corporate influence on policy all party parliamentary corporate governance group

corporate influence on policy all party parliamentary corporate governance group

Number Start time in milliseconds End time in milliseconds Text Number Start time in milliseconds End time in milliseconds Text Good evening and welcome to MONITOR. Ordinary Germans are worried not just German companies. And rightly so. Every day we see a liberalised financial system endangering our economy prosperity and society. Stock markets go haywire markets are out of control hedge funds bet against the Euro. And what about politics? Politicians appear to be helpless and haunted. Even though after the banking crisis in politicians outbid  each other with calls for a radical taming of the financial markets. But where are the urgent reforms? Where are the rules to really reign on speculation? Nowhere to be seen. Stephan Stuchlik Kim Otto and Andreas Orth have been looking for reasons. And found lobbyists who did an excellent job. The annual meeting of the International Institute of Finance (IIF). The IIF is the lobby group representing the world’s most powerful banks. Its chairman Joseph Ackermann is a key figure. If you are asking yourself why banks have not been asked to pay more for the costs of the financial crisis why they aren’t regulated more these are the people you need to ask. Bankers are in party-mood. They  are well connected. They have created a lobby system which is close to perfection. Take one example: the Commission in Brussels. This is where European laws are drafted. Proposals for these laws are developed by expert groups. They should be independent. But almost all of the experts are lobbyists from the financial sector. One of many examples is the expert group on banking regulation which is made up almost exclusively of representatives from the banks. “The Commission has invited  non-governmental experts  who give advice on its financial regulation policies.  out of these  experts are from the financial industry.” Myriam vander Stichele member of the expert group on banking issues of the EU-Commission The effect is first of all a continuation of the situation that has caused the financial crisis. The financial lobbyists have got a grip on regulators. They can get their position across really clearly and as a result the decisions made reflect what they want to see. Ackermann and his powerful global-banking-lobby the IIF are doing a good job. They have succeeded in preventing stricter rules for banks. In Brussels they seem to have a lot of influence not only on the Commission but also on the second most important institution the Parliament. Draft laws which end up in Parliament are already favourable for the banks. In the Parliament they are voted upon and polished. Since each of the  MEPs has the right to make amendments the banking lobby targets everyone who is responsible for financial legislation. Even Sven Giegold who is member of the Green group and the committee for economic and monetary affairs. He has been bombarded with their proposals. The financial market lobbies are really successful. This can be seen in the fact that amendments drafted by them which they send to more or less all relevant MEPs actually make it into the legislative process. Very often these texts are tabled by colleagues and then effectively discussed. Just one of many examples: Burkhard Balz an MEP from Germany’s Christian Democratic Party (CDU) has submitted several amendments which reflect proposals from the financial industry. The evidence is clear. The financial lobby proposed deleting an entire paragraph intended to curb excessive speculation. Balz also deleted the same paragraph. We have simply compared your amendments with papers from lobby organisations. And you can actually see that you have copied their suggestions one by one. This can actually not be the case and it has actually not necessarily been like this. As I said I look at many things and then I decide which amendments I am going to table. Yes but you have even copied the original text. The line of argument is completely identical. Yes yes that’s all well and good if other groups have an opinion and I happen to have the same opinion.It may well be that from time to time this opinion is in line with the view put forward by the financial industry. The explanation given by Markus Ferber MEP from the Christian Social Union (CSU)’s is even more creative. It wasn’t that he adopted the stock market lobby’s proposals they adopted his. The stock exchanges submitted a proposal which coincided with my thinking. I was not aware that this found its way into a policy paper. I also only noticed that later. In fact this cannot have been the case. The proposal put forward  by the stock exchange lobby group dates from December and is in English. A crucial paragraph about restricting shortselling was going to be diluted. This passage can be found in Ferber’s proposals dated a month later almost word for word and also in English. These are facts – but the MEP insists that somehow his ideas were stolen. “I do not understand this Mr. Ferber not really.” Yes but what else should I say? They produced a paper the proposal: this is how we imagine it. I talked with them. In future I won’t talk to them. Because I’m not prepared to put up with someone – excuse me – taking the piss out of me. I talked to them I developed a few ideas about how you could do all this they included it in their position papers. Do you think I feel great about this? Ackerman and his banking lobby group the IIF have got their clutches on the Commission and the Parliament in Brussels. And when it comes to the heads of state in the Council the boss attends in person. As was the case during the big crisis summit in July for the latest rescue package for the Euro. Not only had Angela Merkel said that the banks which made good money in Greece had to contribute their share to the rescue operation. the banking lobbyist in chief Josef Ackermann was allowed to sit at the table when the deal was being done. After the meeting he claimed that the banks would have to pay a heavy price. “Yes this hits us hard. These are write-offs  of % which we accept on positions on Greek positions.” What Ackermann kept to himself was that the claimed loss was in fact a huge success. MONITOR has seen the his lobby group the IIF’s papers. Before the summit IIF had defined exactly % as their favoured scenario and had prepared the detailed figures. Later much of it found its way into the final declaration of the heads of state and government. Even the German government’s chief economic advisor thought that this has gone too far. The economic expert Wolfgang Franz would have asked private creditors i.e. the banks to pay far more. The German Council of Economic Experts had proposed private creditor participation of around %. If you look at the % and our demand for a % participation of creditors the financial sector has been very successful. If you look at the % and our demand for a % participation of creditors the financial sector has been very successful. Around  financial lobbyists with an estimated budget of  million Euros put pressure on Brussels. If they continue to have as much success in future this will call the entire European idea into question. We are seeing a lot of proposals about more power going to unelected bodies so more power would go to the European Commission through the new economic governance scheme or other ideas about new bodies. So indeed this combination of  finance lobbyists’ privileged access and the gap between the voters and the decisions taken These two factors combined result in a very serious threat to democracy. In the meantime the grand question is whether the society should serve the banks or whether the banks should serve the society. The banks only come home when they are out of money. Then our governments give them more. A quote by MONITOR? Far from it. A quote with which the ultraconservative British publicist Charles Moore initiated an exceptional self-critical discussion within conservative circles. Frank Schirrmacher co-publicist of the conservative FAZ even asked recently: Is the left right after all?

Hamilton County Public Health inspects septic systems

Hamilton County Public Health inspects septic systems throughout   Hamilton     County with the exception of Cincinnati Norwood, Springdale, Sharonville (we now serve Sharonville) and     Indian Hill .This video shows just one example of a system we may encounter.     which in this case is an Oldham Aerobic Treatment Unit or ATU for short A     technician in our Water Quality Division recently inspected this system in Green     Township In a  gallon per day Oldham system there are four lids leading to     different chambers of treatment within the system. The first access lid     typically contains an inner lid which helps keep odors to a minimum because     this chamber is where raw waste water is stored during the settling and     separation phase of treatment Here the technician is looking for proper baffles     signs of infiltration and obvious need for pumping ATUs should be pumped     every two to three years with normal usage of less than  gallons per day.

The resulting clear effluent from the first compartment moves into the second     compartment of the tank The second compartment is the aeration chamber     where a majority of the treatment happens On an Oldham system there is     typically a light on top of the lid that covers this compartment the light turns     on to notify the system owner if the motor on the ATU is not in working order     The riser over the second compartment houses the aeration blower and timer     This system has a timer that is not approved but according to Health     District records has existed in the system for many years; the next time the     system owner replaces the timer it will have to be replaced with an approved     timer System owners should always verify with the health district that sub]]     replacement parts such as aerators and timers are approved prior to purchasing     replacement parts It is customary for our inspectors to switch the aerator on     to verify the system is working correctly as the technician does here     the technician is looking for many signs of problems here such as foul odor     incorrect timer setting and clogged or broken Airlines Effluent leaving the     second compartment enters the clarifying chamber where final settling of any     solids or floatables are separated and returned back to the aeration chamber In     this system that is accomplished by mechanical skimmer when the system is     actively aerating and by gravity settling when the aerator is in its rest     cycle Not all Olham systems have mechanical skimmers In systems without a     mechanical skimmer floatables are trapped in the third compartment by the     outlet baffle and must be removed manually by a registered contractor on a     routine basis Most ATUs need to be serviced at least every six months     Amongst other things the technician is looking for signs of proper service and     a working baffle when inspecting this compartment Under the fourth lid the     technician gains access to a separate chamber that is actually a completely     different tank called an upflow filter As the name implies here the effluent is     filtered through a gravel bed where final polishing happens In Oldham     systems the up flow filter is aerated to improve effluent quality Again the     technician looks for signs of infiltration, poor effluent quality,     proper aeration, and signs of effluent or the filter being bypassed The technician     also ensures that the up flow filter contains chlorine to kill up any     pathogenic bacteria prior to the effluent being discharged to the     environment Once the technician is finished inspecting the system he fills     out the proper paperwork and uploads it to the Health District databases The     system owner will typically receive the inspection results and associated     invoice within a few business days For more information on septic system     inspections go to HERE