (or increase in) course tuition fees, paid for by student loans. This has been widely unpopular, with many protests.
Although this has been widely debated, the European dimension has rarely been mentioned. It appears, however, that there is EU policy relating to these controversial areas.
There is an European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth – Androulla Vassiliou.
At present, the EU is actively engaged with the Bologna process, to “modernise… higher education systems and remove barriers to a fully functioning European Higher Education Area (EHEA)” See:
Higher education reform key for jobs and growth, Bologna Process Ministers are told
A report on the current state of progress in implementing the Bologna Process reforms was published recently (April 2012).
The European Commission has adopted an ‘Agenda for Modernising Higher Education Systems in Europe’, in September 2011 (see IP/11/1043).
The EU and European Central Bank have also been instrumental in the introduction of a new system of student loans
http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news1163_en.htm
European Commission – Education Training – News – Student Loans: more help for higher education
Governments, academia and representatives of the banking sector came together to discuss the role of student loans in promoting access, quality and mobility in EU education and training at an International Policy Conference on Student Lending organised by the European Investment Bank (Luxembourg, 22/23 January 2009).The cost of attending university varies significantly across Europe and the availability of financial support for access to higher education is mixed. Currently, the European Investment Bank helps to finance student loans in several EU countries and is keen to expand its operations in this important area. Participants at the conference shared experience on existing student loan initiatives from around the world; looking at what works, what doesn’t work and why and discussed the potential for increased co-operation at pan-EU level. …
- Full text of [European Commission’s DG Education and Culture] Mrs Quintin’s speech European Higher Education: Many missions, more diversified funding”
- European Investment Bank: International Policy Conference on Student Loans [with event programme and links to presentations]
From the House of Commons Library briefing paper, University tuition fees and student support across Europe (22 March 2012)
A publication in 2010, Funding higher education: A view across Europe 4 contains a table which summarises the procedures used for setting fee levels across Europe:
No tuition fee
Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Malta, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Cyprus*, Greece*, Scotland*, Slovenia*
Government sets fixed amount
Belgium / Wallonia, Bulgaria, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey Universities decide but ceiling set by public authorities, Italy, Portugal, UK: England*
University sets fees
Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Serbia, UK
Fees set on basis of some form of Cooperation between university and public authorities
Cyprus, Belgium / Flanders, Lithuania
…
4.1
Higher education reform across Europe
Many EU countries are currently reforming or have reformed their higher education systems. A report by the European Commission Progress in higher education reform across Europe Funding Reform stated the following on changes in funding policies and student support:
…..many countries have started to rethink their tuition fee and student aid policies. The Commission’s Modernisation Agenda has pointed to this under the topic of cost-sharing and urges EU-member states to “critically examine their current mix of student fees and support schemes in the light of their actual efficiency and equity” (EC, 2006).
A number of countries have expanded their student support systems, placing more emphasis on the proportion of loan-based student financial support among the public subsidies for students in higher education. Two thirds of the countries have a student loans system in place, next to means-tested grants for undergraduate students or tax relief and child allowances for their parents. Some have done so only recently (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia), while some others still lack such a system. Overall, countries face the challenge of shaping cost sharing and student support arrangements which do not harm participation by the most disadvantaged groups. This is done in the light of outcomes from studies done in Europe showing that higher socioeconomic status (SES) students, as measured by the education of their parents, have a much better chance of entering higher education.
The EU is pushing for course fees and student loans; member states have been resisting, because this is social divisive.
In Britain, the Lib-Dems attracted a lot of unpopularity for supporting the raising of tuition fees and the new system of student loans, after previously making an election manifesto promise to oppose this. Many Lib-Dem supporters are deeply unhappy about this. The leadership of the Lib-Dems has excused this about-face on the basis of necessary compromises to join the coalition.
Privatisation, the EU and the WTO
The EU – ideologically committed to privatisation
The European Union is enforcing privatisation of a wide range of essential public services, including key areas such as: –
- public safety (including police, prisons and fire services)
- public health (including hospitals, primary care and the NHS)
- delivery of social services,
- waste management,
- public service broadcasters,
- transport,
- social housing,
- postal services
- education, including schools
- higher education
This isn’t something recent or about to happen, e.g. under the Lisbon Treaty – this commitment has existed for 18 years.
The mechanism is complex and indirect, but nonetheless irrevocable, legally binding and internationally enforceable.
The EU commitment to privatisation – how it works
The EU has made a binding declaration to the WTO under the ‘GATS’ Treaty – General Agreement on Trade and Services – that these services will be privatised and open to competitive international bids. That declaration (European Communities’ services schedule – document GATS/SC/31 of 14 April 1994) was ratified by all EU member nations in 1994 and became binding and irrevocable, enforceable by international law, fines and sanctions. GATS and WTO treaties did not require this privatisation – nations were allowed to reserve services for public service only (e.g. public health) or indeed whole areas of business for domestic companies only (e.g. water or telephones). All that was required was that nations made a ‘declaration’ to reserve the services.
However, the EU made a declaration for all EU nations – the declaration was that we would privatise these services.
The decision was made for ideological reasons – because : –
a) The EU believes privatisation delivers better, more efficient services. The EU is committed to globalisation, and privatisation was always seen as an integral part of economic globalisation
b) The EU wants services to be provided by cross-border cooperation. But under WTO rules, for services to be open to bid by different nations, this can’t just be restricted to the EU, and also must be open to private-sector bids, not just public-sector. Hence the EU’s ‘cross-border health plans’ require privatisation of health.
A narrow political faction has seized control of the EU and are using it to enforce a system of neo-liberalism that cannot be dismantled.
Check it out for yourself – everything said here can be confirmed from publicly accessible sources, which contain additional detail on the EU’s intentions. For further reading, a good place to start is the EU website www.euractiv.com, under titles such as: –
‘Services in the Internal Market’, ‘Scaled-down public services proposal under fire’, ‘Cross-border health plan…’, ‘Mixed reaction to EU’s social package’, ‘Social service providers call…’
Also see the article by Rudolf Adlung of the WTO
Not all services provided by publicly-owned entities necessarily fall under Article I:3 [of the GATS treaty]. In particular, the Article does not apply to traditional government suppliers of telephone or transport services which operate on a commercial basis and, sometimes, compete with private providers. However, such monopoly or mixed regimes are perfectly compatible with the GATS. In these cases, governments are free to decide whether to make commitments and to allow foreigners to provide the service. If they do not, they are obliged only to respect the general obligations of the Agreement. First and foremost among them is the most-favoured-nation principle which requires Members not to discriminate between foreign suppliers of like services. A wholesale ban on foreign participation in a market would, for example, respect this principle. National treatment – i.e. non-discrimination between foreign and domestic suppliers – is not a universally applicable obligation under the GATS; it applies only to the sectors contained in a Member’s schedule and only to the extent that the Member has not reserved the right to use contravening measures.
The European Communities’ services schedule, ratified by the Parliaments of all EC States and effective since 1 January 1995, does already contain significant commitments on medical and hospital services (document GATS/SC/31 of 14 April 1994). For hospital services not provided by public utilities, the EC guarantees foreign investors unimpeded market access and national treatment in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom. …
Letter to the Lancet – 27.03.01
Reduction of public services
The EU also has an ideological commitment to reducing public services, for example, the ‘Altmark Package’ creates legally binding and enforceable rules and limits on public service spending.
What is this about? Altmark was a German bus company. The Altmark ruling (2003) was that state support to the bus company was a “barrier to competition”. The Altmark package (2005) was about applying the same logic to all other public services. State support to public services was seen as an obstacle to private competition.
This is completely takes the viewpoint of global corporations bidding to take over public services, putting their interests above those of consumers. Subsidies may reduce the cost to consumers, or support a different type of service to that which would be offered by a commercial operator.
The Altmark package has now been replaced (after 5 year review) by an updated policy on “State support to providers of Services of General Economic Interest“, otherwise known as the Monti package or the Monti-Kroess package, after its principal authors. A Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) is a ‘service of an economic nature whose provision to the general public is considered to be essential’. Interestingly, the concept of SGEIs is defined by EU law and not by the Treaties of the EU. SGEIs include services such as water, health and energy, hence includes things a civilised society cannot live without. Defining such services as being of an “economic nature” takes the viewpoint of a company wishing to make a profit, rather than the public who cannot live without them.
The new SGEI rules mean that member states are not allowed to subsidise public services unless they have been put out to tender – i.e. opened to corporate bids for privatisation.
This illustrates powerfully how the European Union promotes economic globalisation, and appears to equate the public interest with privatisation and corporate interests.
EU ‘15 year plan for postal privatisation’ and UK postal services
In recent years, the UK postal service has suffered chaos with dismemberment, price-rises and strikes.
The mainstream media refers to “unprofitability” and “loss-making”, but rarely mentions the underlying reasons. The financial crisis and the strike are the direct result of the EU reforms.
The current crisis in Royal Mail has been caused by its piecemeal dismemberment, as various services have been progressively hived off to the private sector, such as parcels, express post, etc. These have been dictated phases of the EU privatisation plan.
The EU have imposed a legal deadline of 31 Dec 2010 to end the postal monopoly. Two and a half years ago an EU website published that “The EU is entering the final stages of a 15-year process to open up its postal services to competition…with the implementation phase as of 2009”. (www.euractiv.com ‘Postal services liberalisation’ 1 Feb 2007 –
see also http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/eu-pushes-postal-services-liberalisation/article-167246 and http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/postal-liberalisation-approved-amid-bitter-wage-battle/article-170029)
This is a visible demonstration of the extended time-scale for implementation of privatisation. The commitment to privatise was made in 1994, but this took a decade and a half to implement. Throughout this extended process, the UK government misleadingly claimed that no decision had been made on privatisation.
This is just the most visible illustration of the long-term process and planning behind EU dismemberment of public services. This is foretaste of chaos to come in other essential services as these are progressively dismantled by privatisation.
No related posts.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
