Take the square root…

Each EU member state should be given a voting weight proportional to the square root of its population in order for the voting system on the Council to be "representative, transparent, effective and objective". The "qualified majority" should then comprise 62 percent of the votes.

According to two Polish physicists (could only be) Karol Życzkowski and Wojciech Slomczynski, from the Jagielonian University in Krakow, the voting rules proposed in the EU constitution are "fatally flawed" and will give some countries unfair clout in the decision-making process.

They calculate that the 65 percent population hurdle, with at least 15 member states voting for a proposal, gives an unfair advantage to Germany, with France the next big gainer. UK and Italy. Spain and Poland will be the biggest losers.

To come to their startling new formula, the physicists have used existing techniques in game theory to calculate how much power each country will have if the new constitution is adopted i.e., what their ability to influence the decisions of the Council will be.

They found that citizens in different EU countries will not have the same degree of influence on decisions taken by the Council. They disagree with the notion that the new constitution uses the simplest voting system possible, and claim that there is a much fairer solution, which they have named the Jagiellonian Compromise. First you take the square root of 82,424,609, then…

Nevertheless, this might not go down too well in the pubs in Barnsley. It is difficult to imagine patrons struggling with their calculators over their pints of John Smith, as they work out the knife-edge percentages on whether the latest wing-mirror directive is going to scrape home. But there you go.

Source: Institute of Physics News Release PR39(04)

The troops are grumbling

A crisis meeting in Turin has been called by the leaders of the central and northern Italian regions to discuss how they will deal with expected cuts in EU structural funding. These will kick in from 2007 as a result of enlargement, which has lowered the average GDP to the extent that many of these regions will no longer qualify for the EU gravy train.

The meeting is being sponsored by the newspaper Il sole 24 Ore and will be opened by the president of the regional government of Piedmont Enzo Ghigo. "With the admission of Central and East European countries", says Mr Ghigo, "there is reason to suspect that funds allocated to Western states will be reduced. Some of the areas to which these funds have been destined so far are located in Northern and Central Italian regions".

Hinting at battles to come, however, he adds that "I don't believe there will no longer be EU funds for us after 2006, but we expect some transition to take place".

This is typical EU-style pork-barrel politics. The member states receiving funds will accept cuts, as long as the Commission coughs up with "transitional aid" to an equivalent value. The only trouble is that someone else (or some country) is going to have to fork out, and the traditional paymaster, Germany, has already indicated that it is not prepared to pay more.

As the negotiations for the "financial perspective" – or budget, as it is better known – get in to full swing next year, you can expect some very serious posturing, with the drama queens out in full force. What is going to be really interesting though is what happens when Italy, Spain, Greece and Ireland – to name but a few - finally take on board that there really isn't any more money in the pot.

Pay off time

Having agreed to the appointment of José Manuel Durão Barroso as President of Commission, the great monsters of EU politics are lining up to demand their reward. After all, despite what the media said, it was not Barroso’s amazing ability to get on with everyone that got rid of any opposition to him getting the job, but the thought that it would be easier to snag a really important and useful portfolio in the circumstances. The Portuguese Prime Minister’s supposed charm and political ability played relatively little part in the final negotiations.

Though technically the Commissioners are not chosen till after the President is approved by the European Parliament, the complicated chess game has already begun.

Germany, as the country with the weakest and most backward economy is angling for the position of the “super-commissioner” for industrial and economic policy. The preferred candidate is Günter Verheugen, present Enlargement Commissioner.

France, too, is angling for an important post. What would be the natural one for it, given the French government’s tendency to bail out illegally failed companies and hand out state aid? The competition portfolio, of course, another “super” job. Their candidate, Jacques Barrot, does not, according to Le Monde, speak English very well (presumably, not at all in reality) and is, therefore, more likely to be given the internal market.

The UK and Poland are also pushing for economic portfolios, which, if the Constitution is implemented, will be very important as employment and economic policies will become EU competence. The Poles would like to see their Commissioner, ardent europhile Danuta Hübner, become a Commission Vice-President. Having overcome their objections to the Constitution, the Poles feel that they need a reward.

On top of all this Barroso will have to come up with some solution of how a Commission of 25 (with only 20 portfolios) can work in any sort of acceptable fashion. He may well wish himself back in Portuguese politics soon. But then, he can always emulate Romano Prodi who unofficially immersed himself in Italian politics long before his term as Commission President expired.

Who is the outsider here?

France and others, including certain British journalists, are usually quick to accuse Britain of being the odd man out in “Europe”, the one who fights to stop further progress (unspecified), the one who stands up for her rights and interests. Now, it seems the odd one out is France with its peevish President.

This morning’s Le Monde carries an article about the NATO Summit, entitled Isolated in his role of a killjoy, Jacques Chirac remains exasperated. The article details the President’s huffy reluctance to sound pleased at the hand-over of power in Iraq and his efforts to undermine NATO in its intention to train Iraqi forces.

There is a contrast here between President Chirac, on the one hand and Chancellor Schröder and Prime Minister Zapatero, on the other, according to Le Monde. Schröder and Zapatero have refused to send troops to Iraq as well, but have also asserted that they will support NATO in its work. What exactly that will mean in practical terms, remains to be seen.

To add insult to injury, President Chirac has also refused to support the announced NATO decision to aid Afghanistan in its ceaseless efforts to build up security. Despite a direct plea for help from Hamid Karzai, Chirac announced grandly that it is not NATO’s job to provide security for the forthcoming elections.

It is not quite clear what President Chirac thinks NATO’s job is. Indeed, it is no secret that he would like the Alliance dissolved and some sort of European Security structure put in its place. As we have already noted in this blog, that will hardly be the most active of structures because of the lack of troops, equipment and intelligence.

In the meantime, President Chirac and France are earning themselves the title of being the most obstructive and peevish of all western nations, and the most reluctant to support others, particularly when the fight is for those high-minded principles that French politicians are so keen to pontificate on.

If Le Monde is anything to go by, there may be a certain amount of weariness with this attitude in France itself.

Specsavers

Why were the spectacles offered by Specsavers in an advertisement in The Times priced in euros? Do they know something we don't?

I think we should be told.

Least surprising appointment

Having disposed of the Presidential position, the EU leaders are turning their attention to that of the Foreign Minister. That's the one that, according to the BBC, will not institute an EU foreign policy, despite specific provisions for that in the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, as well as the Constitution.

Javier Solana, the present High Representative for foreign affairs is set to be re-confirmed in that position but the leaders are doing more than that: they are laying down plans for Solana to become the first Foreign Minister, combining his present position with that of the present Commissioner for External Affairs, as soon as the Constitution is implemented in all 25 members.

This is not surprising. Javier Solana was always the favourite for that role. Should all this go ahead – and implementation in 25 member states may well prove more difficult than expected – Señor Solana will automatically become a Vice-President of the Commission and will have his own separate staff, as well as a diplomatic corps to command.

This means that the EU's common foreign and security policy will be lodged firmly with the Commission and the present dual arrangement whereby the Commissioner in charge of External Affairs competes with the High Representative, who is responsible to the Council of Ministers, will cease. There will not even be any pretence that member states can have any say in the matter. At least, not in theory. The practice of cobbling together a common foreign policy between 25 member states with such disparate interests may well prove beyond Solana's abilities.

An odd side-issue here will be the question of a Spanish Commissioner. Each country will, in the post-Nice Commission, be allowed one member. Solana will be Spain's Commissioner and there will be no other. One wonders whether the Spanish Government has quite realized this.

Remembering everything, and learning nothing

As was said of the Bourbons on their return to power, "they have remembered everything, and learned nothing". That is why it is also said there had to be a second French revolution.

So doth history repeat itself. The disgraced former commissioner Edith Cresson is today due to attend a private hearing of the Commission as part of the investigation into her conduct during the 1999 fraud crisis, which triggered the resignation of the Santer Commission.

Cresson is being asked to explain allegations which could give rise to possible proceedings at the European Court of Justice, if she is found to have acted against her obligations as a commissioner.

She could then face losing her pension rights, or "if it is felt that her explanations are satisfactory then they will just bring the procedure to an end", Eric Mamer, the Commission spokesperson for administrative reform said.

The inquiry had been delayed while Cresson has faced criminal charges after famously employing her live-in dentist to carry out AIDS-related research at a cost of €150,000, a task for which he was uniquely unqualified.

But Cresson is by no means penitent. She plans to tell the hearing that Santer's Commission resigned for "absolutely nothing". "We gave credit to rumours", she has said she will say.

The question now is whether the Commissioners find themselves agreeing with Madame Cresson, re-writing history in the process. If they do, they will demonstrate that they too have remembered everything and learned nothing. In due course, will there have to be another mass resignation?

The wit and wisdom of President Chirac - No 1

Somebody should send President Bush The Complete Yes, Prime Minister – the video tapes and the book. In these he would find much instructive material, for example, Jim Hacker’s comments about the worrying anti-Americanism that is creeping through official circles. He would also find some hints on how to circumvent the plots laid by Foreign Office minions. (Perhaps, Mr Blair would benefit from reading Hacker's diaries, too.)

In particular, President Bush would be interested in the episode in which Hacker is abjured by Sir Humphrey and Bernard not to reveal something to the French. "But I thought the French were our trusted allies," – says Hacker innocently. "More our mistrusted allies, Prime Minister," – comes Sir Humphrey’s suave and accurate response.

President Bush may well feel the same way after this week’s NATO Summit in Istanbul, though he may well question the word “allies”. Having preached the need for a multilateral approach on Iraq to all who would listen and many who would not, President Chirac has now grandly announced that, while individual NATO members can, if they wish, help the new Iraqi Government by training its forces, the Alliance itself could not possibly do so.

French forces are not really integrated into the NATO military structure and even politically there have been occasions on which the Alliance had to act without France and its approval. That would not matter if there were not the worrying development of the so-called European security policy, whose aim is to undermine the western alliance without, it seems, putting anything in its place.

President Chirac has also found time to snarl at President Bush. He did not like Bush’s commendation of Turkey as a trusted ally and his call for the EU to give that country a firm date on admission.

He not only went too far but he has gone into a domain that is not his own.

He has nothing to say on this subject. It is as if I were to tell the United States how it should conduct its relations with Mexico.

Hang on a minute. The United States and Mexico are sovereign powers and may, therefore, dislike others butting into their diplomatic exchanges. But the EU is not, we have been told, merely an alliance of like-minded states and governments and peoples and … well … whatever. Or is it a state, after all? Perhaps, someone should tell Britain in Europe. They do not seem to know that.

Then again, President Chirac has not exactly been backward about coming forward with advice to all and sundry, particularly the “crude and unsophisticated” Americans, who have not risen to his level of being able to deal with every nasty dictator.

We have been here before, specifically with President Chirac. Who can forget him describing Tony Blair as “very rude” when the latter dared to disagree with him? And who will ever expunge the memory of Chirac trying to emulate de Gaulle and grandly declaring that the East European countries “missed a good chance to keep quiet”? Any problems France may have with the new members may be put down to that ridiculous comment.

In a larger sense, too, we have been here before. In 1946 when the United States had to step in to prevent a Communist take-over in Greece and a possible civil war in Turkey; later on when despite the grandiloquent gestures it was American presence that kept Western Europe safe and peaceful.

We were here in 1991 when Jacques Poos, then Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, holder of the EU Presidency, announced gleefully that America can just keep out of Europe’s backyard. "If there is any problem that Europe can solve it is Yugoslavia." – he proclaimed.

We know the result of that. Another half a decade of war, many thousands slain, whole villages and towns destroyed and then, yes, the despised and derided Americans with NATO support moved in and imposed a kind of solution.

ECJ confirms who’s boss

The European Court of Justice today ruled that the Council of Ministers cannot over-rule the Commission on the approval of state aid.

The case arose from an incident in 1990 when the Commission ruled that it was illegal for the Council to allow Portugal to bail out struggling pig farmers. The Commission had determined that national subsidies broke EU law, but the Council had decided to give Portugal the go-ahead, citing the financial plight of the farmers.

The Commission then took proceedings in the ECJ, complaining that the governments' move undercut its authority under EU law. And the court has now decided that the Council "cannot authorise an aid measure which the Commission has declared incompatible with the common market". Portugal must now recover the money it gave to its farmers.

Strangely enough, the UK has been there before. On 28 May 1977, the Cabinet committee which dealt with (then) Common Market issues was told that the Commission had successfully appealed to the ECJ to have ruled "out of order" pig meat subsidies paid by the British government, and had instructed that the subsidies be stopped "forthwith".

Tony Benn was present at the meeting. He asked whether this was the first time that a European Court decision had been taken against the British government and was told it was. In his diaries, he wrote:

Then I asked what would be the political effect of this on pig producers in the UK. John Silkin said it would mean in effect the destruction of our industry, the mass slaughtering of pigs and the abandonment of our processing plants in favour of the Danes… I wanted to be told explicitly – as I was – that I was a member of the first British Government in history to be informed that it was behaving illegally by a court whose ruling you could not alter by changing the law in the House of Commons. It was a turning point…

Now the Portuguese have learned the same lesson, with the court confirming that, in matters of EU law and the application of the treaties, the Commission is top dog. With a new Portuguese president about to be anointed, this is perhaps a timely lesson.

Interestingly, many of the news reports still insist on calling the Commission the EU's "executive body". This case also confirms that the term "government" would be more appropriate.

The man, he say yes!

Jose Manuel Durao Barroso has accepted the nomination as the next European Commission president, and is due to be anointed by the heads of state and government today. He vowed to make the EU "stronger, even more cohesive and just, and more intervening on the international scene".

His appointment is likely to be a foregone conclusion, as there is no other credible candidate in sight. Even Chirac has swallowed his pride and, through gritted teeth, declared, "I would vote for him with pleasure."

But now, as Helen as pointed out in her earlier Blog click here, the horse-trading now starts as Germany and France push for their man to be appointed as the "super-commissioner" for economic affairs. And with them having conceded on the president, it is unlikely that they will be denied their choice.

Yet another benefit of our membership of the EU

Forget passerelles, qualified majority voting, emergency brakes and enhanced co-operation.

The thing that is really worrying the citizens of the Tyneside town of Monks Heaton, and many other besides, is seagulls… or to be more accurate, urban gulls.

The gulls are moving inland, and multiplying at an alarming rate. They cause mess, noise and disruption, and are becoming so aggressive that people are afraid to leave their own homes.

Interviewed on the Today programme, however, Councillor Tom Bothwell from Lossimouth – where they have a similar problem - gave a clue as to one of the causes. Fifteen years ago, he said, there were forty fishing boats operating out of Lossimouth. The fish were gutted at sea and the gulls fed on the remains.

Now, said Cllr Bothwell, the fleet had been decimated. There was only one boat working out of the harbour. The gulls no longer had the food and they were moving inland.

There we have it. The EU's Common Fisheries Policy has struck again, and we are plagued with hoards of ravenous gulls - yet another benefit of our membership of the EU.

Are they listening to themselves? - Part V

This comes from a news report from AOL that tells of the near certainty of Barroso being asked to become the next President of the European Commission:

A majority of MEPs is required to approve Mr Barroso once he has been formally chosen by EU leaders. That should be a formality, as the Parliament has a centre-right majority and can be expected to support a centre-right Commission president.

But anything less than overwhelming backing from MEPs on all sides would be an embarrassment, particularly after the Euro elections which amounted to a vote for apathy and a demand for a more voter-friendly EU hierarchy.

It may have escaped the MEPs’ and some journalists’ attention that the vote for of apathy was, in fact, lack of any interest or confidence expressed in the European Parliament. And what is a “voter-friendly EU hierarchy”?

Only two days to go

Yes, it looks like there will be an agreement tonight. After the less than totally successful NATO Summit in Istanbul, the EU leaders will reconvene in Brussels and will formally ask Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durão Barroso to take in the mantle of European Commission Presidency.

Some journalists have interpreted this as a British victory and, undoubtedly, France and Germany will call it that, hoping to get some kind of a quid pro quo for their supposed acquiescence. But it is hard to see how it could be described as such, since in the first place Britain was supporting the Portuguese Commissioner Antonio Vitorino. Unless, of course, it is now British policy that the President of the European Commission must be Portuguese, no matter who.

If Seňhor Durão Barroso does become President, it will be a victory for all those countries, and there are now many, who do not want to be messed about by the Franco-German axis.

If he becomes President. There is still a question of what will happen in Portugal. Durão Barroso’s government is not very popular because of his attempts to reform the bloated state sector and rein in the deficit. Some say that he will be very happy to abandon the mess in Lisbon and go to Brussels. But then there might be a general election and his party will almost certainly lose. An incentive not to go to Brussels, perhaps.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament is threatening to make trouble and there has been noisy criticism from trade unions and non-governmental organizations, who are not supposed to become involved in political discussions.

Giampiero Alhadeff, secretary-general of Solidar, an alliance of European social and development non-governmental organizations, has complained about the undemocratic and untransparent way in which Durão Barroso was chosen. For undemocratic, read “not one of us”. Exactly how does a pan-European alliance of NGOs know anything about democracy or transparency? One of the most difficult things in the world is to find where a particular NGO gets its money from, how it uses the money and what the results of specific projects are.

Well, not long now. This time tomorrow we should be over the next stretch of this tortuous process.

You mean we have to spend money on defence?

Yesterday’s unexpected hand-over of power to the Iraqi government took many by surprise, not least the BBC, the EU, France and Germany. As the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, presented the legal documents, formally transferring power to new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the Europeans muttered comments about it being an important occasion.

Spare a thought for the French and the German leaders in Istanbul. What were they supposed to say? No, you cannot hand over power to a bunch of Iraqis? Or, goodness me, why have you not consulted us? Nothing really fits.

Then the Americans did something else that had been demanded from them for some time: they asked NATO to shoulder some of the responsibilities in Iraq. There had been similar requests in the past but they had led to nothing. Now, however, NATO was being asked to provide training for the new Iraqi forces.

The allies agreed, stipulating that this would not mean that they will have to send forces to Iraq. How they will train anyone without sending forces remains a mystery.

As the Wall Street Journal Europe put it:

Details of the training operation remained vague yesteday, and they could take days or weeks to be worked out. An assessment will have to be made of Iraq’s needs and NATO partmers will have to decide how to meet them.

Another fact emerged during the Istanbul Summit. It seems that despite the much-vaunted NATO involvement in the operation in Afghanistan (even France maintains that it supports the war there though not in Iraq) there has been very little practical assistance. Five "provincial reconstruction teams" have been promised months ago but never delivered.

NATO’s Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer calls Afghanistan NATO's number one priority but there is little evidence that this has sunk in. He himself has angrily said that it was not dignified for the Secretary-Geneal to keep going round the member states with a begging bowl, pleading for a helicopter here or another division there. There are, it seems, 6,500 NATO troops in the safety of Kabul. The rest of the fighting is being done by 20,000 American led troops outside the Alliance’s structure.

Because of the precarious security situation the election scheduled for June has been postponed to September. Presumably, the Iraqis are hoping that they will not have to rely on the once-mighty North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The problem is that Europe has no troops. This has serious implications for the much paraded European security policy, whose aim has always been to separate the Europeans from the Americans. In 1998 at the 50th anniversary of NATO, it was agreed that the Europeans will develop their side of the Alliance in order to undertake some missions separately.

This agreement was interpreted differently by the Americans and the Europeans, particularly the French. The Americans thought that there ought to be a greater input of fighting forces by the European allies but there was no need to duplicate structures.

This was not the EU’s view. Anxious to build up the various foreign and security structures and organizations that it felt were necessary to what it is still hoping to be, a state, it did exactly the opposite of what was agreed.

Military and political committees were put together; commanders appointed; centres and headquarters established. But no more money went on defence. Germany cannot provide more than about 7,500 non-fighting troops in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia. France deploys about 15,000 of her 350,000 troops abroad. Of these 700 serve in Afghanistan and 4,000 in Côte d’Ivoire, where their exact purpose is unclear. Presumably they are there to prove that France abhors imperialism and will have no truck with non-UN sanctioned operations. (Woops, nobody sanctioned that one. Well, you can’t have everything.)

Britain, supposedly, remains a military power but her forces are seriously overstretched and every week brings news of more cut-backs on defence. There are now very worrying problems about turn-over, length of tours of duty and, above all, training. Never mind that dinner at Granita, the PM and his Chancellor should somehow sort out the fact that troops cannot be merrily committed all over the world if there is no money to keep them, train them, equip them.

So, what precisely is going to happen with the European security policy? Having undermined NATO partly by manipulation of opinion and partly by a refusal to play a full part, what will the EU's governments do? Will they carry on playing military games, setting up structures, awarding titles, creating administrative entities and hope that the Americans will come in to save their bacon as they did, eventually, in former Yugoslavia? They may not do that again.

Or will the EU simply "abolish" war, as it has "abolished" so many other things: national feelings, economic laws, and so on? Undoubtedly wars happen in unhygienic places and are potentially dangerous. Perhaps the EU's defence and security policy should be handed over the health and safety inspectors, who will serve "prohibition notices" on the combatants and bring everything to a halt.

End of the Special Relationship?

The director of a prestigious US "think-tank", Frank Gaffney, has warned that if Britain signs up to the EU constitution it could mean the end of the relationship between Tony Blair and George W. Bush, because it will impose "certain common policies" on its member countries - i.e. restrictions on how they can react to terrorism.

Gaffney, director of the Center for Security Policy, in an interview with "Fox and Friends" said that the constitution "will almost certainly make the kinds of responses that the war on terror requires more difficult... possibly impossible". He said that Blair was one of Bush's most important allies, but their "special relationship" may not survive because the new EU constitution "has been driven by people who really want the union to be a rival to the United States, not a partner to it".

He explained how European countries that are our allies but also members of the EU may struggle to assist the U.S. and stay true to their own constitution. "That could have effects domestically, within the European countries as they confront a very real problem from these 'Islamofascists' just as we will be needing their help in the world-wide fight against that same phenomenon", he said.

Nor is Gaffney the only one concerned. Defence specialists both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly worried about the degree of defence integration between the UK and other EU nations. Information and technology sharing between the US and the UK is no longer deemed secure, especially as some EU member states have close trading links with potential enemies of the US. There are suspicions that technology transferred to the UK will end up in the wrong hands.

Already, a major row is brewing over the Joint Strike Fighter. Although a shared project between the US and UK, the US government is refusing permission for contractors to release to the UK the vital software "source codes" for the computers which control the flight systems and avionics. Without access to them, the aircraft could be inoperable without direct and continued US support.

There are also concerns about UK involvement in the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation and positioning system, in which the Chinese are co-partners. Again, crucial technology transfers involving weapons guidance and command and control systems may be at risk, as US Agencies fear that this technology may also fall into the wrong hands.

Altogether, defence co-operation between the US and the UK is increasingly strained, to the point where the relationships built up over decades may be severed. The constitution, therefore – and the defence implications arising from it – may, as Gaffney warns, be the last straw. Sooner, rather than later, the UK may have to decide on which side of the divide it wants to be.

They are not having much luck

As this blog has already reported, Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President is having to return home early from the Istanbul NATO Summit to deal with the gathering political crisis occasioned by the resignation of the Prime Minister, Vladimir Spidla.

Now news comes of another political crisis, this time in Italy. One could, of course, argue that a political crisis in Italy is hardly news, but this one affects the man who has broken all post-World War II records of staying in power, Silvio Berlusconi.

His Forza Italia party suffered severe losses in the European elections on June 10 and has now been defeated in regional elections, losing its power base in Milan, where the governor, Ombretta Coli has been replaced by the left-wing Filippo Penati.

This is a disproportionately heavy blow for Berlusconi as his Fininvest Company is based in Milan and he is also the owner of the local football team, Milan AC. It is, perhaps, the latter and the coincidence of Euro 2004 that prompted one left-wing opponent to talk of "Berlusconi losing at home".

Romano Prodi, though still nominally President of the European Commission, took an active part in the electoral campaign and rejoiced accordingly, seeing in this a hopeful sign for next year's presidential elections.

There have been some calls for the left to unite behind Mr Prodi but this idea is not welcome to all. We shall, no doubt, see a good deal of in-fighting before final candidacies are announced.

In the meantime Berlusconi has announced that he has no intention of resigning before the end of his mandate. But there are hints of a possible reshuffle, to give more cabinet seats to his coalition partners, the Northern League, the National Alliance and the centrist UDC party, whose votes held up well at the polls.

It really is rubbish

The media is slowly beginning to wake up to the impending environmental disaster occasioned by the new EU regulations on the disposal of hazardous waste, which come into force on 16 July. In today’s Daily Telegraph, albeit in the business section on page 29, is a piece headed "Firms face leap in rubbish charges with new EU rules".

The story, outlined in the Booker column two Sundays ago (20 June), makes no better reading in the Telegraph, which records that only ten hazardous waste sites will be available after the deadline, as opposed to the 250 currently available, tripling the costs of disposal and depriving many businesses of easy access to tips..

But what is interesting is the craven comments of the Environmental Agency, charged with enforcing the new rules. Sir John Harman, its chairman, says the agency support the new rules, “because it would put pressure on hazardous waste producers to make improvements”.

This contrasts with the fact that the problem arises largely as a result of the prohibition on "co-disposal" – the practice where low level toxic material (such as soil contaminated with relatively low levels of heavy metals) can no longer be mixed in with domestic waste, so diluting the toxins containing pollution levels to within acceptable limits.

Furthermore, Harman fails to understand that the genesis of this legislation – and its antipathy towards landfill – arises from "Green" pressure in the Low Countries and Germany, where the high water tables in the Rhine basin and elsewhere make landfill an unsuitable method of disposal.

In the UK, however, with a wider range of geological structures, we have developed considerable expertise over a considerable period of time in the safe disposal of wastes on land, to the extent that the UK is a world leader in this arcane subject.

But, under the "one-size-fits-all" doctrine of the EU, we must abandon this expertise, unnecessarily triple the costs of disposal to industry (and therefore the consumer) and expose our green and pleasant land to the ravages of fly-tipping. And this, Sir John Harman thinks is a good thing.

Tories against the Constitution

It is a measure of the frustration of modern politics, and relations with the media, that Owen Paterson, Conservative MP for North Shropshire, immediately rushed out a press release following the agreement on the constitution last week.

Being used to have virtually all his texts published virtually verbatim in the local rags - on subjects as diverse and important as a campaign for a new bus shelter, and his appearance at a local fund-rasing dinner, he was somewhat puzzled by the response to this press release - absolutely none!

To make up for this strange lapse in journalistic interest, we reproduce the release here. Any offerings from other MPs (from all parties) would be gratefully received. It would be interesting to have a cross-section of responses.

Owen Paterson has re-iterated his total opposition to the proposed European Constitution agreed by Tony Blair last weekend.

Speaking in North Shropshire, he said "If ratified, this Constitution will make the EU, for the first time, a state in its own right. Article 1.5 states quite clearly that it shall have primacy over the member States. It declares that European law is supreme over both Parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. There will be a federal law code sitting above state laws, a European Public Prosecutor and a federal police force. There will be a common policy on immigration and asylum.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights will allow the European Court of Justice to supersede national law in almost every area of the law. The EU will have either full or shared jurisdiction in virtually every area of public policy, including, trade, transport, employment, energy, competition, social policy, environment, fisheries, agriculture, defence and foreign affairs. In areas of shared sovereignty, member states shall only exercise competence where the EU “chooses no longer to exercise its competence.” In thirty years, we have seen no evidence of any such self-restraint by our masters in Brussels.

Despite Tony Blair's unconvincing posturing last week, his red lines seem to have dissolved in the actual text. If this Constitution is ratified, we will no longer live in a nation state.

I shall be throwing all my energy into supporting the No campaign and I urge all those who want to live in a real democracy called Britain to do the same. This Constitution removes once and for all our right to remove our real rulers by voting. I am implacably opposed to it in principle. The Prime Minister should hold a referendum now."

What a Messerschmidt

There is an intriguing letter in The Times today about the difficulties of ensuring accurate translation of legal texts into diverse languages.

The author, Professor Muir Hunter, who had worked on official translations for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, recalls that he had to work on the draft EEC bankruptcy convention, drafted in French, translated into German, Italian and Dutch, and then into English.

The result was so unsatisfactory that Prof. Hunter had to re-translate the text himself. The outcome was four master texts, each declared to be "authentic", in places markedly different in sense. "What will have happened to the EU constitution", Prof. Hunter asks, “after 20 or more teams of translators have been at work?”

The question is well put, as we have direct experience of the old joke from the First World War, when the message to "send reinforcements, we're going to advance", got corrupted through multiple transmissions, to arrive at HQ – to the puzzlement of the recipients - as "send 3/4d, we're going to a dance".

In September 2001, Jeffrey Titford, then one of the two UKIP MEPs, gave a speech in the European Parliament on the European Aviation Safety Agency.

The report, produced by rapporteur Ingo Schmitt, could best be described as a "dog's dinner", which left Jeffrey to conclude his speech with the comment, "What a mess Herr Schmitt". This was duly recorded in the English text as "What a Messerschmidt" (sic). God knows what the Germans made of it.

Only three days to go

It looks like Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durão Barroso is all set to become the chosen one. Tomorrow evening at the special Summit after the NATO Summit (goodness me, all these summits – when do they get any gardening done?) his name will be proposed to the assembled leaders. As they all seem to have agreed already, this is likely to be a formality.

French and German approval will not come without a price tag attached. They are likely to lobby for important positions for “their” super-commissioners. Chancellor Schröder has already started to campaign for the new economic and industry portfolio for his man, present Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen.

With economic policy set to become Community competence, this position will be supremely important. Given Germany’s economic woes, we can look forward to a great deal of economic and industrial legislation that will ensure a “level playing field”, i.e. as little competition as possible.

However, France has very similar economic woes and President Chirac may well want the same position to go to the French Commissioner.

In the meantime, the Socialist group in the European Parliament (PSE), which is the second largest, has intimated its dissatisfaction with the choice of a right of centre candidate for the Presidency. The European Parliament will have to approve Señhor Barroso's presidency in the autumn.

It is unlikely that he will be rejected but there might be rough passages and the Socialist group, too, will have to be appeased.

Shout it from the rooftops

In yesterday's Sunday Times, Labour MP Frank Field argues that Blair would be better off holding the EU referendum early, so he can lose it and get it out of the way well before the general election.

Letting people veto the constitution could, he maintains, be Labour's best launching pad for a third election victory. It would see Blair not in teaching mode, but in listening mode as well. And then, when the votes are counted, doing what the electorate wants.

That really is an intriguing thought and it would be interesting to learn whether anyone else sees it in the same light. I suspect not. It is questionable whether it is even feasible, mainly because of a rather odd electoral situation.

Although the general election does not have to be called until June 2006, the perceived wisdom is that going full term is always electorally risky, as the prime minister surrenders his single most potent weapon – he loses the initiative and thence the surprise factor.

However, barring a snap election this autumn – which seems extremely unlikely, not least because autumn elections tend to favour opposition parties (with people punishing the government because they don't like being dragged out on dark nights to vote) - there is only one other realistic election slot. That is next spring, 2005.

The big confounding factor is then the British EU presidency. Blair cannot hold an election during it and he would have to get an election out of the way early in order to prepare for it. A great deal of prestige is involved. It is inconceivable, therefore, that he could hold a general election – or a referendum – during the presidency.

On the other hand, when it comes to an EU referendum, that cannot be held until the Referendum Bill is through both Houses. That is spring at the earliest. So the choice is a referendum in spring 2005 and the general election in spring 2006 – or vice versa. On that basis, it looks like Blair really has only one option – holding the election first.

Here then, perversely, there is a real USP for the Conservatives. Arguably, a "no" vote in the referendum will be harder to win when Labour is in government. Conversely, with a Conservative government in power, running a referendum, a "no" vote would be almost a foregone conclusion.

Thus, we cannot agree that allowing Blair the chance of losing it early is a good option. For those who are really determined to maximise the chances of gaining a "no" vote, there can be no better option than seeking to bring a Conservative government into power, and then fighting the referendum.

What is odd is that, with such a good reason for thus voting – and one that should be highly attractive to Eurosceptics – the Conservative Party, and Michael Ancram in particular, is not shouting it from the rooftops.

Myth of the week - Europe is being reunited

On one level, this is the easiest myth of all to disprove. All one has to do is ask when Europe was last united.

Charlemagne? A very limited union achieved by conquest and dissolved upon the great man’s death? The Holy Roman Empire? Again, somewhat limited and, as Voltaire said, neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. In fact, as he did not say, an unholy mess.

Napoleon? Hitler? Each one achieved by conquest for a very short time with few lasting effects.

On another level, however, the idea of a single European entity, a single European culture is very insiduous and can easily be translated into harmful political ideas.

The great historian of the Renaissance, Sir John Hale, opens his monumental study, The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance, with the discussion of the concept of Europe and its emergence in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

When in 1623 Francis Bacon threw off the phrase ‘we Europeans’, he was assuming that his readers knew where ‘Europeans’ were, who they were, and what, in spite of national differences, they shared. This was a phrase, and an assumption, that could not have been used with such confidence a century and a half before.

The concept of Europe grew up as Europeans travelled further and further abroad and found themselves dealing more and more with other political and cultural entities. It was a concept that gradually, though as Hale shows, very slowly surpassed the concept of Christendom.

However, what it never did was to become a clear political concept of a single state. Quite the opposite: the concept of Europe included the idea of a patchwork of pieces, small and large, that may have had certain similarities and certain common notions but these notions were often more divisive than uniting ones.

Ah yes, I hear some of the European integrationists say, that is the problem: Europe has been consumed by endless fighting and warfare and it is time to put an end to it. To this there are several replies, the most obvious being that divisions and competitiveness do not necessarily involve fighting and warfare. It is merely the opposite of a huge, centralized entity, which has never been part of European history for any length of time.

There is a basic contradiction in the integrationists’ arguments. Let us look at what the preamble to the draft EU Constitution says:

Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation: that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason.

Really? So why does the Laeken Declaration say:

For centuries, peoples and states have taken up arms and waged war to win control of the European continent. The debilitating effects of two bloody wars and the weakening of Europe’s position in the world brought a growing realisation that only peace and concerted action could make the dream of a strong, unified Europe come true.

There are clearly two separate entities at work: there is Europe, which has had all those wonderful, liberal, humanist, peaceful, civilised forces at work and there are the peoples and states of Europe, who keep fighting each other and stubbornly refusing to unite. Therefore, Europe must be built up and protected from the peoples of Europe in opposition to their history.

A unified Europe, thus, has little to do with the history of the peoples and states of Europe. Indeed, the idea of a unified Europe is the direct opposite of what Europe, the Europe Francis Bacon understood and we understand, is really about.

The recent argument about whether to include the idea of Christian values in the Constitution demonstrates the problem. It opened up the deep fissures in Europe, called attention to centuries’ old conflicts and undermined the whole notion of there being one set of European values.

It reminded us all that those European values are not all about sweetness and light, though they are, frequently, about swashbuckling curiosity and advancement in political, social, economic and intellectual matters – all of which is alien to the European Union with its prattle about European values.

The great dividing lines in post-Classical European history have been religious. At present, only one of the EU member states is Eastern Orthodox (as well as a former part of the Ottoman Empire), Greece, but certain problems in outlook have already been apparent.

There is a secondary dividing line and that is between Catholic and Protestant countries. Fortunately, in most parts of Europe, the various denominations have learned to live in peace (nothing to do with the European Union and everything with historical and economic development) but some attitudes remain different. It is noticeable that all the countries that signed a letter asking for an inclusion of Christianity in the Constitution were largely Catholic. For various historical reasons, the largely Protestant countries are shying away from the idea.

But there are other factors that make the European experience more varied than is admitted by the integrationists. A couple of years ago one newspaper published a list of the 100 greatest military commanders in history. Lists of that kind are enormous fun and, as usual, there were many satisfying rows and discussions about those included and not included and the placings.

One letter writer objected to Prince Eugene of Savoy being ranked above Marlborough. How could this be so, wrote the author indignantly, when Marlborough was the commander in chief.

The letter writer was talking about the French wars. Prince Eugene’s achievement was to turn back the Ottoman advance, thus liberating Central Europe from Turkish occupation and ensuring its “European” development.

The point is that the crucial historic experience for many centuries in the east of the Continent was the constant war against one Muslim invader or another. The crucial experience in the west was the ongoing wars between Catholic and Protestant countries, which evolved into a national struggle between Britain and France.

That may well have influenced the different attitudes to the war against terror. Or the difference arose from another, equally important distinction. Twentieth century experience was incomprehensibly different in the two halves of Europe. The liberation from the Nazis in 1945 was the prelude to a half century of peaceful, democratic development in the west, while the east was abandoned to another brutal totalitarian regime.

The divisions and differences can be enumerated endlessly. This does not prove that there is no basic understanding of what being European is about. Just as Francis Bacon knew so do we know. But there cannot be a Europe reunited where no true union has ever existed or can ever exist.

Turkey 1 - Greece 0

President Bush is using the NATO Summit in Istanbul to remind everyone of Turkey’s achievements as an officially Islamic but secularist country, as a reliable and valuable member of NATO and as a stalwart participant in the coalition of the willing against terrorism.

The conclusion Mr Bush draws is that Turkey should be rewarded by membership in the European Union. Back in the early post-Communist days President Bush senior and President Clinton both thought that the EU was extremely ungenerous to the East European countries. It was and part of its ungenerosity was the refusal to make any kind of agreements with those countries except with eventual membeship of the EU in mind.

Well, now they have achieved that membership and it is proving to be a mixed blessing, to put it mildly. However, it seems that the Turkish Government and the American President still think that the best way forward for Turkey towards a more westernized, more democratic status is to belong to an undoubtedly western but undemocratic, illiberal union.

Still, it is good to be reminded of Turkey’s positive role in the world.

Across the Aegean Sea, things are not quite so balmy. Greece is preparing for the Olympic Games, which open in two months’ time. It is not a secret that the preparations have been seriously behind schedule and as we write, it is not clear, whether the main stadium will be properly functioning in time.

Other problems have arisen. The original idea was to flood the Field of Marathon, one of the greatest and most decisive battles of the western world, for sailing events. Realizing that doing this would not exactly enhance Greece’s self-appointed role as the guardian of western culture, the government abandoned the plan. But the sailing lake is far from ready.

The new Greek government has abandoned the idea of putting up a pointless museum to house the Elgin Marbles, mainly because this, too, caused a furore. The previous government had overruled several Supreme Court decisions and went ahead with the construction that involved the destruction of a major Byzantine site.

Somewhere along the line the Greeks have forgotten that there was an awful lot of history between Athens (only one of many ancient Greek city states) and modern Greece. The country is having something of an identity crisis and the constant rows surrounding the Olympic Games have illuminated this.

Greece is the recipient of possibly the largest amount of money in one lot of hand-outs or another from the EU and has shown no ability to use that money sensibly. Its agriculture would not exist without hefty subsidies and it has not been able to do away with the tobacco growing that is keeping parts of the country going, despite the low quality of the tobacco produced and the constant health warnings.

Its most productive industry is the tourist industry, which accounts for 8 per cent of GDP, and, apparently, there are problems with that.

Despite more financial assistance for the Olympics, the Games have not attracted the numbers expected. Olympic Games are so expensive to stage nowadays that the only hope of recovering anything at all is a huge rise in tourist numbers.

Fani Palli-Petria, Greece’s top Olympic official has admitted that the country has failed to capitalize on the event. According to her, there is no Olympic atmosphere in Athens and a certain reluctance among foreign tourists to take up hotel reservations.

Some 5,000 hotel beds out of a total 62,000 in Athens have yet to be booked during the August 13-29 Olympic Games, the capital's hotelier association reported.

All kinds of suggestions are being made to attract visitors but there is a feeling that it is all too late. Ms Petralia thinks that Greece should concentrate on hosting a successful Olympics and that would attract visitors in the future.

"For Greece the great profit will be the image that it will project during the Olympic Games," she was quoted as saying. Given the image it has projected during the run-up to the Olympics, I would not put too much money on that.

To add insult to injury many of those visitors are not going to Greece because they prefer the country on the other side of the Aegean: Turkey.

They really are living on another planet

According to Ireland online, the Irish government is claiming that its EU presidency is the most successful in history of the Union. Not least of the "achievements" Irish foreign minister Dick Roche lays claim to is that 20 percent of all the legislation put through the European parliament was completed during the Irish presidency.

Other highlights of the Irish presidency include the approval of the draft EU constitution, and hosting the EU/US summit in Co Clare yesterday – which incidentally cost the Irish taxpayers over £2 million for security and which even Brussels officials admit is a "waste of time" (which is why we haven’t bothered reporting it – ed).

If that is the measure of the Irish "achievement", and the government is proud of it, they really are living on another planet.

Czech Prime Minister resigns

Unlike his colleague in Poland, prime minister Belka, Vladimir Spidla, has decided to bite the bullet, after a vote of confidence in the Social-Democratic Party.

He did win the vote by the narrowest of margins but 100 people voted against him. This was six short of the necessary expression of no confidence but was high enough for Spidla to decide to resign as both Prime Minister and Leader of the Social-Democratic Party.

The vote was occasioned by the spectacular defeat inflicted on the Social-Democrats in the European elections, when they managed to get 2 seats out of 24. The undisputed winner in that election was Vaclav Klaus's mildly eurosceptic ODS.

Mr Spidla's government was an uneasy coalition of Social-Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals. President Klaus has already announced that he is flying back from the NATO summit in Istanbul early, to deal with the growing crisis.

Who in the new member states will have serious political problems next?

Only four days to go

It looks like they might agree on the President quite soon. Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern has told journalists that a consensus has emerged in the EU that supports Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso for the post. Señhor Barroso was due to make a statement, accepting the nomination, yesterday but has clearly decided to wait for the official announcement on Tuesday, June 29.

Mr Ahern is once again in the air, flying hither and thither in the EU, running up air miles. He has to consult a couple of more people in order to clinch the nomination, which, as usual, has emerged by consensus – an odd way of choosing someone who will, arguably, be the most powerful person in the European Union.

One wonders, also, whether the people to consult will include President Chirac or Chancellor Schröder. The Portuguese Prime Minister is not a great favourite with either of them. He is a confirmed Atlanticist and a less confirmed free-marketeer. He was one of the first to join the "New Europe" side in the row over the Iraqi war. In fact, he hosted the famous meeting in Madeira, that hardened the opposition to the Franco-German policy.

It was generally assumed that France would go on pretending that Britain had won many concessions in the constitutional negotiations in Brussels on June 17 – 18, in order to demand, as a quid pro quo, a pliable President of the Commission. If this does not happen – still something of an 'if' – and Jose Manuel Durao Barroso becomes President, France will have two large favours to call in. What will they demand, one wonders.

Hard life being a failure

Christopher Patten has thrown in the towel, telling the BBC last night that his political career was "effectively over" after he failed in his bid to become commission president. This is who man who, having failed to get re-elected in the 1992 general election, went on to give away Hong Kong to the Chinese and then destroyed the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

However, things are not all black for Patten. He had spent part of the week in Oxford and that had left him "feeling anything but disappointment that I won't be spending my next five years slogging around, responsible for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and all sorts of delights like that". (Funny that, we thought the CAP had just been "reformed" – ed.)

Anyhow, disappointed or not, Patten can certainly enjoy the fruits of past labours. While the rest of us struggle to the age of 70 or beyond for our meagre £4,081 state pension, he can draw down his £60,000 a year commission pension, plus all the other bunce he's managed to pick up on the way. Hard life being a failure, innit?

We are not going to represent you

In an "exclusive" interview in the Sunday Herald – exclusive because no one else wanted to interview him – deputy Conservative leader Michael Ancram has declared that the Tories' general election campaign would focus on "the usual suspects". That means a diet of "schools 'n' hospitals" and "law 'n' order". Neither "Europe" nor "Tony Blair's mistakes on Iraq" will feature prominently in their campaign.

Ancram also "revealed" something well known to readers of this Blog, that Conservative Central Office has all but dismissed the widespread Tory defections to UKIP as a transitory protest. He said there would be no change in Conservative policy to accommodate the scale of the anti-Europe protest, and dismissed any prospect of his party hinting at even a partial exit strategy from Europe.

This is all fine and dandy, but it effectively means that any voter who considers important the question of who rules their country is effectively disfranchised. The Conservatives are not going to represent them and, apparently, do not want the votes of people who are thus concerned. They can chose their government (what's left of it) on the basis of domestic issues, or not at all.

Oddly enough, those who believe that health care provision is solely a domestic issue should read Friday's edition of The Financial Times, which reported that the health service could face a continuing severe shortage of doctors in spite of the huge increase in medical students.

Part of the problem is the dramatic rise in the number of women doctors, who prefer to work part-time, but the greatest burden comes from the EU's working time directive, which is set to cut the number of hours trainee doctors can spend in hospital to 58 hours a week from August and 48 a week in 2009. The BMA has calculated that the shorter hours are the equivalent of needing 3,700 more junior doctors.

The outcome of this is that, despite massive increases in expenditure on the health service, and all the promises from politicians about better delivery and cutting waiting lists, according to Professor Peter Hutton, former president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, "it is perfectly possible that there will not be more hours available to the NHS than there are now and - on a worst case scenario - there may even be less".

But, of course, if "Europe" is off the agenda at the next election, this issue cannot be discussed. Instead we will be assailed by a bunch of bleating politicians telling us how much better health care will be if they are elected, with none of them telling us that it will not be, and why that might be the case.

All of this leaves people who are really concerned about who runs their country – and indeed whether there are enough doctors to run the health service – with only one option. And it ain't voting Tory at the next general election.

Not playing the game

Hands up those who knew that this was European Year of Education through Sport. Nobody? Well, it is. And Viviane Reding, the member of Commission with responsibility for Education and Culture, seems to be delighted with how well it has gone.

During a presentation about the mid-term review she enthused about the 1,500 or more projects that have been financed by the long-suffering taxpayer throughout the EU. No, nothing as vulgar as playing fields or matches between teams.

Instead, there are projects, such as:

LEAPS: a project undertaken by the city of Dublin with the aim of helping young people in difficulty to improve their school performance by drawing their inspiration from sporting achievement

Or there is the Soviet-style:

Olympic Champions of Education: 28 young people selected by the national coordinators of the Year on the basis of their school performance, will be invited to Athens for the Olympic Games.

One wonders what the criteria of selection will be.

However, what excited Viviane Reding more than anything else was the fact, unnoticed by most commentators, that sport will now become a Community competence through the Constitutional Treaty.

Article III-182(2)(g) states that

Union action shall be aimed at:

Developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness in competitions and co-operation between sporting bodies and by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially young sportsment and sportswomen.

What exactly, might one ask, has sport to do with a constitutional structure that is supposed to do nothing more than define the relationship between various government structures and between the state and the citizen?

Never fear, Ms Reding has the answer. At the press conference she explained somewhat incoherently:

Sport can help to improve education and pave the way for integration. Accordingly, it can and must be made an integral part of the process of building up European citizenship. I am therefore delighted to see sport given its place in the Constitutional Treaty and I thank the Member States, the sports organisations and all who have been involved in this effort. The inclusion of this reference in no way calls into question the fundamental freedoms and the principle of non-discrimination.

And there I was thinking that sport is something you do for the fun of it or to make yourself feel better and healthier. I would like to put one question to Ms Reding: will the Community take the responsibility for our football hooligans as well?

For full text of press release click here

The Booker column

Booker this morning offers us a story about the baleful effect of EU Regulations on butcher’s bones – the type they sell, that is. Another classic Booker story, illustrating once again the effects of those mad regulators in Brussels when their insanity is compounded by the ministrations of British officials.

For his substantive story, however, he takes on Andrew Marr, the BBC's chief political correspondent so loved by this Blog, and his complaint in his Daily Telegraph column last week about the impossibility of making the recent agreement of the EU constitution in Brussels seem interesting.

While this story was rehearsed in this Blog click here Booker takes it further by cross-linking the Marr ennui with the absence of media comment on the power grab by the EU over economic policy.

He records how he wrote a letter to The Daily Telegraph on the subject, whence Tory backbencher Angela Browning asked Mr Blair to confirm that economic policy had been moved to majority voting. When Mr Blair failed to give a proper answer, another backbencher, Ann Winterton, repeated the question. When he still failed to answer, Mrs Browning put down a written question, asking him to explain the huge surrender he had made.

Up to press, she had been told her question had been referred to the Foreign Office, which no doubt will come up with a similarly obfuscatory reply. But, as Booker wrote in his letter, the person whose views we would really like to hear is the Chancellor. But for Andrew Marr, Booker records, the question would doubtless seem too boring and trivial to ask.

Barking cats

The mantra of "reform" of the EU is ever-beguiling - for those who have little idea of how the EU works and what is is intended to do. Yet, we have been here before.

After the low turnout in the 1999 European elections, and the resignation of the Santer Commission, we began to see a subtle change in the rhetoric coming from the EU institutions.

Instead of "integration", we started hearing calls for "reform", and all community intitiatives began to be couched in those terms. But, as one would expect, in the Community dictionary, "reform" is simply another word for integration.

Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, and his wife Rose offered the best explanation of why "reform" cannot succeed and why, therefore, it cannot be real.

In a book written by the couple, they launched an attack on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for its bureaucratic controls on pharmaceutical drugs, which served only to increase their price and keep effective products off the market.

They recalled that, when one of them had suggested in a Newsweek column (8 January 1973) that for these reasons the FDA should be abolished, the column had evoked letters from persons in pharmaceutical work offer-ing tales of woe to confirm the allegation that the FDA was frus-trating drug development.

But most had believed it should be changed rather than abolished. The Friedmans addressed this point in a subsequent column, entitled "Barking Cats" (19 February 1973), which has singular relevance to the European Union. They argued:

What would you think of someone who said, "I would like to have a cat provided it barked"? Yet your statement that you favour an FDA provided it behaves as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent. The biological laws that specify the characteristics of cats are no more rigid than the political laws that specify the behavior of governmental agencies once they are established.

The point was, and is, that if organisations are set up in a certain way, their behaviour is pre-ordained and no more able to change than a cat can bark.

What the history of the European Union tells us is that is was set up in a certain way, to do certain things. It embodies at its core the supranational Commission. All the other institutions were designed in such a way that they would either present no challenge to the supremacy of the Commission, or help it in its task of acquiring power.

Given the structure and relationships of the institutions, as indeed do dogs bark and cats meow, so does the European Union necessarily act in an anti-democratic manner. That is what it was designed to do.

Thus, as Thatcher said in her book Statecraft, long after she had retired from active politics, "Europe as a whole is fundamentally unreformable". At least she got there in the end.

Swivel-Eyed Loon Update & EU Membership

So a fortnight since the Euro-elections, how are Kilroy's brave little soldiers doing? Read this fascinating article from Anthony Wells click here.

Heading for rocky waters

I was particularly taken by an article in The Times today, which reported an analysis of the Euro-election results, and the performance of UKIP click here.

The crux of the report was that the party, which had more than doubled its share of the vote to 16 percent, had topped the poll in 18 local authority areas around the country, mostly in the East Midlands, Devon and Cornwall. If that result were replicated at a general election the UKIP would win more than 20 seats in Parliament.

That, of course, is not going to happen. As The Times suggests, the more likely outcome is that UKIP will have a small but destructive influence, which will hamper the Conservative's attempts to win or hold on to marginal seats.

This is well understood, but what particularly caught my attention was the comment of a "Conservative source", who said: "This is very much a protest vote. Come the general election people will vote differently". The assumption is – which is widely believed in the upper ranks of the Tories – that UKIP voters will "bite the bullet" come the general, and flock dutifully back to the Tories.

Apart from this being indicative of the classic signs of "denial", I believe there is another worrying element here, in that the hierarchy are totally misreading the electorate. They have not picked up the general mood – a mood of sullen resentment, an Anglo-Saxon mulishness which says "a pox on all your parties".

People will always grumble, of course, but this is different. It is very much a given in Army circles that the time to worry is when the troops are not grumbling. That is when morale is dangerously low. And the troops are not grumbling. They are silent, indifferent and resentful.

Howard cannot therefore assume the voters will come back at the general. He has to make it worth their while and so far, the way I see it is that his response to the Euros will have the opposite effect. The view is, "We gave them a kicking and they ignored it - so we'll just have to give them another one".

I really do not think the upper echelons have even begun to realise the voters are in a thoroughly rebellious mood and are simply not going to roll over and let Howard tickle their tummies. They will either stay at home or vote for anyone except Howard – and Labour will get in by default.

It is that fear that Howard is relying on, but he does not understand that the average – and even the more informed – voter sees no difference between the parties. Their line on Europe seems identical, and they are all obsessed with "schools 'n' hospitals".

In fact, contrary to the perceived wisdom in the Westminster bubble, "schools 'n' hospitals" is not the major preoccupation of the electorate – whatever the opinion polls might say. We are all familiar now with the way people respond to pollsters, telling them what they want to hear, so the data here are unreliable.

What more and more people see in this obsession is that it is a political refuge, a Europe-free area of policy where the parties can have a good ol' ideological ding-dong without the leaden influence of an issue with which they really do not want to be confronted.

That much was evident in the almost indecent haste with which the parties dropped any discussion of the EU after the Euros, and their desperate, almost manic rush to embrace domestic issues again. This is also a form of denial.

So where do we go from here? All the indications are that Howard, in electing to fight the battle on the ground of his enemies choosing – while ignoring the concerns of his own supporters – is going to get roundly thrashed. It is not beyond the realms of possibilities that the Conservatives will return a lower number of MPs at the next election than they did at the last, and even Howard’s seat is at risk.

As for the EU referendum, that too is at risk if the driver is a re-invigorated Labour Party at the head of the "yes" campaign, with fractured, demoralised Conservatives as the opposition. We are heading for rocky waters.

Only five days to go

As the previous blog said, there seems to be a consensus right-wing candidate for the Presidency. It is all a little unofficial, with most of the information coming from Portuguese news agencies.

In the meantime Margot Wallström, the Swedish Commissioner for the Environment, has bemoaned the fact that there were no women candidates and one wag has suggested that Lady Thatcher should take over. Even she would be unable to sort out this mess.

The idea of an Atlanticist as a President is likely to annoy the French and the Germans, so negotiations should be quite lively.

El presidente

So it looks as though a "dark horse" has entered the field and is galloping up the field, set to take the post. In the hunt for the Commission president, Portugal's prime minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso has emerged as the consensus candidate to succeed Prodi.

A lawyer by profession, Barroso, 48, also studied political science and rounded it off with a spell in the University of Geneva engaged in European studies before lecturing in law in Lisbon while holding a post as Visiting Scholar, at the University of Georgetown, USA.

He then became editor of the political periodical Revista de Ciencia Politica and in 1985 entered parliament. He was re-elected in 1987 and again in 1991, and was appointed Secretary of State, Home Affairs and then Secretary of State, Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, becoming prime minister in 2002.

He speaks good English and French, the latter being likely to endear him to the French, and, in political terms, he is right of centre, from the same stable as Chirac and Schröder, although his party is styled as the Social Democrats.

However, he is a hard-liner on the economy, making his name for imposing stringent public sector spending cuts, price and wages freezes in a successful attempt to rein in Portugal's deficit, after being the first country to incur the Commission's wrath for breaching the Stability and Growth Pact. In imposing his cuts and lay-offs, he managed to precipitate the country's first general strike in ten years. He is hardly likely, therefore, to be sympathetic to the plight of France and Germany, or other Pact defaulters, and could give them a hard time if he is appointed president.

He also supported the Iraqi war, and currently has a detachment of 148 police in the country, making him highly unpopular with the new socialist government in Spain and with his own left, whom he is trailing in the polls.

Barrosso has a reputation for being extremely ambitious, and is regarded by some as "a time bomb, waiting to explode, in his eternal quest for power". Strongly supportive of the EU constitution, he nevertheless displays a staunchly nationalistic streak and maintains a strongly independent stance when up against his more powerful neighbour, Spain.

In recent years, Spain has become the biggest source of foreign investment in Portugal and this rising tide of investment has revived fears that Madrid will once again come to rule Portugal as it did for a 60-year period that ended in 1640. Barrosso, therefore, has been riding an increasing surge of nationalist sentiment.

Altogether, this is not your classic grey bureaucrat, nor even a Delorsian zealot, wholly committed to European integration. He clearly has a mind of his own, and ambition.

If appointed, he could prove less a less than malleable president. That makes him less than ideal for the post. If he is appointed, it could well be because no one else could get near attracting enough support and the colleagues are getting desperate.

Possibly unpredictable, there is however one thing about which we can be sure – he will be very different from Prodi.

Poland on the brink?

In the wake of Marek Belka’s surprise confirmation as premier, some very disturbing reports are coming out of Poland, underlining the parlous state of the economy that Belka was elected to deal with.

In recent weeks, farmers have been suffering a two-way squeeze as the effects of the EU's single market begin to bite. On the one hand, the country seems to be coming what one commentator described as a "designated dump for EU over-production" while, on the other, large consignments of staple products are being trucked to western EU destination.

Pork is a basic staple food in Poland, but their huge pig farms – with up to 20,000 breeding sows - are now mainly under the control of US Smithfield corporation, with feed supplied by the multi-national Cargill group, while meat processing companies are gearing up to invest further in the export market – some companies showing 20 percent growth.

Thus, rather than serving the domestic market, much of the output from these companies – at highly competitive prices - is being trucked into East Germany, and onwards, creating local shortages.

As a result, the prices of some foodstuffs have increased to such a degree that farmers are complaining that they can't afford their own food in the shops. The last two weeks have seen up to 30 percent increases in staple foods such as pork, chicken, dairy products, vegetable and bread. As farmers see convoys of lorries heading out of the country loaded with cut-price produce, there is talk of blockades, with Lepper's Self-Defence party in the forefront.

The economic situation is further distorted by the effects of accession. Consumption after the first four months of 2004 increased when Poles bought up commodity goods to beat the expected rises in prices, increasing retail sales by more than 20 percent. However, in May the rebound brought sales crashing by 20 percent compared with the previous month and the growth of previous years has slowed.

Meanwhile Belka seems to be backtracking on his commitment to introduce much-needed economic reforms, reflecting the deal struck with the leftish SDPL, giving rise to rumours that Economy Minister Jerzy Hausner is about to resign.

All this points to further political instability, with Belka enjoying none of the political honeymoon from which incoming administrations so often benefit. And once again, a situation is developing where the fate of Poland could determine the outcome of the constitution – with the anti-EU feeling amongst ordinary people – as opposed to the political elites - intensifying.

What is the bloody point?

One of Blair's proud claims for the EU constitution is that "for the first time ever, it provides a power for national Parliaments to scrutinise proposals from Brussels at the draft stage and to send them back if Parliaments are not satisfied".

Despite the fact that this is a hollow concession see analysis here, so proud is he of this "achievement" that he went out of his way to proclaim it in his report to the House on 21 June, only to be challenged by Michael Howard, who noted that, "…after Parliament has had its say, the Commission can ignore it".

Blair had no option to agree, admitting that, "yes it is true that if a third of them object they cannot block the European Commission proposal". But, he argued, "for the first time they are able to take objection to it and send it back to the Commission". Whoopee!

To a chorus of jeers and laughter, he then rounded on Howard, rather petulantly declaring, "Let us put it like this: that is a lot more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever secured when he was negotiating for this country in Europe".

But if this indeed is a hollow concession, what price the existing "scrutiny" system by which parliament already vets EU legislation? This system was set up under Heath in 1973, and on 24 October 1990 was formally confirmed by a Resolution of the House of Commons.

It laid down that "no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European Community legislation which is still subject to scrutiny". Furthermore, the "European Scrutiny Committee" as it is now called can impose what is called a "scrutiny block" on any particular issue, calling for a debate and a vote before any minister goes to Brussels to agree the proposal.

In fact, this is also a charade, but it is rather ironic – if not chilling – that less than an hour before Blair was extolling the virtues of greater parliamentary involvement in EU affairs, two of his own ministers – from the very same despatch box – demonstrated quite how empty is the scrutiny mechanism – and the contempt with which parliament is treated click here.

The first demonstration came from the Secretary of State for Defence (Geoffrey Hoon), who announced that the EU's General Affairs and External Relations Council had on 14 June agreed to the establishment of a European defence agency in the fields of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments.

This is a seriously important development, as it involves the UK pooling its defence research, development and procurement under the aegis of the agency, with profound implications not only for our defence capabilities, but also for our "special relationship" with the United States.

Understandably, therefore, when the issue came before the Scrutiny Committee on 9 June, it placed a "scrutiny lock" and called for a debate in the House. So what did the government do? According to Hoon, it invoked a "scrutiny override", and agreed to the establishment of the agency, before parliamentary scrutiny had been completed and before the debate could be held.

Hoon's lame excuse was that:

The United Kingdom did not wish to prevent the decision to establish the agency being taken at the Council meeting given benefits expected from the creation of the agency and the influential role played by the United Kingdom in shaping and implementing its formation.

And then, displaying the utter contempt for which he and New Labour treat parliament, he went on to say:

The Government are, nonetheless, fully committed to the need for national Parliaments to have proper oversight of EU issues and the establishment of the European defence agency will be debated in European Standing Committee B on 22 June.

In other words, days after the thing as already been agreed, done and dusted, and nothing can be changed, the government would have a debate on it.

No sooner had these words faded, then up came Denis MacShane, Minister for Europe. His subject was the somewhat less weighty "Reform of European Union Staff Regulations", but the message was the same.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) adopted the proposal to revise the staff regulations for EU officials on 22 March. While we noted that the European Scrutiny Committee had withheld clearance from the proposal when it met on 17 March and had recommended the document for debate, we supported the adoption of the proposal at the 22 March GAERC.

And, with the same bare-faced contempt that Hoon had shown, he went on to regret that we were "unable to arrange the debate prior to agreement", and announced that "The debate with European Standing Committee B has now been scheduled for 23 June".

In other words, days after the thing as already been agreed, done and dusted, and nothing can be changed, the government would have a debate on it.

If this was not a family Blog, one would succumb to the temptation to use some very, very rude words, but one cannot. Suffice it to ask what is the bloody point of having a parliament, all those expensive facilities, all those rules and procedures, if the government just goes ahead and makes its decisions, and then has debates afterwards?

Yet, as we recorded earlier, shortly afterwards, there was little Blair pontificating about the wonders of increasing the role for parliament in EU affairs. The man is beneath contempt.

Two days later, Andrew Marr, chief political editor at the BBC, was weeping in his cups about the difficulty of "raising interest in Brussels" - i.e., things EU click here. He could do no better, perhaps, than look outside his own front door.

The things they say

A round-up of comment from European "stakeholders" on the EU constitution, courtesy of EurActiv:

"C'est un bon texte pour l'Europe, c'est un bon texte pour les Européens [This is a good text for Europe, a good text for Europeans]," said Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe at a joint press briefing on 21 June with Vice Chairman Jean-Luc Dehaene.

Giscard d'Estaing welcomed the adoption of the Constitution which, they underlined, has retained more than 90 per cent of the text proposed by the Convention. Dehaene highlighted the importance of the Convention-method which "has brought with it something new in European affairs."

A press release by UNICE, the EU-wide umbrella organisation representing employers, states that the new Constitutional Treaty provides a good basis to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU, enhance the economies of the EU and their ability to fully realise the potentials of monetary union, and to strengthen the EU's economic power on the international stage.

UEAPME, the European Association of Craft Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, has regretted the failure of the European Council to give the go-ahead for extending qualified majority voting to taxation. "We have now a framework that ensures the long term viability of the decision making process in an enlarged Europe, but we still have an obstacle to the finalisation of the Internal Market which is the unanimity vote rule for taxation issues," said Hans-Werner Müller, Secretary General of UEAPME.

ETUC, the European Trade Union Confederation, has regretted the fact that "the agreement has reduced ambitions, compared to the draft of the European Convention". A press release issued on 21 June acknowledges that while the Constitutional Treaty is a big step forward in comparison with the Nice Treaty, in relation to the Convention's draft, the IGC resulted in a "second best solution".

The EU Civil Society Contact Group, comprising NGOs in six policy areas (environment, social, women, development, human rights and culture) has welcomed the Convention process which involved civil society organisations and trade unions but deplored the IGC process which resulted in a "political deal but not a vision for Europe."

Political parties

The Greens in the European Parliament have expressed dissatisfaction with the intergovernmental method. "The change from the convention method to the intergovernmental method has resulted in the Council settling on the lowest common denominator. The heads of state and government were more concerned about their ability to block decisions than to make decisions," said Johannes Voggenhuber, Member of the European Convention.

Chairman of the Group of the European People's Party (to which the Conservative MEPs are afficiliated) Hans-Gert Pöttering has said that the Constitution was "the basis for our common future" although he regretted the fact that Council voting has proven to be a "complex compromise" which due to different "exception mechanisms" [blocking minorities, etc] "is not characterised by great clarity" and has not led to the simplification of the decision making procedures.

"Despite the red lines and the last minute manoeuvring, the new enlarged Europe just got the deal it needed," said Graham Watson, leader of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Group in the European Parliament. "The Governments who have approved this Constitution now have a duty to go home and sell it to their people," said Watson.

President of the Party of European Socialists Group Enrique Barón and PES leader Poul Nyrup Rasmussen stated in a joint press release that "The constitution (...) will serve as a good basis on which we can work for a more just and social Europe".

Quite.

It's the politics, stupid

The economic forecast for France is reported to be better than expected. The economy is predicted to grow by 2.3 per cent in the second quarter, instead of the originally mentioned 1.7 percent. Of course, predictions in west European countries have, in the past, turned out to be incorrect and had to be scaled down, but for the moment Nicolas Sarkozy, the Finance Minister is riding high: France is doing better than the other eurozone countries, where average growth is predicted to be 0.6 per cent.

The French expansion appears to be export led. Consumer spending is not growing particularly noticeably, but exports, fuelled by demands from the United States and China, are set to expand by 3.6 per cent this year after contracting by 2.7 per cent last year.

Alas, this is not all good news, even on the economic front. There is no sign that unemployment will go down. According to Laure Maillard, an economist at CDC Ixis bank, this will not be a jobless recovery but “a recovery with less job creation than usual”. Other economists cautiously agree both with the figures and the probable lack of impact on the job market.

It was enough for Sarkozy to strut in front of the National Assembly, while making a few cautious noises. Even with the predicted growth France will not be able to reduce its deficit to below 3 per cent “unless we act”.

Unfortunately, if President Chirac has his way, it will not be Nicolas Sarkozy who will do the acting. The President, worried about the recent catastrophic election results, the fact that his close cohort Alain Juppé is still appealing a guilty verdict for diversion of funds to the party and by M Sarkozy’s continuing popularity as well as his open intention to run for the Presidency in 2007, has offered to do a deal.

Sarkozy’s first step in his campaign for the French Presidency is to bid for the Presidency of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), the right-wing, supposedly Gaullist party both he and Chirac belong to.

Chirac has agreed to support his bid on condition that Sarkozy leaves the government. Presumably M Chirac considers that a mere party official who is not a minister will soon vanish from the public view. This may be a miscalculation, given Sarkozy’s amazing ability to reappear when he is least expected.

Sarkozy is reported to be unimpressed by the offer, seeing no reason why he should not continue to be a minister while leading the party. After all, Chirac himself served as prime minister and party leader from 1986 -1988, as did Juppé in 1995 -1997.

It is worth remembering that Nicolas Sarkozy's father was Hungarian. President Chirac may not have heard of those famous revolving doors.

Decisions, decisions

The European Commission has issued deficit warnings to six new members and Greece. The latter has been told to come up with some ideas on how it will control its ever growing deficit by November 5 in order to come into line with the Growth and Stability Pact by 2005.

The six new member states that have had warnings are Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. They must bring their deficit down to the required three per cent by 2008.

The one problem with all these warnings is that they have to be accepted by the Finance Ministers, who are due to meet on July 5. So far these meetings have not produced any real results as far as defaulters under the Growth and Stability Pact are concerned, maybe because the biggest among these have been Germany and France.

The new member states are required to join the eurozone some time in the future and it has been pointed out to them that to do so they must keep within the required deficit rules. Just like those countries that are in the eurozone now, presumably.

In the meantime, the recently appointed (and about to retire) Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, has been musing on the fact that the European economic policy needed reforming (again) and one of the problems was that the deficit rules of the Growth and Stability Pact have been too stringently applied. Well, not so that you'd notice they haven't so far but matters might change now that there are small countries to bully.

Belka confirmed as Polish prime minister

Contrary to predictions in May click here, when Poland looked set to ditch the constitution on the back of mounting political instability, prime minister designate Marek Belka has won his vote of confidence in the lower House to gain confirmation as Poland's premier.

His victory avoids the political trauma of an early general election Belka's victory averts snap elections in August and gives the deeply unpopular ex-communist Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) a chance to regroup and gain supporters before election, which some pundits are forecasting for early 2005.

How much, if at all, yesterday’s announcement of an EU award of 8.2 billion euros click here to Poland’s ailing economy featured in Belka's victory is not stated but, for a politician standing on a platform of economic reform and regeneration, it cannot have harmed his case.

Nevertheless, the vote was close, with 236 for to 215 against, engineered after side deals with support from the minority SDPL, which is calling for elections by the end of the year – a call which may be resisted, giving rise to further instability.

For the moment though, Belka’s SLD has seen off the challenge from the anti-EU constitution Civic Platform party, which emerged a clear victor from the European elections, with 23 percent of the vote, and Andrzej Lepper's Self-Defence party, which emerged fourth.

It will suit the EU cause to have Belka at the helm as the constitution ratification moves up the political agenda – not least because there will probably be a knife-edge vote in the expected referendum. But Polish politics are nothing if not unpredictable so the "Europeans", like Belka, have a long way to go before they are out of the woods – if they ever get that far.

Nuts!

For some unfathomable reason, a large number of Americans are enraptured by a sweet and salty concoction of ground peanuts known as peanut butter – a material used over here mainly as a bait for dosing with paracetamol tablets in order to despatch badgers.

Nevertheless, in a spirit of solidarity and free enterprise, in 1993 Steve Rappaport started up a company in Prague called LinkAmerika to import US-made peanut butter to soothe the homesickness pangs of expat Americans.

But now that the Czech Republic has joined the European Union, all this must stop. US-produced peanuts are now verboten as they do not comply with "strict European Union regulations". Furthermore, while they could once be imported duty-free, they are now taxed at approximately 12 percent upon entry into the EU.

This is something which is not only upsetting the expats but also the US government, not least as it was the Regan-era US government, and its expenditure of billions of tax dollars, that bought the Czech Republic – and the other former Communist satellites – their freedom to import peanut butter in the first place.

In the eyes of US authorities, many of the EU's regulations on American food exports are unnecessarily burdensome and not based on good scientific data. There are no signs, for instance that any of the many millions of US citizens back in their own country are suffering any ill-effect from their home-produced peanut butter, which tends to support the contention of their government that the EU restrictions are simply a disguised trade barrier.

This, so far, has cut little ice with the EU Commission, which is adamant that the people of the EU must be protected against these vile US imports, leaving the Czechs with no option but to import a Dutch-made substitute produced by Unilever. To which General Anthony McAuliffe's remark all those years ago might have been quite appropriate: "Nuts!".

We are obliged to S. Adam Cardais of The Prague Post for the basis of this story.

That wonderful, impartial BBC

Dated 22 Jun 2004 (Column WA119/120) in the Lords' Hansard, Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government whether the BBC received any funding by way of grant or loan from the European Union in the period 2000–04; if so, what was the amount paid in each year; and for what purpose.

The answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey) was to the point:

BBC's producers' guidelines make clear that co-funding from any third party is not appropriate for programmes aimed at a general audience. But the BBC does receive some EU funding for some specialised educational and support material (such as basic literacy and IT skills training for adults).

For the period 2000–03, the BBC expected to be paid £375,828 by the European Social Fund to help to pay for community outreach work (workshops, publicity, telephone support, databases) among learners and tutors using the BBC's online Skillswise and WebWise sites, which provide literacy, numeracy and IT skills resources.

For the period 2003–04, the BBC is expecting to receive a sum of between £130,961 and £139,959 in support of a pilot project which provides specially versioned online resources (basic skills and English as a second language) which are being used in community centres, learning centres (including UK online centres) and colleges.

The corporation also participates in various initiatives relating to the digitalisation and preservation of archives, which is funded from the Commission's R&D; framework programme, the sums received or expected for these purposes being £74,837 in 2000, £52,024 in 2001, £133,394 in 2002, £195,125 in 2003 and £146,500 in 2004.

The World Service Trust is an independent charity which is not a division of the BBC, but it has also received some EU funding for media literacy, training and reconstruction projects across the world as follows:

1999–2000 £137,373 2000–01 £527,432 2001–02 £490,703 2002–03 £865,119 2003–04 £1,167,251

The BBC does not borrow from the EU, although its commercial subsidiaries do borrow from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for commercial purposes.

Interestingly, the Lord McIntosh does not set out the details of the borrowing from the EIB, and nor does he state what those "commercial purposes" are.

Reference to the EIB site, however, does reveal that a loan facility of £25 million has been made available to BBC Worldwide Limited "to finance the expansion of BBCW's investments in BBC's new productions over the period 2002-2004".

BBCW's portfolio of programmes, it helpfully adds, "focuses on news, education (incl. digital curriculum) and entertainment (incl. children programmes and music)". Er... news... education?

Interestingly, that is the only detail given on the EIB web site, but the BBC’s own annual accounts reveal that the EIB has in fact made two loan facilities available to "BBC Commercial Holdings".

The first, for an amount of £66 million, is available for drawing until March 2005 and must either be repaid in full as a single repayment by March 2013 or on an amortising basis by March 2015. The second, which is the one for for £25 million, is available for drawing until November 2003 and is repayable in one single instalment by November 2007.

It then adds the intriguing information that, as at 31 March 2003, nothing had been drawn down under either of these facilities, which invited the question of why the money was applied for in the first place.

This notwithstanding, the money is tainted. The task of the European Investment Bank, which is the European Union's financing institution, is – according to its own definition - to contribute towards the integration, balanced development and economic and social cohesion of the Member Countries.

The key word here is "integration", a political objective which – as some readers may be aware - is not at all uncontentious. One cannot imagine that the EIB could or would advance a massive loan facility to an organisation that did not support its overall aims, to which extent the very fact of the award is evidence that the BBC has bought into the European integration project.

Come the EU referendum campaign for real, this will become an increasingly serious issue, and one that should attract the attention of all members of the "no" campaign – once it's chosen the carpets for its offices and ordered the paper clips.

Quote of the week

When our politicians talk about promoting “innovation”, what they usually mean is more R&D; hnadouts (always welcome by the business community as a disguised form of subsidy), more working groups, more bureaucracy, and more spending on education at a time when public coffers are empty and deficit limits are broken.

This sentence comes from an article, entitled Brussels Needs a New Vocabulary of Reform, by Ann Mettler, executive director of the Lisbon Council, a Brussels-based advocacy group in today’s Wall Street Journal Europe.

It is a pity that Ms Mettler’s clear grasp of the symptoms is spoilt by her lack of understanding of the underlying causes. As long as Brussels is to provide the the answers they will consist of working groups, documents, growth plans, innovation platforms, the whole caboodle of bureaucratic structuralism, because that is all Brussels can do.

There is no European problem to which Brussels can provide an answer and there are no European answers. In order to have pan-European solutions, we need pan-European problems and that is what the high panjandrums of the European Union are creating.

Stop Press

ORDER RESTORED IN BRUSSELS

Last night 12 Britons [shurely 11? -ed *] describing themselves as "UKIP MEPs" were reported to be "queuing up in an orderly fashion" to collect their lavish £172-a- day expenses. Said their leader Kilroy "The lads got a bit carried away on the big night, but it was just a bit of harmless high spirits."

Later the 12 hooligans were seen in one of Brussels legendary 5-star restaurants, "Chez Woy", tucking into several large plates of gravy, a famous local delicacy.

* one on holiday in Majorca

(lifted from Private Eye, No 1109 25/6-8/7/04)

Slagging off journalists

Regular readers of this Blog will already have discerned that the two favourite occupations of its editors – and this one especially – is slagging off politicians and journalists. And not necessarily in that order.

In recent days, we've had a go at the venerable Michael Gove, he of The Times, and the egregious Andrew Marr, the BBC's guru on all things political. Today, we turn to that great economics sage, the wise and indisputably famous Anatole Kaletsky, who has filled today's op-ed in The Times with several columns of EWM (Extruded Written Material) – somewhat more lethal than Iraq's WMD.

But, before launching a diatribe at this poor (albeit well-paid) and otherwise inoffensive scribe, we thought it might be as well to explain why the practitioners of the trade attract our continued ire.

Cutting to the bottom line, the simple issues are those of power and responsibility. No one (sensible, at least) will disagree that those who have access to the columns of the national newspapers have considerable power, not least to shape the agenda and – over term – influence and even direct events.

This sets the trade of journalism apart and it is not unfair to suggest that with power goes responsibility – the duty (to use that old-fashioned word) to get it right.

This does not, of course, rule out msitakes – which we all make, especially when information is incomplete or the writing is rushed – speculation (which is fair game), or opinion, but one does expect the basic facts to be understood and to be conveyed accurately.

What one sees in too many of the contemporary journalists, however, is a phenomenon which can only be described in technical terms as "pig ignorance", the most basic of howlers of the type that we find in Gove's writings, where he confuses the "Council" with the "European Council", or even the admission from Marr to the effect that he can't even be bothered to find out what is going on.

At the root of all this, we feel, is idleness – the basic sloth for which hacks are famous worldwide – in their unwillingness to do the work needed to get to grips with an issue. For something as complex as the European Union, they cannot just rely on the lessons in civics delivered in primary school (if they got that far) or a few Commission press hand-outs.

This is a subject replete with propaganda and misinformation, where it is necessary to get out there and do some serious study, and take the time to find out what basically makes the system tick.

But we detect that there is also another dynamic at play – the "above the line" syndrome, to which the likes of Gove are all too susceptible. They suffer from their own estimation of their value, whereby they are far too grand to admit there is something they do not know, and far too important to devote their most valuable time actually to learning anything.

By this means, they effectively disqualify themselves from learning and instead rely on their "above the line" status to churn out a never-ending stream of EWM, immune from challenge simply by virtue of their enhanced status. These are the prostitutes of journalism – all power with no responsibility.

So what of the inoffensive Anatole Kaletsky – hooker extraordinaire or simply another "above the line" blunderer? Judge for yourself with this golden offering from his op-ed:

…refocusing the EU on its original economic objectives would advance the cause of political integration between those countries which wanted to move along this road, giving them a golden opportunity to create new institutions outside the EU framework though closely connected with it, to develop their federalist ideals.

The point, of course, is that the original objective of the EEC (which later became the EU) was political integration. This, at the time, being unattainable overtly, its founders decided on limited but progressively increasing economic integration in order to achieve that end. Anyone who does not know that, and thus turns history completely on its head, surely has no business being in the commentary game, much less taking up space in The Times.

Perhaps it is apposite, therefore, that the BBC has announced it is setting up a "college of journalism" in an attempt to improve the skills of its staff. One could suggest three students for the first courses: Messrs Gove; Marr and Kaletsky, and possibly even Kilroy-Silk if he ever chooses to go back to his day job.

However, given the obvious limitations of the BBC, one dreads to think what it will in fact be teaching its students, and the very real fear is that the output will not be any improvement on what went in. Failing that, there is no alternative but for these so-called experts to break out of their own bubbles of ignorance and get down to work, learning something about the subject before again holding forth so freely.

But, as has been enjoined so often in the Blog, don't hold your breath.

A far-off country that could be important

Slovakia's appetite for the European Union has been diminishing. It had a low turn-out of just over 50 per cent for the referendum and in the recent elections it came bottom of the poll with just 20 per cent voting. Its politicians have been mulling over the new Constitution.

To be precise they would have been mulling it over if there had been a text available. This will not happen till September, according to a Foreign Ministry spokesman.

In the meantime, there has been some disagreement as to how the new treaty that brings in the Constitution should be ratified. Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda first announced that a simple majority of deputies will be enough to pass the Constitution through parliament.

The Justice Minister, Daniel Lipsic, thinks otherwise. Having consulted the Ministry's constitutional lawyers, he has come to the conclusion that the new Constitution will mean important changes to the Slovak constitutional order and will, thus, require a two thirds majority in parliament.

The constitutional lawyers, incidentally, have come up with a somewhat unusual interpretation of the term subsidiarity. According to them:

The EU constitution implies, under the so-called subsidiary principle, that the EU member countries give up some of their customary decision-making powers in areas where the EU mechanisms are prominent.

This is probably more accurate than the usual analysis but is unlikely to be viewed with favour by the Commission spokespersons.

According to the Slovak Spectator, an English language weekly, the ruling Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) has decided to push for a referendum. As far as we can tell, this is the first firm indication of a possible referendum in the new member states.

Only seven days to go

It seems that the leaders of the EU member states will revert to their usual method of choosing the Commission President. They will have dinner on June 29, the last possible day on which to agree. The dinner will be in Brussels, a place known for its good food. Our readers will, no doubt, be relieved that life will continue to be comfortable for those who casually sign away our freedoms.

In the meantime I have been informed that the old Commission can carry on into the autumn, even if there is no sign of a new President and, therefore, of new Commissioners. Old Commissions always do carry on. Many of our readers will recall the astonishing spectacle of Jacques Santer's Commission resigning, only to return about half an hour later as an Acting Commission.

Incidentally, M Dehaene’s name as a possible President has been floated recently. An astonishing idea.

Who is in the running still? Sir Peter Sutherland, who seems to have edged into lead position, Guy Verhofstadt, we assume, though he is rarely mentioned by reporters, José Manuel Barrosso, the Portuguese Prime Minister, who is likely to be blackballed by the Chirac and Schröder for his active participation in the “coalition of the willing” against terrorism, Javier Solana, who is more likely to want the EU Foreign Minister’s job and the former French Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier.

In addition we must not forget Bertie Ahern who says nay but then hums and has and refuses to take his name off the list.

As they say, watch this space.

A carve-up in the offing?

Elaborating on those pronouncements on the EU made by Nicolas Sarkozy (see previous story), they certainly prove – if nothing else – that all French politicians are the same under the skin, whatever shade they come in.

What is exercising Sarkozy is the belated realisation that the European Union of 25 member states is not quite the same cosy little cartel that it was with six or even fifteen members, and that adjustments must be made to the balance of power.

What he is going for is a typical French solution - the directoire option: a small group of inner nations (with France at the centre, of course) to run the show.

Blair is said to favour this idea of France moving away from the "exclusive" dialogue with Germany – although he would almost certainly get fleeced by Sarkozy – but it seems that the views of the smaller countries, often dismissed as "the dwarves", have not been canvassed.

With the constitution not yet in the bag though, countries like the Netherlands may be looking askance at developments and wondering whether they still want to be part of what is beginning to look suspiciously like an old-fashioned "great power" carve-up.

What on earth are the French up to?

First we are told that President Chirac is still mulling over whether to have a referendum on the EU Constitution. Then we hear that former President Giscard d’Estaing has announced on the basis of goodness knows what that the referendum will probably be next spring. Exactly what is M Giscard d’Estaing’s position in the French government?

Meanwhile, the Socialist party appears to be split over the Constitution. The former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius has proclaimed himself to be rather "reticent" on the subject (does he mean ambivalent?). He will, he thinks, find it hard to cheer for a document that will not solve any problems.

His colleague, the former Minister for Europe, Pierre Moscovici, has announced that he is in favour of the Constitution but has added that the referendum will be a risk that they will have to run and win.

The Greens, too, are split on the subject, though that is clearly a pan-European problem. (They do exist occasionally.) Generally speaking they are europhile but some of them think that there is too much of a liberal agenda in the Constitution. It is not clear how they managed to find anything resembling a liberal agenda in that most illiberal of documents.

President Chirac's greatest danger, as so often, does not come from any of the opposition parties but from his own. Nicolas Sarkozy, the Economics Minister is snapping at his heels, having made it clear that he intends to run for president in 2007.

Contradicting M Chirac publicly, Sarkozy has announced that useful though the Franco-German axis was, it had to be supplemented in the enlarged union. His idea is that the EU should be run by a kind of a coalition of the willing or, at least, the large. Countries with populations of between 40 million and 80 million should form a lose alliance to dominate the politics of the Union. These would be France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy and Poland. I think one can safely say that these ideas, when they become public, will find little support in the other 19 countries.

M Sarkozy, fresh from defending all sorts of state bail-outs in France against the Commission, has also told journalists that he intends to introduce all sorts of reforms in France to ensure that its stalled economy takes off again.

Among other reforms, he wants to do something about the 35 hour week, which is costing France an estimated 16 billion euros (c.£10.6 billion) a year. And he wants to balance the books and bring the French budget back into the Growth and Stability Pact.

It is hard for a French politician not to be statist or dirigiste. M Sarkozy is no exception. He wants supermarkets to reduce their prices by two per cent in order to stimulate the economy. His original idea had been to introduce price controls.

And we think our politicians are all over the shop.

Learning from history can be tricky

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal Europe carried an article by Robin Harris, consultant director of the think-tank Politeia, that was based on its recently published pamphlet Why Britain Needs a Foreign Policy?. The article's title was a little more direct: What Would a British Foreign Policy Look Like?

Well, what would it look like? Not surprisingly, Mr Harris takes the view that a British foreign policy should be based on British interests. Its key strategic relationship would be with the United States and the cornerstone of its security would be NATO.

It is not Mr Harris's theme to discuss the role of NATO in the twenty-first century, so he assumes that within it Britain would continue enjoying "the twin benefits of being America's closest ally and of being Europe’s militarily strongest nation". (One wonders how long the second of those will remain true.)

There is a slight hint that, perhaps, the EU is not such a good bet from the point of view of defence but no indication that the it is actively undermining NATO. As far as Mr Harris is concerned these are two alternatives but the relationship between them is unclear. That being so, it is not clear why any choice needs to be made.

The article also has some dubious arguments. Apparently, it is not in Britain’s interests to promote democracy in the Middle East, as that upsets our allies. One cannot help wondering who these allies are and what use they are to us.

Oil? Surely, it would be better to buy oil from democratic countries that are less likely to be convulsed by coups, wars and assassinations. Not to mention the not unimportant fact that many of these countries arm, train and finance terrorists.

Then there is Europe. Mr Harris knows his history:

Rather than accept further integration, a realist foreign policy would seek to restore Britain's full freedom of action by disengaging from current restraints. But, recognizing that Britain has always needed to ensure that mainland Europe escapes complete domination by a hostile power, a British government would then set about seeking allies in Europe willing to stand up against the controlling Franco-German access.

How very nineteenth century. So sad that it is no longer realistic. For we are not simply allies with one or more continental countries – we are part of the a Union and our relationship with other member states is not really in the realms of foreign policy.

Besides, there is the small matter of the common foreign and security policy. Mr Harris may think that is a set of easily brushed aside restraints but adopting a common policy goes a long way beyond forming alliances. It means integrating much of our defence structure and, above all, "loyally supporting" the EU’s foreign policy.

Indeed, we must look to formulating a British foreign policy based on British interests. But the starting point will have to be a complete disengagement from the common foreign and security policy and the restoration of Britain's status as an independent country that has independent policies.

Is this the pay-off?

Days after their governments obediently agreed to the new constitution, the Commission has granted the ten accession countries 24 billion euros in economic and social development aid, for the years 2004-2006. Poland receives the largest amount, at 8.2 billion euros, much of it to be spent on modernising its fisheries and fish processing.

The awards were announced during a ceremony in Brussels today - thereby milking the occasion of as much publicity as possible – when EU commissioners Jacques Barrot and Pèter Balàzs handed over the Commission decisions to the Permanent Representatives of the recipient countries. There is no confirmation as to whether they were asked to beg. Not were there any details of the colour of the envelopes in which the money will be placed.

Nevertheless, it was confirmed that Hungary was "awarded" 1.9 bn, the Czech Republic 1.45 bn, Slovakia 1.041 bn euros, Lithuania 895 m, Latvia 626 m, Estonia with 371 m and Slovenia 237 m. Malta and Cyprus, both with GNPs well above the community average, get respectively 63 and 53 million euros.

The "awards", coming so soon after the constitutional treaty has been agreed, and before the accession states are so desperately needed to ratify it, is highly fortuitous.

For details, see Commission press release: click here.

Another landmark, of sorts…

No sooner had we clocked up our first 10,000 hits on this Blog then we reached another landmark of sorts when yesterday, we topped 1,000 hits on the day – 1,109 to be exact. This was largely due to an unsolicited but very welcome testimonial from London-based David Carr on the blog samizdata, who wrote in such glowing terms that we blush as we reproduce it here:

I cannot recommend the EU Referendum Blog highly enough. They dissect and analyse the absurdities and the cant of the European Union in meticulous and compelling detail. Right now, it is the most important blog in Britain (after Samizdata, of course!).

Today, however, hits have continued at a record rate, not least as a result of links placed on other blogs, some from unexpected sources such as Kim du Toit in the United States, and some from less unexpected but nonetheless welcome sources such as James Hammerton.

Others came from writers who are proving to be durable allies Iain Murray and others still from search engines and still more from entries in on-line encyclopaedias.

Yet, despite this widening net of referees, by far the bulk came as "direct hits", either through world of mouth, or returning visitors who have no doubt stored our URL in their "favourite places".

This coming referendum campaign will break several records, not least for being probably the longest plebicite campaign in history – unless you know different – but it will also be the first such campaign in the UK in which the internet plays a significant part. And we believe the "blog" – already revolutionising political discourse in the United States - will play a major and powerful part. We have already discussed the power of the internet in this context, and you might like to revisit our post on the subject click here.

Thus, while the official "no" campaign is still picking its staff, thinking about choosing the carpets for its new offices and not yet stocking up on paper clips, we feel somewhat vindicated in our judgment in starting up this blog, and in investing the time to get it going. It may be a long campaign, but it is also going to be dirty and bitter, so we felt we needed a head start.

Thanks to you, the readers, we feel we have it.

EU Referendum round-up

In the wake of the Brussels agreement last Friday, member states are beginning to firm up on their ratification plans.

Firmly on the fence is the Italian government, with deputy prime minister Gianfranco Fini saying that he expects the constitution to be ratified by the parliament, although he has also stated that, if a referendum is decided upon, he "won't oppose it". He simply does not think it is "a major issue" and even if the referendum did take place and give an negative outcome, "it won't stop the process", he told the Italian news agency AGI.

Also on the fence is France’s Chirac who, despite an election commitment to a referendum, is still only saying "maybe", with a date sometime in the Spring of 2005 pencilled in. Giscard believes that "things do seem to be pointing in the direction of a referendum".

The Greek government, however, has set its face against a referendum. Secretary of State for European Affairs Iannis Valynakis said Wednesday, rejected calls from opposition socialists, saying that "Around half the member states of the EU will ratify the constitution in their parliaments, which is also our tradition here in Greece," A parliamentary vote, said Valynakis, "is no less democratic then a referendum."

Spain, on the other hand, has decided to hold a referendum, "as quickly as possible," according to prime minister Zapatero. "The government has the intention of holding a referendum so that all the citizens can say what they think of the European constitution", he told his parliament. I suspect though, that if that was true (allowing all citizens to say what they think) it would have to be a very big ballot paper.

Portugal has already begun the steps needed to hold a referendum, with prime minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso deciding to "unleash the mechanisms" for organising one. He would announce the date during the autumn session of parliament. "We think it could be held in 2005, probably at the beginning, but we are open to other possibilities," he said.

The Netherlands, however, may beat Portugal to the polls, planning its referendum as early as December this year, in the closing month of its presidency of the EU. Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt is suggesting that the three Benelux countries — Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg — stage their referendums on the same day, which means there could a rash of polls in December.

The Czech Republic and Poland are still probable candidates for referendums, although no firm plans have been announced and the UK still seems to be the back runner, with the poll most likely set for the Spring of 2006. There is no news from either Ireland or Denmark, both of which are required by their constitutions to hold referendums. Germany is, of course, prohibited from holding referendums by its constitution, Malta looks likely to ratify through its parliament and so does Finland.

This leaves the situation at ten countries which are more or less certain to hold referendums, two possibles, four which almost certainly will not, and the others remaining to be accounted for.

Mote and beam

So the UKIP roadshow hit town today – Brussels to be precise – led by Robert Kilroy-Silk, the ex-politician turned chat-show host turned MEP. In his wake trailed Paul Sykes, the millionaire businessman who funded UKIP's Euro election campaign to the tune of £1.1m and contributed hugely to the success of the party.

Basking in the reflected glory, Sykes told journalists in a conference in the European parliament building that one problem which UKIP hoped to rectify by its presence in the parliament was to inform the British people about what was going on. "Over 80 percent of British people know next to zero about this thing that produces 60 percent of the laws that govern their lives," he said.

Kilroy-Silk, on the other hand, told journalists that he had "…great respect for the European Parliament. It is a democratic institution...". On that basis, it looks as if UKIP is going to have to have its work cut out informing its own MEPs about the realities of the European Union, before it can even start telling the British people what is going on.

To see full report click here.

Only eight days to go

In eight days’ time the European Commission will cease to exist and give way to the newly selected one. Except that we still have no President-designate.

A new name has been thrown into the hat, another Irishman, Peter Sutherland, the former Director of the World Trade Organization and present Chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International. He is also seriously rich, a fact that must be in his favour in the notoriously venal world of European politics.

Sir Peter Sutherland (as an Irishman he can have an honorary knighthood only) is a fervent European integrationist and says he hates with great fervour all those petty minded nationalists. Of course, many of us are not all that fond of all those petty minded Europeanists but that does not bother Sir Peter.

At present it is not clear how many states support Sutherland, who says he will not take job unless he has the full support of all 25. Will the French and Germans agree, bearing in mind their attitude to “non-core” member states? Ireland is in the euro but not part of Schengen.

Epolitix today has listed 13 candidates, all more or less in the running. However, as the name of the front runner, Guy Verhofstadt is not included, one can but wonder at its accuracy.

The shadow of Maastricht

As promised, a report on the prime minister's statement to the House of Commons on the Brussels summit on 17/18 June. This, in fact is part one of a two-parter, this dealing with the dealing with the "headline" issues. But, as is often the case, there was also a debate going on within a debate – one almost completely missed by the media. Our second part will deal with that debate.

This was supposed to be the big day, when the parliamentary battle over the constitution started. Blair, as is the custom, came before the House to make a statement on the outcome of the negotiations, thus giving the leader of the opposition, Michael Howard, the chance to take him apart (politically that is). We were about to see the "battle of the giants".

Watching the thing on television, on gains certain impressions which the cold, printed word of the Hansard record simply cannot convey, but having seen the body language, the smirks, and the knowing looks, the words themselves have more meaning. The gaps between the lines are better illuminated.

Wedged into those gaps, pregnant with meaning, was one word… Maastricht, short-hand for the Treaty of the European Union, the last major treaty signed by a Conservative government, the treaty which tore the Conservatives apart and which launched the modern Eurosceptic movement which led directly to the formation of UKIP and its recent electoral success.

The "above the line" battle, however, was about "myths and realities", the battleground staked out by the prime minister, and joined willingly by Mr Howard. After a presentation by Blair – who could not wait to quote Ahern saying that Europe was "not a super state; not a federal state but a group of nations", thereby putting this into the category of "he doth protest too much" – it was Howard's turn.

With evident relish, he tore into the prime minister, listing the "realities" in the constitution – like the public prosecutor – demanding in gleeful cadenced, "where's the myth in that?". It looked good, it sounded good and it seemed to be working. But then it all fell apart.

In his response, Blair – who never looked really uncomfortable under the Howard tirade – bounded back. But his dismissal of Howard’s claims was only the warm-up. His "killer lines" came mid-way through his rebuttal as he glanced over his shoulder to warn his troops what was about to happen. "But let us compare this treaty with the two documents he agreed: the single European Act…. And of course I was looking at the Maastricht treaty to see what it extended…".

One cannot say with finality that there was a "collapse of stout party" but the ghost of Maastricht did exert its baleful effect. Pointing out what had actually been given away by the treaty, Blair then pronounced with mounting glee:

If the right hon. and learned gentleman attacks this (constitutional) treaty, he should have been screaming the place down over Maastricht. Instead, he voted for Maatricht, and he is now left in the ludicrous position of having to argue, somehow, Britain ceases to be a nation state because the rules on diplomatic and consular protection go to QMV.

There lies Howard's weak point, one shared by the Conservative Party as a whole. At the moment, they are sticking to their own fiction that, somehow, everything was fine and dandy until 1997, when New Labour got elected, and then everything started to unravel: Maastricht OK, constitutional treaty not. And, as this debate showed, it is a weak point that Blair will not hesitate to exploit. Furthermore, each time he does so, he wrong-foots Howard.

Until Howard comes to terms with Maastricht, and discovers a form of words that enables him to neutralise Blair’s barbs, he will always find his own attacks blunted. That would be a pity.

To read the full debate, click here.

Marr laments…

In an extraordinary piece in today's Daily Telegraph, BBC political editor and over-paid columnist for the newspaper, Andrew Marr, laments the difficulty in reporting on Brussels. Under the title, "How am I meant to raise interest in Brussels?", he weeps into his cups as he records that:

"Brussels" remains dreadful for my trade, journalism. It isn't just the obvious - the impenetrable jargon, the infinitely slow tennis game between the institutions and the lack of colourful characters that might interest viewers and readers back home. It's more that a perpetual haggle involving 25 countries is bound to produce insufferably slow results and a grey-brown cud of compromise. The very essence of the current union makes it near-impossible to report its story to easily distracted electorates!

"Journalism, he argues, needs events; clashes; colour; argument. It drives many journalists mad…. It's thin pickings. A minor huff by Jacques Chirac must be elevated into Waterloo, The Rematch."

Elsewhere in this Blog, my colleague Helen Szamuely has been running a series called "Are they listening to themselves?" and, with some justice, this question could be turned to the egregious Marr. This is the man who is paid huge amounts of money from the BBC's license payers’ fund to make politics interesting, to make sense of it, and to bring the issues alive. This is the equivalent of a football commentator wingeing about the difficulty of making the cup final look interesting.

Actually, it is worse than that. What is being played out in the offices of Brussels and the capitals of the European Union member states is a battle of infinite subtlety and complexity. But it is also a battle for the heart and soul of "Europe", the outcome of which will determine the political fate of the continent and whether these unhappy lands will descend once more into chaos.

But Marr is embedded in the tradition of personality politics, of "yah-boo-sucks" exchanges, fast-moving action and sound-bites. All of this is passing him by. He has turned up expecting to see a staged wresting match, with its grunts, groans, jeers and cheers, with its clinches, falls and knock-outs.

But he has actually arrived at a chess championship, played by masters without a clock, and he doesn't know what is going on. He doesn't know the rules and doesn't understand the strategy. All he sees is two figures sitting at a table, occasionally pushing carved figures across a chequered board – and he yearns for one or the other to stand up and start beating up his opponent, so he can report on the "colourful characters that might interest viewers and readers back home".

That is the frustration of being on the receiving end of modern journalism. The trade is inhabited by one-dimensional, self-regarding, over-paid figures who spend their lives tracking down the "sound-bite" while the game is played on around them, without their even beginning to understand what is going on. Then, to add insult to injury, we pay our good money for newspapers only to find these dismal hacks in print, parading their ignorance and lack of comprehension – for which they again get handsomely paid.

Oh how nice it would be to have some grown-ups around.

It is more expensive than you think

The highly regarded London think-tank Civitas will be publishing an analysis of the financial costs of the EU membership next month. Here is a preview of their conclusions:

"On very cautious assumptions the total net cost of EU membership is £19.63 billion (£6.33 billion for EU regulation, £9 billion for the CAP and £4.3 billion in net transfers between EU institutions). Based on less cautious, but still conservative, assumptions the cost could be £33.3 billion (£20 billion for EU regulation, with the other costs the same)."

Jolly, huh?

They also find that leaving the EU would carry no costs in the way of jobs or trade. Don't believe it? Read their preliminary findings in a background paper. Click here

Democracy is as democracy does

Commissioner Chris Patten, putative candidate for the presidency of the European Commission and a man who seems to know some European history, unlike the Prime Minister – he mentioned Agincourt and Waterloo as examples of non-agreement between England or Britain and France – seems to be a little unclear on the subject of democracy.

He has told reporters that he deplores Mr Blair's decision to call a referendum, as this would be a serious threat to parliamentary democracy. He then added rather opaquely:

"They [referendums] produce tabloid politics and they are opted for by prime ministers not to open up debate but as a way of closing down debate."

How touching of Mr Patten to care so much about parliamentary democracy. One wonders why he does not feel the same way about the fact that parliament has no right to reject legislation and regulations that are pouring in from the EU, each initiated by that very unparliamentary body: the Commission.

Well, what about that European Public Prosecutor?

On Monday, June 21, the Prime Minister’s rather boastful and vaguely worded statement about his great achievements during what he erroneously called the European Council (he meant the IGC as my colleague has explained) was repeated in the House of Lords as well.

Despite much of the subsequent discussion being dominated by europhile peers who make a point of rejoicing at whatever is agreed on in EU meetings and whatever is imposed on the parliament and people of Britain, there were one or two telling sallies.

Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Opposition, correctly talked about the European Council. He challenged the Prime Minister and his representative in the Upper House, Baroness Amos:

"The Prime Minister's Statement says: This treaty makes clear where the EU can and cannot act".

Will the Leader of the House point to the passage in the treaty that says precisely where that is made clear? There is much more. Where is the bonfire of regulation? Where is the halt to the onward march of integration?

The presidency's conclusions signal legislation on financial services, on professional qualifications and social security co-ordination; common action on copyright and patents; initiatives in consumer protection legislation; measures on air quality, maritime law, biodiversity and climate change; urgent work on corporate governance, action on chemicals, directives on services and a strategy on sustainable development. We have even instructed the Commission to draw up plans for a European gender institute—as if the Gender Recognition Bill before our Parliament is not enough. I shall not read on, but that is just the summary of what has been agreed at the weekend.”

Lord Tomlinson, one of the europhile peers, tut-tutted that Lord Strathclyde was going beyond the actual text of the treaty. As we have no final text of the treaty, this is a very easy thing to do. He then went into the usual refrain:

“Does my noble friend further agree that, in order to achieve the fullest possible participation and informed decision-making in a referendum, it is imperative that the Government find an appropriate way to provide factual information to as wide a group of the public as possible so that we can have a proper public debate based on real information about the treaty and its contents rather than the contents that others have imagined?”

His noble friend, Baroness Amos, needless to say, agreed. However, she did not live up to this noble sentiment. When Lord Lamont asked:

"My Lords, can the Leader of the House explain why, prior to last weekend, the Government stated that they were opposed to the concept of the public prosecutor, even if it were to be preceded by a unanimous decision? Such a post was stated to be unacceptable, even with the unanimity qualification. Why have the Government changed their mind?"

Her reply was a little confused:

"My Lords, we saw no reason to create the post. We have ensured that under the treaty a public prosecutor could be created only by unanimity. That means that our consent would be required to create such a post. However, at the moment we see no reason to create such a post."

Why agree to the post if they see no need for it? Experience tells one that whatever finds its way into a treaty and, presumably, the Constitution, will eventually be realized, whether there is an immediate agreement or not. Clearly, the assumption that if the British Government finds something "totally unacceptable", it will ensure that the Constitution will have no references to it, is completely wrong.

To read the full debate click here

Only nine days to go

In nine days’ time the European Commission will cease to exist. The new Commission will be chosen by the new President in consultation with member states, in time for them all to stand before the European Parliament to be approved of in September.

There is one problem, however: with nine days to go, there seems to be no agreement as to who the next President of the Commission is to be. France and Germany want Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium, mainly because that would annoy Britain and many of the new members, who are not behaving with due decorum and, of course, will cause a major headache in the United States.

Not that the Americans are likely to recognize the name, but they will recall that the Prime Minister of Belgium announced very soon after the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon that the war against terror had nothing to do with America’s allies. They and their NATO allies will also recall that Verhofstadt has been vociferous in his calls for an autonomous euro-army, outside NATO control. Presumably, Belgium proposes to play a significant part in that army.

The rest of us can simply remember that Verhofstadt’s main political aim, on his own account, was to destroy the main opposition party in the Flemish part of the country, the Vlaams Blok, which has been going from strength to strength in the voters’ estimation.

Britain rather half-heartedly proposed Chris Patten, who was rejected because his French is not up to the required standard and because he is British. That has become quite clear with Chancellor Schröder’s spokesman expressing the view that “non-core” countries should not have a say in who becomes President of the Commission.

One assumes that “non-core” means not being part of the eurozone – there are now thirteen countries in that category – and not being part of Schengen – which is a moveable feast, with countries opting in and out of parts of it. As it happens, this is against the EU rules, as they stand. It also annoys a number of smaller countries, who are growing more and more irate with the high-handed attitude of the Franco-German axis.

There are one or two other contenders, most of whom seem to be Portuguese, which is, presumably, a coincidence. Then there is Bertie Ahern. EU leaders are so grateful for his incredible efforts that produced the agreement last week in Brussels that he seems to command more support than anyone else. There is just one problem: mindful, perhaps, of the way Presidents of the Commission have been chewed up and spat out by the politics of the Union, Mr Ahern insists that he wants none of that “grinning honour”, as Falstaff put it.

A failure to understand

No matter how often pundits, learned or otherwise, proclaim that the European Union is unique, most commentators still insist on seeing it within frames of reference with which they are familiar. Unfortunately, they end up failing completely to understand the nature of the Union and, in so doing, struggle to understand what the "project" is all about.

A case in point is Michael Gove, that supremely important Times columnist, who has gravely instructed us over many years in the ways of things political. But, while no doubt savvy in the ways of Whitehall and Westminster, even he appears to have very little idea of how the EU is constructed, and how it is run.

That much is evident from his column in today’s paper, where he pronounces on the functioning of the "European Council", describing it as "the EU's supreme decision-making body".

Gove's first mistake is to confuse the European Council with the Council of Ministers (abbreviated simply to the "Council" in the constitution), which is an altogether different institution within the EU, with different functions, powers and make-up. When he refers to the said "European Council", he actually means the "Council".

As I had cause to do when I wrote an earlier Blog (also on the European Council), I have to warn the reader that this is no mere semantic difference.

The European Council is the institution comprising the heads of states and governments, whereas the Council is the portmanteau term which describes the various sectoral groups of national ministers which meet periodically to approve legislation proposed by the Commission. The two institutions are as different as chalk and cheese.

But Gove's second, and even bigger mistake is in describing the "European Council" – by which he means the Council – as "the EU's supreme decision-making body".

That it isn't thus is self evident from the simple knowledge that the Council increasingly performs a joint function with the European parliament in approving legislation (the process known as co-decision) and is therefore on a par with the parliament. But it also stems from knowledge that the powers of the Council are limited merely to approving the Commission's legislative proposals see separate Blog.

But perhaps Gove's biggest mistake is a reflection of his own limitations – which are entirely understandable – in that he insists on seeing the EU through the filter of his own experiences, and thereby seeks to impose a neat hierarchical structure on the organisation which simply does not exist.

I am sure that, in his ordered little world, Gove sees a neat pyramidal structure, with the Commission as the bottom, as a sort of quasi-civil service, topped by his "supreme" body, the Council. But it ain't like that at all. What we have in the EU is, in all senses of the word, unique. For once the description is not overblown.

In essence, The EU is an institutionalised conflict between two ideologies and two incompatible structures, each co-existing uneasily within the same organisation, locked in a battle for survival from which only one will emerge victorious.

As to the two ideologies, the core of the EU is "supranationalism", this being the Monnet model of a technocratic, centralised government, embodied in the Commission. The other is "intergovernmentalism", supposedly free co-operation between independent, sovereign nation states, with governments coming together to resolve issues of common concern. Within the EU structure, this is currently embodied in the form of the European Council.

Rather than having a hierarchical relationship, these two bodies are in their own ways rival governments of the EU, although as the Union is currently structured, each have their own domains and fiefdoms, with only a few areas of overlap. Largely, the Commission deals with the "low politics" of technocratic micro-management – such as the administration of the Single Market – while the European Council lays claim to the "high politics" of foreign policy, security and defence.

Where the battle lines are drawn is in the areas of overlap, with the Commission continually seeking to break out of its own domain into "high politics", forever getting slapped down by the European Council, which in turn is seeking to extend its own domain at the expense of the member states.

Therein is the underlying tension which dominates the struggle for a "constitution for Europe". Above all else, it is an old-fashioned power struggle between two rival ideologies, each seeking to carve out territory at the expense of the other, and both at the expense of the nation states. As it stands, both get something out of the constitution and the net losers are the nation states.

But until Mr Gove and his fellow commentators get their heads round the basic structures of the EU, they will not even begin to understand these dynamics. We will be returning to them in future Blogs but, in the meantime, Mr Gove could perhaps benefit from reading The Great Deception.

Mr Straw reassures us ... sort of

Up and down the country people have been calculating when the referendum on the Constitution might take place and how its timing will fit in with a general election and the British Presidency of the European Union, due to start on July 1, 2005. The jig-saw pieces do not fit terribly well, and there have been murmurings that the Government may well decide to hold the referendum as late as possible in order to let some other country vote no first.

That will kill the treaty and Tony Blair will be able to relax. Not so, according to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The UK, he tells us, has a solemn obligation to ratify the treaty and that will include holding a referendum, as promised.

This is not an accurate account of what will happen. In fact, the treaty is ratified by the Crown and what Parliament has to pass is an amendment to the European Communities Act. It is that piece of legislation that will go to the people, one assumes, in the form of a referendum. One of the most ferocious arguments will be the wording of the question.

In the meantime Mr Straw, supported by the Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, yet again poured scorn on the concept of the superstate. How they love that expression. It is not going to be a superstate, we are told endlessly and with a visible smirk of superiority. Well, who cares whether it is super or not? It will be a single state and that is what worries people.

Mr Straw, without the support of Signor Frattini this time, also poured scorn on the Conservative Party, its leader and all those who have supported its policy on the Constitution.

“He doesn’t want to discuss the issues. He doesn’t want to accept that he has been peddling myths and lies about this Constitution. He doesn’t want to accept that what happened was a defeat for the Conservatives’ strategy.

“We are delivering a flexible Europe and yet he is still opposed to this.”

Hmm. What is a flexible Europe, precisely? If Mr Straw is that anxious to have an open and reasonable discussion on the subject he might start by making it clear that he understands the difference between Europe and the European Union.

Furthermore, there has been a singular reluctance on the part of the Government, of which Mr Straw is an important member, to discuss the issues. We have had a great deal of vaporous generalization of “the flexible Europe” kind but little in the way of hard facts.

If Mr Straw does want to discuss the issues, he might start by telling us in how many areas has the Government surrendered the veto. He might then tell us precisely what has been gained in Britain’s interests or, at least, what has been retained.

He might then go on to explain why the European Public Prosecutor, whose existence was “completely unacceptable” to Britain not that long ago, is still securely positioned in the Constitution. And finally, at least for now, Mr Straw might like to explain as part of an open discussion of the issues, how handing over our economic policy to EU competence is in Britain’s interest and how it contributes to a “flexible Europe”.

That will do to be going on with.

Myth of the week

The European Union is democratically controlled

Part I – The Council of Ministers

In answer to the charge that "Europe is undemocratic and that power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats," the UK Representation of the European Commission is fond of reminding us that

The most powerful decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, is responsible through its members to parliaments and electorates in every EU country.

Furthermore, it states, "Each country decides how to make its ministers accountable." ref UKREC.

Thus, the Commission effectively argues, because Council members are responsible to their electorates, the European Union is democratically controlled. (It goes on then to describe the role of the European Parliament – we will deal with that in Part II of this piece.)

In order to explode this particular myth – that the Council somehow adds democratic legitimacy to the European Union – we simply need to look at what the Council is, and what it does.

Firstly, the Council itself. In fact there are many "Councils" each dealing with specific policy areas – like environment, transport, fisheries, agriculture, etc. Their members are the sectoral ministers from the member states, each council comprising the same number of ministers as there are member states.

So what do they do?

The answer to that is quite simple – they "legislate". That is, they receive proposals from the unelected Commission, asking them to take powers and/or responsibilities from their member state governments (or to impose obligations on their citizens).

They then turn these proposals into laws, giving the Commission the powers it asks for – often acting by qualified majority voting - thereby depriving their own governments (and/or citizens) of power.

That's it.

From then on, the Commission having been given the power, it keeps it, to exercise as it thinks fit. The Council has no further part to play in the process, unless or until the Commission comes back to ask it to amend or extend those powers (or both).

Does the Council maintain an oversight over how those powers are exercised? No.

Has the Council any power to call the Commission to account over the way it uses its powers? No.

Can the Council remove or modify those powers, if it is unsatisfied with the way the Commission is performing? No.

Does the Council even have the power to ask the Commission for information on its performance? Er… No.

So what is the Council?

In effect, it is a transfer station. On the basis of proposals from the Commission, it handles the process of taking powers from member states, packaging them up and shovelling them into the Commission, for them never to be returned.

Does it ask the electorate in advance - through an election manifesto - what powers it should hand over? No.

And is any record kept of which particular ministers vote for what, so that they can be taken to task by their electorates, if they vote the wrong way? No.

That's democratic?

Worth a read

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has posted a facinating article on the Strauss-Kahn report. It is well worth a read click here.

The Brussels Broadcasting Company

BBC News Online has looked at "some of the myths and realities of the constitution", in a Q&A; format. As befits the alternative meaning for its initials, it somehow finds that the constitution is not at all threatening.

We have reproduced its somewhat facile Q&A; session, and added some comments of our own, in italics. Comments by readers would be welcome.

Will this lead to a United States of Europe like the USA?

No. The EU constitution is a balance between the demands of those who want more integration and those who want to preserve the rights of the nation states. In some areas, the constitution widens the areas of joint action to be decided by majority voting, into immigration and asylum policy for example. But in other areas, member states can still go their own way (in defence and foreign policy and tax, for example).

Not yet. But the EU constitution represents yet another attempt by the integrationalists to extend the power of the EU in fulfilment of their long-term ambition to create a United States of Europe. As with previous treaties, they have not got all they want, but the constitution represents a significant step towards that goal. And, once they have got the constitution “in the bag”, they will be back for more.

The EU will now have a president and a foreign minister in addition to its parliament, supreme court, civil service, flag and anthem. Is it not therefore a state?

No. These institutions are for specifically European Union functions, and some sound grander than they are. The EU in fact already has three "presidents" - of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. What is new is that the Council Presidency, a post currently held by one member state for six months, will become a permanent position. But the powers of the president will be limited. He or she will not be comparable to the US or French presidents.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck… it is a duck. Despite this, the current national attributes of the EU do not, in themselves make a state, but they represent the milestones achieved in pursuit of that aim.

Does a Foreign Minister mean a common foreign policy?

Not in the EU. There is already a "high representative" for foreign policy and although the new post will be a bit grander, the foreign minister will be able to speak for the EU only when there is an agreed policy - over the Middle East peace process for example. If there is a disagreement, as over Iraq, he or she will be powerless.

The pursuit of a common foreign policy, binding on all membere states, has always been the "Holy Grail" of the European integrationalists. The appointment of a European Union Foreign Minister brings that goal one step closer.

Does the constitution confirm that this is a Europe of nation states?

No. It confirms that the European Union is a compromise. The nation states have given up some of their rights - over the internal market, foreign trade, agriculture, fisheries and the environment for example. So they are not entirely sovereign, by choice. If they want to be entirely sovereign, they can leave the Union.

It confirms that the integrationalists have not yet achieved their final goal. It is a compromise only in the sense that the member states have not given up quite as many powers as the integrationalists demanded. And, to be pedantic, it is arguable as to whether it is the "nation states" which have given up their powers, or their governments. In the latter event, have the people been given the "choice"?

How much does the constitution change things?

It will lead to more qualified majority voting, but the basic institutions will remain. Opponents say that the constitution will lead to further unnecessary integration and that it opens the way to more; supporters argue that such integration is limited and necessary for the common good.

It increases the power vested in the European Union institutions, and gives nothing back. The basic institutions remain but it absorbs the previously intergovernmental European Council into the maw of the European Union as a fully-fledged institution, defining its roles, procedures and powers, thereby making heads of state and government subordinate in important respects to the Commission and the European Court of Justice.

The constitution says that its law is supreme. Will the EU impose its law?

The procedures by which laws are passed have not fundamentally changed. Laws will still be proposed by the executive body, the Commission, and agreed jointly by member states and the European parliament. EU law is supreme in those areas where it has the right to legislate, but that has always been the case.

But a lot more policy areas have been passed to the Commission – so there will be a lot more laws covering many more fields. Furthermore, progressively, the Commission is moving into the field of enforcement – outwith the constitution. This may be happening slowly, but it is also a fundamental change. And the Commission is not the homely "executive body" in the sense that the BBC would like to convey… It is a fully-fledged government of the EU.

Will the Charter of Fundamental Rights interfere with national laws?

The Charter sets out a list of rights from the right to life to the right to strike. The UK government was worried that it might affect national industrial relations laws and says that it will not do so, but the Charter has yet to be tested in the courts.

The Charter most certainly will be tested in the courts – the ECJ is waiting to get its hands on it, and there are few who doubt the outcome.

This won't be the end of EU arguments, though?

No it won't. There will always be tension between those who want to go further and those who want to hold back. Some supporters of a federal Europe might forge ahead in some new areas like tax harmonisation and social security, as they have done with the single currency, the euro. The show goes on.

This gives the game away… "there will always be tension between those who want to go further and those who want to hold back". The trouble is that the process of integration only goes in one direction. Powers which are ceded by nation states are never returned. Each step towards full integration is followed by another, and another, with no end point in sight. The constitution is simply another step on the way and after that, there will be another, and another. This is why the constitution must be stopped.

Are they listening to themselves? - Part IV

With all the attention on the Brussels document with its amendments to the Constitution (or not) it is easy to forget that other matters were thrashed out last week as well.

There was the question of the low turn-out at the European elections, something of a facer, one would have thought. Not a bit of it:

“The European Council expressed its concern at the low voter turnout in last week's elections to the European Parliament. It recognises the need to strengthen a sense among the citizens of Europe of the importance of the work of the Union and its relevance to their daily lives.

Following a preliminary discussion on this occasion, the European Council intends to return to the subject at its next meeting. In the interim, it welcomes the intention of the Netherlands Presidency to take forward the "Communicating Europe" initiative of the Irish Presidency.”

It’s good to know these people live in the real world. How do we make sure that the “citizens” of the European Union learn to love the Union? By interfering with their lives even more.

As for that “Communicating Europe” initiative that, I must confess, I have not heard of until now, it cannot be deemed to have been a huge success. Naturally, it must be carried forward.

Not a semantic difference

It is no wonder that Mr Blair is having difficulty in understanding why people are getting upset about the concept of loss of sovereignty. In his own mind, he seems already to have ceded it, or failed completely to realise what it is.

The clue is given in the opening to his statement to the Commons at 3.30 this afternoon, when he proudly announced that the European Council had agreed to the new treaty.

Wrong Mr Blair. The European Council, as constituted, is an institution of the European Union, set up to give political guidance and direction to the Union. Its members, therefore, sit as members of the European Union.

In fact, it was the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) – an assembly of heads of states and governments of supposedly sovereign nations – meeting outside the framework of the European Union, that agreed the treaty.

The difference is more than semantic. The difference is between an institution deciding its own fate, and free sovereign nations deciding theirs. If Mr Blair cannot understand the difference, it is no wonder he sees nothing wrong with foisting this constitution on us.

We will be analysing in depth Mr Blair's statement, and Mr Howard's response, tomorrow, when we have the Hansard record.

Red lines wavering

Yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph did us all a favour by listing those famous and completely unmemorable “red lines” as well as explaining what happened to them. Since all sorts of things have been named as Tony Blair’s “red lines” – are these different from lines in the sand, one wonders – we should all take the opportunity to glance at the original short list.

The first “red line”, which many of us have forgotten and the government has carefully not mentioned for some time, was the creation of a European Public Prosecutor. “Unacceptable” thundered Blair and Straw. Hmmm. Well, apparently, a corpus of EU law with its own prosecuting authority is acceptable. The nascent European police force, mentioned by the Sunday Telegraph leader was set up a little while ago, with all sorts of rights and privileges. [see III-174(2) on page 20 of the Brussels document but also III-174 and 175 in the apparently unaltered text of of the draft Constitution]

Article III-175(2) of the draft text states:

“The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgement, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of and accomplices in serious crimes affecting more than one Member State and of offences against the Union’s financial interests, as determined by the European law provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.”

So far as we know that has not been amended, much less deleted from the text. Nor was the position and existence of the European Public Prosecutor discussed at the Summit last week.

The second “red line” was the non-judiciability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Though the slightly amended text appears to make various rather vague references to the courts and judicial procedures of the member states, and the need “to give due” regard to the Charter in these courts, the senior judge at the ECJ has said that he would regard that document as legally binding. Experience tells one that judges of ECJ tend to win those tugs-of-war.

What, indeed, could it be, but “legally binding”? If it is not that, then what is it doing in the Constitution?

The third “red line” was foreign and security policy. Though nominally the unanimity has been secured for the framework policies (there has been QMV for individual decisions for some time with a proviso for countries opting out if they felt their national interests were at stake), the relevant text, as quoted by the Sunday Telegraph, is revealing:

“The common foreign and security policy shall cover all aspects of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security. Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly.”

One should recall that the nascent EU force was created for peace-keeping, peace-making, carrying out the Petersberg tasks (another one of those documents nobody can quite remember) and promote the common foreign and security policy.

It is also worth remembering, as the Wall Street Journal Europe pointed out on Thursday, June 17, that no matter what the Constitution says or does not say, the European Defence Agency and the European Foreign Service are going ahead. Had Mr Blair really wanted to defend that “red line”, he might have considered stopping procedures there.

The European Defence Agency, to be operational by the end of the year, is intended to be a common agency for defence capabilities development, research, procurement and armaments. When one adds to that our increasing involvement in the Galileo surveillance system, the EU’s rival to the American GPS, which is available free to end users, the notion of keeping control of our security policy becomes tenuous.

The European Foreign Service has existed, barely noticed, for a number of years. At first, the funding for these offices, some of which were headed by people with ambassadorial ranks, was buried among the various “lines” (though not red ones). Under some pressure the Commission separated the accounts out.

Now the EU corps of diplomats, to be answerable to the EU Foreign Minister, is being created as an official entity. There is no intention to wait for the Constitution to create that particular job. The assumption of its existence is there and his diplomats will descend on all the nicer capitals of the world (there seem to be no plans to open offices in neighbouring Moldova or Belarus), to duplicate or supersede the national embassies.

That leaves “red line” number four, fiscal sovereignty, taxation to you and me. Mr Blair did not preserve that “red line” because it was not on the agenda in Brussels. A number of other member states protested and the issue was quietly dropped as Bertie Ahern was adding up his air miles.

So, the British government is in charge of taxation in Britain? Up to a point. The point being: common rules on VAT, external tariffs, duty free and tax evasion, as well as permissible budget deficits. The individual states in America have more fiscal sovereignty than that.

Furthermore, it is worth remembering, as few journalists have done, that fiscal policy cannot be separated from economic. And what does the Brussels document say on that:

Article I-11 (3)
3. The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by Part III, which the Union shall have competence to provide.

Article I-14 (1)
1. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end, the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies.

As another Prime Minister once said: game, set and match. Unfortunately, British politicians and negotiators do nor seem to do any better than British tennis players. Worse, if anything.

Download available

Courtesy of a Blog reader, Francis Turner, the .pdf format analysis of the Brussels Agreement on the constitutional treaty can now be downloaded directly from this site. To obtain your copy, click here.

Many thanks to Francis Turner. His blog, the maunderings of an Englishman on the Cóte d'Azur can be seen here.

A landmark of sorts

At 9.30 this morning (BST), on the longest day of the year, this blog reached a landmark of sorts. It registered 10,000 hits.

This may not sound a great deal but consider the facts: the blog has been going for eight weeks only and it is run by two people, who, between them try to keep down a number of day jobs as well. We do have some outside contributors, to whom we are very grateful. We hope they will continue to supply us with material and that others will appear.

We are getting no financial support from anywhere, though, as we are contributing a great deal to that discussion on Europe that the europhiles are calling for all the time, perhaps we should apply for some EU funds. (Joke!!!!)

Many of our hits are from new visitors but, equally, there are many returnees and, on average, people stay on the blog for 30 minutes or so. In other words, what we write people want to read.

This can be put down mainly to a widespread desire in this country and elsewhere (we do have readers on the Continent and in the United States) to find out more about what is going on in and around the European Union. And that can be put down to a growing conviction that whatever it is that politicians tell us, it is not the truth.

About half the hits were registered in the last two weeks and that, too, is understandable. Much happened in that time: the European elections with the preceding campaigns across the EU; the results, so painful to our leaders, who are determined to ignore them; the negotiations before the Brussels Summit; the Summit itself and the tortuous, opaque, barely comprehensible document that came out of it.

As we enter the prelimiary skirmishings around the EU Constitution, we predict that many more people will want to read what appears on this blog. News of it has spread by word of mouth and through its electronic equivalent: links and references on other websites and weblogs. We rely on our readers for our advertising.

One more thing: Mr Blair would be very pleased to know that we started the battle between myth and reality some time ago. We have been collecting, analyzing and disproving EU Myths and we intend to go on with that task. As soon as there is a round dozen, we shall send Mr Blair a copy of the collection in either electronic of printed format. We think he might find it useful.

Myths and reality

If prime minister Blair wants to fight the EU referendum on the basis of separating "myths from reality", then he has a personal problem. That problem is quite simple – he, himself does not seem to know the difference between the two. Given this overwhelming handicap, allocating two years for the referendum campaign will not help him.

However, his bigger problem is going to be even more insurmountable. After seven years as prime minister, he has acquired that patina of arrogance that so often infects the holders of this office. He is beginning to treat his electors as if they were stupid.

If I know my fellow man at all well, there is one thing which I believe they will not tolerate. The will accept being kept in the dark – on occasions – they do not particularly object to be neglected, and don’t even mind being insulted, pace "the weakest link".

But what they will not put with is being patronised. That knowing, sneering demeanour that says "I know best" and "You're too stupid to understand so I can feed you any old crap and you'll believe it".

As The Times pointed out today, people can read. A very large number of people are going to read the constitution – or attempt to. There, they are going to find the reality and thus identify the myth-maker that is Tony Blair. Then there will indeed be a "fascinating political battle", as Blair puts it. But he ain't going to win it.

And that is the reality.

It's finished

The analysis of the Brussels summit agreement on the "Treaty Establishing A Constitution for Europe" is finished. The whole sequence starts here.

If you prefer to read the analysis "off-line", or want a "clean" copy, a .pdf version is now available (16 pages). To obtain a copy, either e-mail me at my personal address click here or e-mail us from the "contact us" link on the sidebar (left).

How they see it in Washington

This is what the op-ed in the Washington Times, entitled "Euroskeptics and political reality" has to say on the frantic attempts by the euro-elites to push through the Constitution in the wake of the last, for them catastrophic, election results:

"At 200 pages and counting, the EU constitution is more an exercise in piddling legalities than in promoting the public welfare. While debating constitutional minutiae, European leaders should not ignore the fact that many Europeans simply do not understand how a superstate will benefit them, nor do they care very much. Plowing ahead with fantasies of a continent united while ignoring national sovereignty will not only lead to failure, but will set a terrible precedent for the rest of the international community.

"The United States should not stay too quiet while the process of EU building forges ahead if it appears that smaller nations are in danger of forfeiting their sovereignty. Such silence would undermine U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court and other post-modern institutions."

Click here to read the whole article.

Read this and weep

For many years now – since 1992, to be precise – Christopher Booker, with a little help from me and a great deal from his readers, has carved out a niche in British journalism.

Every Sunday, he churns out "red tape" stories in The Sunday Telegraph that infuriate and appal an ever-growing band of devotees, bringing to public attention the practical effects of the torrent of absurd legislation emanating from that alien form of government in Brussels called the European Union.

Despite that fact that many of the stories that Booker publishes are later picked up by other journalists – often without any acknowledgement – the reaction from the bulk of the "chattering classes" is to treat Booker with lofty disdain. "Oh, that's Booker 'banging on' again", they say, as they dissect the far more important "tittle-tattle" that preoccupies the Westminster village.

As we struggle to bring home the realities of what is happening out there, in the real world, this infuriating, patronising "clever-dickery" prompts one to fantasise about ripping the lungs out of these morons and stuffing them down their throats – such is the despair at getting these mindless buffoons to wake up to what is happening.

No more so is this the case than with the latest raft of stories in today’s Booker column, which focus on the impending disaster arising from the total, absolute, complete cock-up the EU and the British government have made of our waste-disposal policy click here.

"Oh, how tedious", one can hear the clever-dicks say. "We have this constitution thingy to write about, and all Booker can do is bang on about rubbish".

But this time, as Booker writes, it is a Government agency that is warning that the nation is about to be plunged into an unprecedented crisis, "a chaos that the Government is powerless to avoid". Theory is about to collude with practice as the consequences of EU meddling become apparent. Those lame-brained drongos in the EU have spent the last few decades dismantling our arrangements for dealing with toxic waste and replacing it with, er… absolutely nothing.

The immediate problem is that, on July 15, to comply with the EC's landfill directive, 99/31, the vast majority of Britain's 218 landfill sites will be closed to "hazardous waste", leaving only five still open. Vast areas of the country will no longer provide any site licensed to take the two million tons of such waste that we currently bury in ordinary landfill sites - anything from television sets to builders' rubble.

As Booker writes, the Environment Agency itself, in the magazine Your Environment, foresees a "nightmare" in the handling of such waste, with "criminals dumping it illegally" in an epidemic of fly-tipping, "lorries crammed full of it clogging the motorways", and even the collapse of the Government's own "brownfield development programme". And this is only a foretaste of the wider crisis that looms as the various elements of the EU's ambitious waste policy begin to impact on each other.

"But it is timely that this should coincide with efforts to agree a constitution to sanctify the EU's new system of government..", Booker notes. Despite the scale of the catastrophe, "it is just a small part of the price we pay for handing over the running of our country to the form of government Mr Blair this weekend seems happy to cement into place". Clever-dicks apart, it is a price that many of us believe is simply not worth paying.

A role for national parliaments

One of the lies already being broadcast about the constitution is that it gives a greater role for national parliaments, thereby increasing the accountability and democracy of the European Union.

The basis of this mendacity is the "Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality". This provides that if one third of the parliaments of the member states object to a draft legislative proposal from the Commission, on the grounds that it does not comply with the principle of "subsidiary", then "the draft must be reviewed".

But, following that review, the Commission "may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft". In other words, the national parliaments have no power in this matter. The Commission can carry on as before, ignoring entirely the views of the parliaments.

That, in itself is bad enough, but what has not generally been pointed out is how this affects the stature of national parliaments.

In the broader scheme of things, national parliaments are sovereign over their own nations and territories. As sovereign parliaments, they already have the right to reject any proposals from the Commission, and refuse to enact them into national law.

But this protocol changes that relationship. It denies them the power to reject outright any Commission proposals and casts the parliaments in the role of supplicants. They are allowed to approach the Commission and say "pretty please", will you be ever so kind and reconsider one of your proposed laws?

The Commission is then cast in the dominant role. It is not obliged to withdraw its proposal and the parliaments have no powers to demand that it does so. In other words, within the terms of this protocol, democratically elected parliaments are subordinated to the unelected Commission.

Far from increasing the accountability and democracy of the European Union, therefore, this is a profoundly federalising provision which relegates national parliaments to a junior, subordinate position in the hierarchy of the Union. Parliaments will have exchanged their powers for a mere "role" as beggars and supplicants.

Back to the treadmill

We have posted another Blog in the sequence on Friday’s Brussels agreement on the constitution – this one on "enhanced co-operation" click here. It's amazing what a period spent lying down in a dark room does for the thought processes.

And it appears that we are not the only ones suffering. We’ve had a number of agonised communications from readers who are finding the text very difficult to understand, not a few asking whether they are going mad. If it is any consolation, however, the answer is "no". The sign of madness is if you do understand it.

We will post the remaining analyses of the Brussels agreement today and then get down to the more entertaining work of being rude about politicians.

You couldn't make it up

Annex 17 of CIG84/04, otherwise known as the document agreed on in Brussels on June 18. The new text will be added to the Constitution.

Article IV-10 new (2)

2. This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.

Declaration for incorporation in the Final Act re Article IV-10 (2)

The Conference considers that the possibility of producing official translations of the Treaty in the languages mentioned in the second paragraph of Article IV-10 contributes to fulfilling the objective of respecting the Union's rich cultural and linguistic diversity as set forth in paragraph 3 of Article I-3 of the Treaty. In this context, the Conference confirms the attachment of the Union to the cultural diversity of Europe and the special attention it will continue to pay to these and other languages.

The Conference recommends that those Member States wishing to avail themselves of the possibility recognised in Article IV-10(2) communicate to the Council, within six months from the date of the signature of the Treaty, the language or languages into which translations of the Treaty will be made

I'm losing it...

Will someone please tell me what the *&!%)+" $^&* this means?

"Where a provision of the Constitution which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall act unanimously, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article I-43(3), may decide to act by qualified majority." (Article III-328 (1))

It's not me, honest... nah, it can't be... nah... please, nah...

I'm going to lie down in a dark room. I may be some time.

So much noise, so little substance

Last December the great leaders of the European Union failed to agree on its Constitution. Apparently after almost two years of discussion and negotiation there were insuperable barriers between the various member states.

After six months, many thousands of air miles covered by Bertie Ahern, more rows and negotiations as well as a set of European election results that can best be described as catastrophic for those self-same leaders, we have an agreement. Tony Blair, looking pale and bleary-eyed sounded his usual pompous self when he spoke about it:

"A new Europe has taken shape," the Prime Minister said. "A Europe in which Britain can build alliances and feel at home." What on earth is he talking about?

Describing the Battle of Valmy, fought by the ragamuffin armies of Revolutionary France and the professional troops of Prussia and Austria on September 20, 1792, Goethe said: “ From this place and from this day forth commences a new era in the world's history, and you can all say that you were present at its birth.”

Though the battle itself was more of a skirmish, the comment was accurate enough. The ragamuffin armies stopped the professional troops, effectively lifted the siege of Paris, saved the Revolution, made all its developments possible and, one might say grandiloquently, ushered in the modern world with all its good and bad aspects.

The sorry spectacle of the EU leaders stumbling out, clutching (metaphorically speaking) a verbose, complicated and barely comprehensible document cannot be described in those exhilarating terms. The new Europe looks remarkably like the old European Union with a few extra notches. In what way is Britain going to feel at home in it? For that matter, in what way is any other country going to feel at home in it?

As for alliances, well, anyone who knows any European history (Mr Blair not being among them) can recall all sorts of alliances Britain managed to build in the past.

What exactly has been achieved with all these alarums and excursions? My colleague has been analyzing the newly produced document in some detail and I have no desire to duplicate his heroic efforts. But a few things need to be recalled.

In the first place, even setting aside the fact that nobody outside the euro-elites sees any need for a Constitution, the one presented by Giscard d’Estaing’s Convention last year was a particularly unsatisfactory document. Over 130 pages of it provided for ever greater power going away from the member states and their elected legislatures to the cumbersome, undemocratic, unaccountable European Union institutions.

Far from defining clearly the relationship between the various institutions and the relationship between the state and the citizen, which is what, we presume, the europhiles mean when they talk of “a tidying up exercise”, this Constitution multiplies detailed and intrusive rules for the running of a centralized, corporatist, largely undemocratic, single state. (Let us not get involved in the argument of what is a superstate and whether the EU is going to be one. It is on track to being a state. That is all that matters.)

Far from limiting the powers of the state and its institutions, this Constitution effectively allows the EU to run all our lives according to some blueprint called “the European model”, which appears to have nothing to do with the people of Europe. If they stray from “the European model” they will be forced back into its straitjacket.

“The European model”, thus, takes its place in a long line of oppressive political ideas that appear to be representative of the people they control but are, in fact, abstractions to be imposed on them. Predecessors include “the popular will”, which had little to do with people and in whose name many tens of thousands were executed or murdered; “the masses” or “the working class”, under whose rule or dictatorship workers had a considerably worse life than under exploitative capitalism; and “the people” in whose name many millions were executed and murdered. “The European model” is different in that it is more benign. There will be no executions, no labour camps. But there will be no European democracy or European growth either.

Very little has been changed in that unsatisfactory document. The fact that the constitution becomes the source of the supremacy of European legislation remains; the “passerelle” clause, which will allow the European Council to decide that matters hitherto decided unanimously can be moved over to QMV will, presumably, remain; the matter of shared competence, which means, in effect, residual competence for the member states remains; the Protocol on the role of national parliaments, which makes it clear that these may be able to complain about the fact that some EU legislation breaks the rules of subsidiarity and proportionality but cannot make the Commission do anything about it has not been changed.

One can go on about it indefinitely. Those famous red lines, which nobody can remember have been preserved. The one about taxation does not matter, as the ECJ is just as effective as any Constitution in pushing through tax harmonization.

Legislation on social security can suddenly find itself under health and safety or the single market, thus negating Blair’s achievement. After all, that is what happened with the Working Time Directive.

Immigration is such a mess anyway, it matters little who is nominally in charge of it. As for defence or security, since we have gone along with the common foreign and security policy, signed up to every so-called anti-terrorist measure, whether it is that or not in realit, agreed to the existence of a Foreign Minister for the EU and are about to get enmeshed in the Galileo surveillance system, that red line can at best be described as a dotted one.

In return Blair has finally surrendered economic and employment policy to be full EU competence, effectively agreeing to an imposition of the sclerotic and deeply unsuccessful economic model that is destroying formerly successful countries like Germany and France.

He has effectively agreed to the full workings of Eurojust that will, we must assume, eventually supplant the British system of justice, which, with all its faults and difficulties, has been reasonably successful.

As for those famous institutional changes without which, we are told, the new European Union cannot function, they have become so opaque and complex that nobody but highly paid constitutional lawyer will ever understand them. Something of an irony this, since the original aim of the Convention was to increase transparency in the workings of the European Union and to bridge the gap between the peoples of Europe and “Europe”, a short-hand for both the euro-elite and the European project.

What they seem to have come up with is a more complicated, more detailed, more intrusive system that will increase the democratic deficit and further alienate the people from the government. Perhaps some of the great leaders should think of what actually preceded the Battle Valmy.

The IGC agreement

Below is a sequence of posts, analysing and explaining the IGC agreement. These are being added-to continuously, each issue being addressed in the order in which it appears in the official text. Therefore, new posts will not appear above this blog, but underneath in an ordered sequence.

You can check to see the new posts by looking at the title index (below left).

We start with a link to the full text of the agreement made yesterday in Brussels. To obtain your copy, click here.

See the Blog immediately below for the summary.

A summary of the agreement

"A difficult, dry technocratic document". That, once again is an offering from Tim Franks, the BBC’s Brussels correspondent. No one would disagree with him. The issues dealt with in yesterday’s summit certainly confirm that assessment, underlining the mind-numbing, technocratic nature of the enterprise. Here are the heads:

 The European Commission
 Definition of qualified majority voting
 Draft Decision relating to implementation of Article I-24
 European Parliament seats
 Provisions specific to Member States whose currency is the euro
 Coordination of Economic Policy
 Declaration on the Stability and Growth Pact
 Measures relating to excessive deficits
 Multiannual Financial Framework
 Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights
 Provisions specific to Member States whose currency is the euro
 Eurojust
 Enhanced Cooperation
 Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion
 Transport
 Energy
 Authentic texts and translations
 Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland on policies in respect of border controls asylum and immigration, judicial cooperation in civil matters and on police cooperation Declaration by Member States

Those who expect a full-blown constitution document will be disappointed. This is not yet available and it will be some days, or even weeks, before the amendments have been integrated and the text approved.

In this context, it would be helpful if people stopped referring to Blair and the other "EU leaders" as having "signed" the constitution. They haven't for precisely the reason indicated above. The summit merely agreed the final round of amendments.

Signing will be a grand ceremonial affair, scheduled for some time later this year. With the hubris for which they have become famous, the "EU leaders" will probably elect Rome for the location.

In the meantime, our analyses are posted immediately under this Blog, and will be added-to throughout the day. When complete, we will attempt to integrate them into a single document.

The European Commission

Details are set out in Article I-25. This Article starts with a general statement of the role and duties of the Commission – which is not new. However, it is useful to restate it here:

 The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end.
 It shall ensure that the Constitution and the measures adopted by the Institutions pursuant thereto are applied.
 It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall implement the budget and manage programmes.
 It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Constitution.
 With the exception of the common foreign and security policy and other cases provided for in the Constitution, it shall ensure the Union's external representation.
 It shall initiate the Union's annual and multi-annual programming with a view to achieving inter-institutional agreements.

Furthermore, the Commission retains its "right of initiative" so that legislative acts may be adopted only on the basis of a Commission proposal (although there are some exceptions, such as allowing the ECB to make economic proposals).

Before looking at the changes, it is worth stopping here and looking at these roles and duties. By any measure, what is being described here are the duties of a government. This is the definition of a government of the European Union.

Amendments

The key points are as follows:

The Members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment and their independence shall be beyond doubt.
The first Commission appointed under the provisions of the Constitution shall consist of one national of each Member State, including its President and the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs who shall be one of its Vice-Presidents.
After this Commission ends, the next one will have a number of commissioners corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States.
The commissioners are to be selected from nationals of the Member States on the basis of a system of equal rotation between the Member States.

This system has not yet been established but must apply the following principles:

(a) Member States shall be treated on a strictly equal footing as regards determination of the sequence of, and the time spent by, their nationals as Members of the Commission; consequently, the difference between the total number of terms of office held by nationals of any given pair of Member States may never be more than one;
(b) subject to point (a), each successive Commission shall be so composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States of the Union.

As before, the commissioners “shall be completely independent”, it should neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or agency. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks.

The Commission, as a body, is responsible to the European Parliament (note, not the member states).

Under the procedures set out in Article III-243, the European Parliament may vote on a censure motion on the Commission. If such a motion is carried, the Members of the Commission shall resign as a body and the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall resign from the Commission.

The President of the European Commission

The selection procedure is set out Article I-26.

At the outset, the constitution aims to inject a political element into the selection process, requiring that the European Council should “take into account” the elections to the European Parliament. This is behind some of the argument at the moment, with the EPP group in the European parliament demanding that the choice of president should reflect the political stance of the dominant group.

However, as we will find with so many things in the constitution, the wording is vague: what does "take into account" actually mean?

Anyhow, the European Council must have "appropriate consultations" with the parliament – whatever that means – but then it makes its choice by qualified majority voting. This means that the UK – or any other country – can be over-ruled and a candidate to which it objects can be imposed. If the constitution comes in, this is the last time that the UK can actually block a candidate,

Once the European Council has made its choice, the final decision is up to the federal European parliament. It must elect the president by "a majority of its members". If the parliament cannot decide, however – i.e., there is no majority – then the candidate is not appointed. The European Council steps in again and, acting by a qualified majority, has one month to propose another candidate, who then has to be elected by the parliament, as before.

As to the rest of the Commission, the Council (it is not clear here whether the constitution is referring to the European Council or the Council of Ministers) then adopts a list of “other persons” “by common accord with the President-elect” – whatever that means. The Commission is then voted in as a body by the parliament, following which the European Council, again by QMV.

As to resignations, a member of the Commission is required to resign if the President so requests. A slightly different procedure is set out for the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Looking at this while article in the round, what the constitution effectively does is reduce substantially the right of any member state government to select and appoint the president of the Commission, and vest the ultimate choice in the parliament which – by and large – shares the Commission’s integrational ambitions. The system now favours, therefore, the appointment of a president dedicated to furthering European integration. In any event, this does not in any way strengthen the powers of the member states.

Qualified Majority Voting

The final agreement is set out in an amended Article I-24. To say that the procedure is mind-bogglingly complex is something of an understatement. The text actually does not make sense but, as far as I can work out, there are two stages:

Firstly, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 percent of the members of the Council.

However, the majority must comprise at least fifteen member states which must collectively comprise at least 65 percent of the population of the Union (which is actually 60 percent of the member states).

Then, the "blocking minority" must include at least four Council members.

Only if all three hurdles are surmounted are the conditions satisfied.

However, just in case you thought you understood it, when the Council is not acting on a proposal from the Commission or from the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, the qualified majority is 72 percent of the members of the Council, representing Member States comprising at least 65 percent of the population of the Union.

Then, there are separate cases, where only some Council members have the right to vote, such as with enhanced cooperation or Eurozone.

In these cases, the percentages are applicable only to Council members which have the right to vote and to the population of the Member States which they represent. The blocking minority will be "the minimum number capable of constituting a blocking minority through the population criterion plus one".

If anybody understand all this, perhaps they would be kind enough to explain it to me.

European Parliament seats

Article I-19 (2) refers.

The Article sets out that the EU parliament should be composed of "representatives of the Union's citizens" and limits its size to 750 members.

Crucially, it then requires that "representation… shall be degressively proportional", with a minimum threshold of six MEPs per Member State. No Member State can have more than 96 seats.

This means that Malta, with a population of 380,000, and Luxembourg with 440,000 (approx) will each have six MEPs. On the other hand, the North East Region of England, with a population of 2.5 million, gets three. That is democracy, EU style.

Provisions specific to euro members

Here Article III-92 (2) sets out the conditions for new entrants to the euro. Basically, if the Commission proposes that non-members satisfy the conditions for entry, the Council can admit those members as long as a majority of the eurozone members agree, that majority comprising eurozone states with at least three fifths of the population of the eurozone.

Co-ordination of economic policy

Articles I-11 (3) and I-14 (1) refer.

These require, respectively, that the Member States shall co-ordinate their economic and employment policies "within arrangements as determined by Part III", which the Union shall have competence to provide, and that Member States shall co-ordinate their economic policies within the Union.

We then have a situation where the Council shall adopt measures (proposed by the Commission) "in particular broad guidelines for these policies".

These must be taken together with "Part III" and in particular Article III-69 (1) which specifies that the "activities of the Memeber States and the Union" shall include "...the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close co-ordination of Member States' economic policies... and on the definition of common objectives".

These Articles, therefore, are of immense importance as they give the Commission direct power to interfere in and dictate the economic management of member states. And, because the voting method is not specified, the "default" applies, as per Article I-22 (3), making proposals subject to QMV.

The Treasury – meaning Gordon Brown - was apparently unhappy about conceding the veto on economic policy but seems to have been convinced that the use of the word "co-ordinate" was so vague as to be "harmless".

If that is truly the view, it grossly underestimates the power and persistence of the Commission. As we all know, if you give it an inch, it will take a kilometre. "Co-ordinate" can be interpreted very widely if there is inclination to do so.

Here, the construction of the wording in Art I-14 is interesting: the Council shall adopt measures "in particular broad guidelines…". While it may focus on those "broad guidelines", it should be noted that the wording does not confine the Council to them. By any measure, a major power has been ceded to the EU.

The UK is, in effect, obliged to subsume its general economic management to the EU, and pursue the "common objectives" set by the EU. Given the vital nature of economic management, can it be said that any country which is not able to define its own economic policy is truly independent?

Stability and growth pact

This is a particularly contentious area, with the Netherlands and some other small countries wanting the Commission to take a tough line on defaulters – as against France and Germany (as well as Italy) seem intent on ignoring the pact.

The Dutch wanted the controls toughened, but the Irish presidency have "bottled out" and produced merely a rhetoric-filled "declaration" which concludes:

"The Member States look forward to possible proposals of the Commission as well as further contributions of Member States with regard to strengthening and clarifying the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact. The Member States will take all necessary measures to raise the growth potential of their economies. Improved economic policy coordination could support this objective. This Declaration does not prejudge the future debate on the Stability and Growth Pact."

In other words, rien.

Excessive deficits

This one relates to the treatment of member states which stack up excessive deficits. Article III-76 (6) refers, which goes through the usual tedium of requiring the Council, "on a proposal from the Commission" and "having considered any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make", and "after an overall assessment"… (not exactly user-friendy text is it!)

Anyway, once it's got all that out of the way, what it boils down to is that it can decide whether there is an excessive deficit and give the offender a slap on the wrist, telling it to sort it out…

In Community speak, that reads "it must adopt without undue delay", on a recommendation from the Commission, "recommendations addressed to the Member State concerned with a view to bringing that situation to an end within a given period".

The recommendations are not made public and – here is the interesting bit - the offender isn't allowed a vote on the Council, which acts under qualified majority voting, using the three-fifths population rule of the voting members.

What this amounts to is the Council setting itself up as a Kangaroo Court, with the Commission as a prosecutor, and then deciding on the sentence by majority vote. That would be the position Britain could find itself in, should it join the euro, being judged – say – by Greece and Italy – and not being allowed to vote.

Can you imagine the humiliation?

The Multiannual Financial Framework

This is one to watch, not least because when you drop this leaden phrase into a conversation, everyone stops talking and gapes in awe at your erudition… at least, I think that's what they were doing when I tried it. Translated from Community-speak, it does of course mean that you make financial plans spanning more than one year – not a bad idea in principle, although that’s neither here nor there.

The reason to watch this – as set out in Article I-54 – is that it has one of those famous "passarelle" clauses, which enable the European Council to turn a "unanimous" voting requirement into QMV – by a unanimous vote. The significance of this is that it amounts to making treaty changes – or changes which would have required treaty changes, if you catch my drift – without having to have an IGC, signing and that tiresome process of ratification.

Thus, under Article I-54 the Council can lay down a multiannual financial framework, acting unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. But, if it feels like it, the European Council "may adopt, by unanimity, a European decision allowing for the Council to act by a qualified majority when setting out the multiannual framework".

The existence of the "passarelle" represents a partial climb-down by the "colleagues" as in an earlier draft the Council could act by QMV, so this is one of the "red lines" that Blair has managed to "protect". For now he has his veto but the colleagues have not gone all the way. They have left the door half open to revisit QMV at another time – when they have a different prime minister, of catch him/her at a moment of weakness.

The trouble with this clause is that our lot keep having to say "no" which puts them on the back foot. But say "yes" once and they’ve got you. You might say this is a "wobbly veto".

Charter of Fundamental Rights

This is one of Blair's "red line" issues, where he did not want the Charter to have direct application in British law. His idea was that the principles should apply only to EU laws.

To protect his "red line", the "colleagues" agreed to insert an amendment to the 5th paragraph of the Preamble of Part II, the whole of which is reproduced below with the crucial amendment in bold.

This Charter reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of the Union and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Social Charters adopted by the Union and by the Council of Europe and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights. In this context the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention.

Clear so far?

And just to make this watertight, they have added a new paragraph 7 to Article II-52: "Scope and interpretation of rights and principles". This reads

The explanations drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights shall be given due regard by the courts of the Union and of the Member States.

Then, to nail the lid down, there is the "Declaration for incorporation in the Final Act concerning the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights". This reads:

The Conference takes note of the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter and updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention, as set out below.

That’s it folks… Blair’s red line. That’s telling them.

Oh, and by the way, you know that bit about "even closer union" having been removed from the constitution? Actually, it's still there. See the premable to Part II. The first recital reads: "The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values".

Funny thing is I don't ever remember "creating an ever closer union" and I'm not that sure that my values are that common.

More provisions specific to euro members

I really can't get my head round this one. This is an amendment to Article III-88 (1), which reads as follows:

In order to ensure the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Council shall, in accordance with the relevant procedure from among those referred to in Articles III-71 and III-76, with the exception of the procedure set out in paragraph 13 thereof, adopt measures specific to those Member States whose currency is the euro.

If you can make sense out of this, you need to lie down. No wonder Blair looked ill when he came out of the summit.

Eurojust

This is a seriously nasty one, which permits the creation of a European Union criminal justice organisation – an FBI equivalent. Amazingly, the bulk of the provisions in the draft constitution (Articles III-171 to 174) were agreed before the summit, including the so-called "emergency brake".

This is dealt with in an earlier Blog, click here, the procedure allowing any member of the Council which considers that a "draft European law" would infringe "the fundamental principles of its legal system" to refer the proposal to the European Council.

However, on the basis of "consensus" rather than unanimity, the European Council can send the proposal straight back to the Council, whence it can be approved by QMV. Yet this is supposed to be one of the vetoes that Blair has preserved.

But the only matter before the summit was one addition to Article III-174 (2). This Article permits the making of European laws to "determine Eurojust's structure, operation, field of action and tasks".

The tasks set out in the original version of the constitution were:

the initiation of criminal investigations, as well as proposing the initiation of prosecutions, conducted by competent national authorities, particularly those relating to offences against the financial interests of the Union; and

the strengthening of judicial cooperation, including by resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction and by close cooperation with the European Judicial Network.

To that was added, the "coordination of investigations and prosecutions" which Eurojust is permitted to initiate. This effectively gives Eurojust operational control of both.

But never fear – there is another safeguard, in the form of a "Declaration for incorporation in the Final Act". This reads:

The Conference considers that the European laws referred to in Article III-174(2) should take into account national rules and practices relating to the initiation of criminal investigations.

There you are, when Eurocops are trampling all over the crime scene, you will be comforted to know that the law under which they operate will "take into account national rules and practices".

Take into account? Red line? Pah!

Enhanced co-operation

This is the federalists' revenge – the provision that allows like-minded states to forge ahead with deeper integration, separately from the less enthusiastic states.

Article III-324 states that it is "enhanced cooperation" is open to all Member States and, once certain conditions are satisfied, authorisation to proceed is granted by the Council acting unanimously. While the Council and Commission are required to encourage maximum participation, unlike the Nice and Amsterdam Treaties, there is no minimum number of countries set for a co-operative project.

In the infamous Article III-328 we then have the mind-boggling statement that:

"Where a provision of the Constitution which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall act unanimously, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article I-43(3), may decide to act by qualified majority."

I am "reliably" informed that this means that the "inner core" of participating states can run their affairs under QMV, while others invoke unanimity rules. This may be the case, although that is not exactly what the Article says. Put it down to bad drafting and possibly the surfeit of Guinness consumed by the Irish presidency. Nevertheless, this provision does not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

The upshot of all this, of course, is that we end up with a "multi-speed" Europe with the Europhile claiming that non-participating states will be "left behind" - as if that was a bad thing. Personally, if I saw a group rushing over a cliff to certain destruction, I would be very glad to be left behind.

Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion

Article III-116 refers

You might wonder what such an arcane subject is doing in a "Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe" – and well you might. The answer is simple: pork-barrel politics.

The Article, in the way of things EU, starts off with high-flown phrases, stating:

"In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its action leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion. In particular, the Union shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions."

And so it goes on, but the clue as to what the fuss was all about that brought it to the summit lies Article III-56 (2) (c) and an amendment to it. The sub-paragraph is reproduced below, with the amendment in bold.

2. The following shall be compatible with the internal market:

"(c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, insofar as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a European decision repealing the present point."

Get it?

With the accession of the former Communist countries, East Germany was looking at a marked reduction in state aid earmarked for reconstruction. Since this is where Schröder gets the electoral support which brought him into power – and keeps him there – the chancellor is dead keen to ensure the money keeps flowing.

Direct support, however, is not permitted under EU law, as "illegal state aid", so Schröder has finagled a provision in the constitution to make it legal. That is an example of the "Alice in Wonderland" world of the EU. When is illegal state aid not illegal? – When Germany stamps it foot.

The French have also got their pound of flesh, getting similar exemptions for their overseas departments, to add to already favoured Spanish islands, while the Germans have also got additional exemptions on transport issues, allowing them to support subsidies in East Germany.

But, clearly, blood has been flowing behind the scenes. Some countries wanted the German concessions struck out, but all they have achieved is a tentative time limit. In five years time, the Council may remove their exemptions. Don't hold your breath.

Energy

This a very contentious area of the constitution, which has led to charges that the EU is intent on getting its hands on British North Sea oil – which it probably is.

So contentious has it been that the UK government has been investing a great deal of political capital in neutralising the offending Article (III-157) so much so that the Commission asked for the emasculated remnant to be removed, believing that it could use its Single Market powers to better effect.

Nevertheless, the Article reappeared in the final batch of Irish presidency amendments, the text of which was approved at the Brussels summit unchanged. Actually, there are two relevant Articles, the first is Article I-13, which sets out “Areas of shared competence”, in which “energy” in included.

The substantive Article, though, remains Article III-157, which sets out the objectives of the Union’s energy policy. In establishing an internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, it aims to:

(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market,
(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union, and
(c) promote energy efficiency and saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy.

As always, the objectives are to be achieved through “European laws or framework laws” which, in the general order of things, are passed by the Council and European parliament under the co-decision procedure. Since no general method of Council voting is specified, the “default” procedure must therefore apply, which means QMV.

This then is another veto given up by Blair, although there are safeguards. Built into the Article (rather than tagged on as a woolly declaration) is the caveat that “

Such laws or framework laws shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply…”. And any laws which are “primarily of a fiscal nature” – such as an energy tax - have to be approved unanimously by the Council.

The caveat in the Article is then reinforced by a “woolly declaration” which states that:

“The Conference believes that Article III-157 does not affect the right of the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure their energy supply under the conditions provided for in Article III-16.” This latter Article refers to steps taken to protect the Single Market in times of war or serious internal or external disturbances.

Generally, the Article is not as bad as it could be, in that it does not overtly permit the EU to take over British oil supplies, but it nevertheless affords it plenty of scope for meddling.

Authentic texts and translations

Article IV-10 new (2) refers

Makes provision for the Treaty to be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States which, "in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status…".

This is a sop to the Irish, who made getting Irish recognised as an official Community language one of their presidency objectives. The "Conference" considers that the possibility of producing official translations of the Treaty in these languages "contributes to fulfilling the objective of respecting the Union's rich cultural and linguistic diversity…".

As Helen Szamuely observed, you couldn’t make it up.

The UK and Irish positions on border controls, asylum and immigration, judicial co-operation in civil matters and on police co-operation

These are set out in a protocol to the constitution, the difference between that and a “declaration” being that a protocol has legal effect.

In Article 1, both countries state that, subject to Article 3, they will

"not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Section 2 or Section 3 of Chapter IV of Title III of Part III of the Constitution or to Article III-161 insofar as that Article relates to the areas covered by those Sections or to Article III-164 or Article III-176(2)a."

Section 2 relates to "policies on border checks, asylum and immigration" and Section 3 to "judicial co-operation on civil matters".

This is followed by Article 2, which states unequivocally that neither Section 1 or 2 shall apply, nor Arts III-161 (regulations on evaluating the implementation of Union policies) and Art III-164 (regulations on administrative co-operation).

This does look like a pretty watertight defence of Blair's "red line", except for one minor detail… Section 1 still applies which, inter alia, requires that member states:

"…shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and border control…".

Er… what red line, Mr Blair?


Postscript

On the final page of the agreement is a “Declaration by member states”.

This is a “Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, noting that

"The Treaty establishing the Constitution applies to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned."

This is self-explanatory – the Spanish are not having Gibraltar… until Straw works out how to give it away.

It's all over - it's done!

So said Tim Franks, the BBC's Brussels correspondent. "They're just having a celebratory drink".

That actually says it all. While we waited for official confirmation of the news, the political elites of Europe are slapping themselves on their respective backs and knocking back the booze - no doubt at the taxpayers' expense.

Eventually, Blair came out to make his official statement, predictably claiming that the constitution was a "success for Britain and a success for Europe".

Dennis Macshane - already on his way to the airport - then refused in a telephone interview - to say how many vetoes had been surrendered. Notably, he avoided calling the treaty a "constitution", describing it as the "new rule book" for a "new Europe". That is the way they're going to play it.

As for Franks, he is only right in one respect - only the negotiations are "all over".

The media and campaigners will have the next go. Then, in due course, the focus will move to the Houses of Parliament - probably in November - when a ratification Bill is flagged up in the Queen's speech.

What is expected is that the Bill will be tied in with, or incorporate a Referendum Bill, giving rise to no doubt impassioned debates. The outcome will be that Parliament will give it approval to the treaty being ratified, subject to a referendum having been concluded.

This will clear the way for the general election - expected in the spring or early summer of 2005 - when the full utility of the referendum will become clear.

As in 1997 with the promise of a euro election, Blair will use it to neutralise the EU issue, allowing him to concentrate on domestic issues.

How far that will succeed is debatable as, technically, the treaty will not have been ratified. It will be open to Howard to campaign on a platform of repealing the ratification Act (technically, an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972), so that the UK can refuse to ratify without resorting to a referendum.

By this means, Howard could effectively turn the general election into an EU referendum - exploiting his party's relative strength on the issue.

If, however, we're back with Labour after the general, the referendum campaign will start for real and, in the fullness of time, the date will be announced. The best bet is that we are looking at the autumn of 2005, although it could be later.

Either way, the battle has effectively started.

Inching closer

As of eight pm, we understand that an agreement on the constitution has been reached but not formally announced. The member states delegations are scrutinising copies in their own languages before final assent is given.

This is a significant difference from the shambles at the Nice IGC when Chirac was reported to have been rushing around collecting up bits of paper from the meeting, only to disappear with them. It was then days before a final version of the treaty was made public.

There has, however, been no agreement on the Commission president. Attempts to decide on the lucky holder of this first class season ticket on the gravy train have been postponed.

Well, there’s a surprise

Seconds after five pm, an excitable Tim Franks, the BBC's Brussels correspondent, told the Radio 4 "PM programme" that it "could even happen while we're on air". Entirely predictably – and as predicted by this Blog – the assembled "EU leaders" are on the brink of deciding that "failure to strike a deal was unthinkable" and agreeing to the constitution.

With Irish foreign minister Dick Roche saying that agreement was "tantalisingly close", we have moved from situation where there were so many disputed areas that any agreement looked impossible, to the point where the stinking corpse has been resurrected and given an injection of life.

In a few days, now, it looks like it will lurch out into the daylight. Then the task of putting it back in its grave, where it rightly belongs, will commence.

Nevertheless, the "EU leaders" have yet to make up their minds on the Commission president, although the BBC is fairly sure that Herr Hofstid has been deep-sixed and the hunt is on for a compromise candidate.

However, since Blair has got enough of what he wanted to be able to claim his "victory", the "balance of dissatisfaction" must be maintained. It looks like Jacques will get the pick of the crop, and will chose deliberately in order to hack off the Brits as much as possible.

Meanwhile, stand by for an announcement…

And now to our "on the spot" reporter

It's terribly exciting I tell you. That nit Junker tried to run me down on Rue de la Loi (or maybe my head was in a book and I didn't notice the lights had changed).

And fortress Europe looks more like, er... a fortress. The APC-type police trucks are everywhere and the light shines beautifully off the barbed-wire as I stroll through the check-point to the pub. Funnily enough the pub was full of bored hacks trying to second guess what on earth was going on.

It seems that they are interviewing each other, Greeks (Greeks, not geeks) interviewing Brits on how they think a Belgian's chances are going, given that the Germans are supporting the Belgian and the Brits a Portugoose.

Me? I bought a drink and giggled.

A bicycle made for an unknown number

Just to show that this blog is not written by a bunch of political wannabes, I intend to boast again about my media appearance.

This morning I took part in a discussion on the Constitution, which was reasonably even-handed: an economist from the LSE telling us that withdrawing from the single market or, even the EU, would be economic suicide and a single taxation system is needed for a single market (one wonders what his students make of him); and a representative of Britain in Europe.

The BiE man thought there was no need for a single taxation system for the single market to function, citing the United States as an example, but tried hard to prove that the eurosceptics must be wrong because they have cried wolf so often and none of it has come true.

I represented the eurosceptic view, pointing out that a great deal of what we warned about has come true and talking about the serious problems with democratic accountability and shift in power that are in the Constitution.

The presenter was reasonably sympathetic to my point of view, proving that the shift in media attitudes is still there.

Among other things I pointed out that the vote last week showed quite clearly that the peoples of Europe, as opposed to the Euro-elite, are calling for a brake on the process of integration. Why, in that case, is there such a rush to pass this Constitution? Why is every slowing down or lightening of the burden seen as a terrible set-back?

Alistair Stewart, the presenter and newscaster, added that he had heard that argument from a number of people who were basically in favour of the EU and further integration. They thought that things were going too fast and going wrong. Re-thinking was called for.

And what did the man from Britain in Europe say? He went on about the need for changing the structures as the EU now consists of 25 members. (Clearly, he has forgotten that the Nice Treaty was pushed through using those very arguments.) Otherwise, he added, it will grind to a halt and none of the benefits will be seen.

The "benefits", one assumes, are a sclerotic economic system, intrusive legislation, protectionism and lack of political accountability.

After the programme I looked at the latest news reports and what did I find? Complete disagreement on every subject under the sun. Whether the argument about taxation between Blair and Chirac is for real, or, as my colleague has suggested, a farce put on by two posturing politicians, there are all sorts of problems there.

The small countries are banding together on the question of voting rights, clearly more interested in protecting their own interests then in making "Europe work", personal rows are breaking up all over the place and there is clearly no agreement on who is going to be the next President of the Commission.

The French and the Germans want Guy Verhofstadt as a "good European", though he is also a man who did as badly as anyone in last week's election [see Something stirs in Belgium]; the right-wing federalist EPP wants Chris Patten but as he is British, though a europhile, he is persona non grata with Jacques and Gerhard, that famous comedy duo; the British are still pushing for the Portuguese Antonio Vitorino.

This bicycle seems to have lost its steering rod. Or, to use another metaphor, so loved by the europhiles, this convoy is sailing in all different directions. In what way is it a convoy?

Where does that leave the rest of us? Well, apparently, the people of Europe are not wanted on the long trip to the utopia of European construction. They are not European enough. They will be informed in due course.

Pure Theatre

Tone wants his "red lines" and to look tough on the telly, so he can come back home and proclaim a "victory" for Britain. Jacques also want to look tough on telly, so he can come back home and proclaim a "victory" for France.

Enter several thousand bored journos, kicking their heels in the "European quarter", that soulless concrete jungle in north-eastern Brussels which doesn't even boast a single bacon buttie shop.

With their news desks screaming for a story, and nothing to write about other than of a procession of Mercedes limos delivering portly middle-aged men to the Justus Lipsius building where the conference is to take place, things are getting a bit desperate.

Then, out comes Jaques and complains that Tone is getting away with blue murder, while "sources close to the dinner" let it be known that Jaques and Tone are having a dust up about who’s going to be president of the Commission. The Frogs want some geezer called Herr Hofstid, or something, while Tone wants that Tory feller Patten.

Hey presto, the hacks have got their story and can get the hell out the "quarter", down to the Grande Place where there are some decent bars. The desks are happy – each of them have got an identical front-page scoop - and another lot of fish and chip wrappers are on their way to the grateful readers.

Pure theatre, old boy, but who cares. Keeps the punters happy and exes flowing. News? Who said anything about news? We're in the entertainment business.

Footnote: check out the "must read" piece on Tim Worstall's blog click here.

Er… Is it me? (2)

I always thought the ability to run our own economic policy was important. So how about these revised Articles in the current presidency draft (CIG 82/04) click here (p. 12).

Article I-11 (3) The Union shall have competence to provide a framework for the coordination by the Member States of their economic and employment policies.

Article I-14 (1) The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end, the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies.

The measures in Art I-14 are subject to Qualified Majority Voting (Art I-22 (3)), effectively making Gordon Brown and the Bank of England redundant.

Why isn’t little Gordon jumping up and down, squeaking about this? Or is it me, seeing something that isn't there?

Are they listening to themselves? - Part III

It would be difficult to imagine a clearer message than that sent by the electorate of the EU to its leaders, both national and European. Surely even these grand individuals must realize that at least part of the disaffection is caused by that appalling Constitution - too long, too complex, too intrusive - that they are discussing in Brussels today and tomorrow.

That being so, you would think they might draw back and think again, especially as the original purpose of that Convention for the Future of Europe (remember Giscard d’Estaing and his merry men and women?) was set up to deal with the growing democracy deficit in the European Union.

Alas, there seems to be no indication of a chastened attitude. Anne Anderson, Ireland ambassador to the EU interpreted the message from voters last week somewhat eccentrically. To her all those abstainers and people who voted for eurosceptic parties were saying that a swift agreement was needed on who is to be President of the Commission.

“Europe cannot afford a failure because of the depressing message that such a failure would send,” she asserted. To whom would that message go? The same people who received the message from the voters?

Bertie Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, was not much more coherent. He thought it was vital to obtain agreement on a constitution this week(on Waterloo Day, to be precise, though he did not say so) in order to “demonstrate to ourselves and the world that our enlarged union can … achieve the objectives it sets itself”. Which objectives would that be? Democracy, perchance?

But, as usual, the most magnificent disregard for reality was demonstrated by the outgoing President of the Commission and putative Italian Prime Minister wannabe, Romano Prodi. To him the message was clear. The response to voter apathy must be to increase the EU’s intrusiveness into ordinarly people’s lives, on the basis that if you keep annoying everybody they might notice you eventually. Of course, he may not like the form that notice will take.

“[T]he main political point is that if Europe does not become the arena where decisions that have a direct impact on the life of Europeans are taken, one can hardly expect to involve people convincingly.” The assembled leaders in Brussels should take note of this and “draw institutional consequences”. One shudders to think what those might be.

Er… Is it me?

Perhaps I'm getting too cynical for my own good, but we hear that the "EU leaders" are locked in discussion on who is going to be the next president of the Commission. They will get down to the serious business of negotiating the constitution tomorrow, and the current timetable is that the meeting should end at lunch time.

Call that a negotiation? With 25 people round a table, all speaking different languages, agreeing the dinner menu should take longer. If there is going to be a deal – it's already agreed and the communiqué is already written up.

Incidentally, I loved the EU Observer headline, "Deal inches closer on constitution". Seeing as it is an EU summit, shouldn't it be "Deal centimetres closer…"? Perhaps, if the pace of negotiations slows down, we will be reading, "Deal millimetres closer…". Perhaps not.

When is a veto not a veto?

Up on the Council web site is what we hope is now the last of the drafts of the constitution produced by the Irish presidency. For those who wish to look at it (groan), you can click here.

One thing to look at is Article III-21 on page 50 (of 89 pages). This deals with Social Security – one of Blair’s "red line" issues, where he is demanding a veto over any proposals for new laws.

As it stands, in the draft, "European laws or framework laws" can be made in order to "bring about freedom of movement for workers by introducing a system to secure for employed and self-employed migrant workers and their dependants".

But – and here is the interesting bit – there is a veto provision in that, where a member of the Council considers that this "would affect fundamental aspects of its social security system, including its scope, cost or financial structure, or would affect the financial balance of that system", it can request that the matter be referred to the European Council.

This has the effect of suspending the passage of the proposal, whereupon the European Council can, within 4 months, either refer the draft back to the Council, or ask the Commission to submit a new draft. In the latter case, the original proposal falls.

So far so good, but the European Council could decide to refer the draft back to the Council unchanged, so the question arises as to how this can be prevented, should, say, the UK want to block the proposal.

Well, in other instances, where the European Council is required to make a decision – for instance on criminal justice matters and on extending the powers of the public prosecutor, the basis is clearly specified as "unanimous". Elsewhere, reference is made to the European Council acting by QMV.

But in this instance, there is no reference to either unanimity or QMV so guidance must be obtained elsewhere. This can be found in Article I-20 of the draft constitution which specifies that, unless specifically provided for in the Constitution, a decision must be taken by "consensus".

Now, here is the rub. What is "consensus". Clearly, it is not QMV but also, it cannot be unanimity. Is it a majority, is it a general agreement, or what? No-where is there a definition of what this actually means. Is it a veto or not a veto?

But, upon that slender thread rests Mr Blair's "red line" and his claim to have protected the UK interests on Social Security.

As the days go past, undoubtedly many such ambiguities are going to arise. It hardly seems credible that Blair is going to be able to resolve them all at the summit. We are, it seems, headed for interesting times.

The times they are a'changin' ... but very, very slowly

Nothing much can be done about politicians. They hang on to their positions both in terms of power and of political ideas unto death. They have not yet faced the famous Ceausescu moment, when the Romanian tyrant and his “delightful” wife went out on the balcony to wave to the cheering crowds only to realize with dawning horror that the crowds were calling for their blood.

The media, on the other hand, is picking up the scent of a new political order. The Financial Times, usually a model of decorum, published on Tuesday a cautiously entitled article: Eurosceptic support gave powerful view of unease.

The gist of the article was that UKIP’s strong showing in the European elections was a reflection of the way many people and many businesses feel about involvement in the EU. This is not, in itself, a startling revelation. After all, an unexpectedly good result by a small, recently formed party must be the reflection of feelings in the country. What does appear extraordinary for those of us who have been battling with the media’s skewed coverage is the open admission in the most respectable outlets.

The Financial Times article quotes a multimillionaire telecoms entrepreneur, the chairman of Cameron-Price, an automotive components business, and the finance director of Churchill China. One and all they say that they do not think the European Union is helpful, that people across Europe, including their business associates, have had enough of the EU, and that there is a general disquiet about further integration.

A dissenting note is struck by the chief executive of Hotbed Media, a TV and film production company. In her considered view, based, no doubt, on conversations with lots of other media people, UKIP was “reactionary” and had capitalized on hostitlity to immigrants. It was all, according to her, the result of people reading the tabloid press and, one assumes, not watching the programmes her company puts out. The dissatisfaction could not possibly have been based on people’s own knowledge and experience. If UKIP can be said to be tapping into anything it is people’s anger at that kind of patronizing rubbish doled out by the media and the political classes.

Still, the times they are a’changin’. On Monday evening I was asked to take part in a discussion on Radio Five Live. Its theme was unexpected. The two questions asked were: Can we get out of the EU? What will happen if we do?

The consensus was that we can and should get out (with some demurral on the second point) and nothing much will happen if we do. By the end of the programme, it became obvious that the real question was: Why bother to stay in?

Over the years I have taken part in many discussions and given many interviews on the subject and have noted a remarkable change in attitudes. My own views are withdrawalist, though I appreciate that this will have to be done carefully with much negotiation. Nowadays, those views are treated with respect. Eurosceptics are still seen as a bunch of nutters but a bunch of nutters who have some good ideas and among whom there are people who can explain them clearly and sensibly.

No longer is one faced with the incredulous stare from some half-ignorant BBC interviewer and an impatient snort of “oh come on!” And, above all, the possibility of withdrawal is discussed with some seriousness.

I do not suggest that the media and its right-on, politically correct denizens have had a Damascene conversion. But they lean with the prevailing wind. And that wind is changing directions.

It is possible to pinpoint the moment when the real change occurred. There had been stirrings in that direction for some time, thus proving that if you keep on arguing cogently and coherently, eventually people do listen to you. But the big change came as the first version of the EU Constitution was published. A mental panic ensued as all the eurosceptic warnings seemed to be justified. It was the first time that the BBC interviewers (I was doing a round-up for regional news and drive-time shows) worriedly asked me to tell them more about the document.

All of which makes one wonder whether the Blair nuclear option will work. Of course, as we have said before on this blog, the real referendum campaign will be very nasty and difficult and not at all like the “no to the euro” one. For one thing, the other side will throw all its considerable forces and resources into the battle.

However, they think that their most effective weapon will be the threat that a no vote to the constitution will necessarily mean withdrawal from the EU. This, of course, is not true, as has been said by many people, including the outgoing President of the Commission, Romano Prodi. Still, it is a bogey. The question is, just how frightening is that bogey for most people? Considerably less than it used to be, I’d say.

Pull the other one, Tony

The papers are full of headlines such as "We won't give up red lines", attributed to Gordon Brown and "Britain plays hard ball over EU constitution".

Do they really think we are that stupid? As we pointed out in yesterday’s Blog, Britain's "red lines" – the very few that Blair is still interested in – are already safe. And on the headline issue of taxation, Britain was by no means alone. Many of the accession countries – not least Latvia – were totally opposed to the EU acquiring power to force member states harmonise tax levels, so the proposal was not going to fly anyway.

No, the constitution – what is left of it – is a done deal, and all we are seeing is the ritual pre-summit posturing to give Blair and Co the opportunity to come out proclaiming that they have done "a good deal for Britain". On BBC Radio 4's "World Tonight" programme last night, even Michael Ancram made that point, which shows how utterly transparent this seedy little ploy really is.

And that is what the summit is reduced to – pure theatre. Blair will tell us what he has "protected" but will not tell us how much power he has given away to the EU.

Nor will he remind us of his speech in Warsaw on 6 October 2000, when he declared that he did not believe a constitution was necessary – the text of which is now, strangely, no longer available on the No, 10 Downing Street web site. For the record, therefore, the relevant text is reproduced here:

"It is perhaps easier for the British than for others to recognise that a constitutional debate must not necessarily end with a single, legally binding document called a Constitution for an entity as dynamic as the EU.

What I think is both desirable and realistic is to draw up a statement of the principles according to which we should decide what is best done at the European level and what should be done at the national level, a kind of charter of competences.

This would allow countries too, to define clearly what is then done at a regional level. This Statement of Principles would be a political, not a legal document. It could therefore be much simpler and more accessible to Europe’s citizens."

Now, however, we are told we need a constitution to "safeguard Britain’s position at the heart of Europe". Pull the other one, Tony.

Assume the position

POSITION A. The British Conservative Party is revived. It is lean, mean and led from the front by a new man. The UK Independence Party with its 16 per cent poll share is a blip. Europe is not a swing issue with the electorate. The UKIP's maverick voters will return to the Tory fold come a proper election. Tony Blair is on the run. The Opposition needs only to keep its head. The UKIP is a passing gadfly.

POSITION B. The UKIP has moved the earth. Half the electorate wants out of the European Union and Michael Howard has missed the bus. He has allowed the UKIP to escape the Tory coalition and win established party status. Local Tories are fiercely anti-EU, held in check only by a faltering loyalty to their London leadership. The UKIP could lose half its present strength and still wreck the Tories’ uphill struggle to election victory. Mr Howard must make peace with them or face humiliation and defeat.

So writes Simon Jenkins in this morning's Times. Guess which position he takes? And guess which position Mr Howard and his dismal crew of "excused thinking" MPs take?

To assess the mood of the British people, just read the first line of the first letter in Times. It doesn't matter who the author is… she (as it happens) writes for all of us: "The arrogance of our professional politicians beggars belief".

So what will be the outcome? Well, in the traditional paradigm, we have Position A: Howard "holds the line", the government self-destructs and the voters move obediently over to sweep the Conservatives into power. Only it ain’t going to happen.

New Labour is indeed going to shed voters but they are not going to the Tories – at least, not enough of them. Some will stay at home, some will vote Lib-Dem, some will vote UKIP. Some, if there still was one, would vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party – anything but Tory. The probable effect is that Blair squeaks back into power by default.

By then of course, Blair will have signed up to the constitution and we will be confronting the referendum campaign. The full weight of the establishment – with squillions of taxpayers’ money – will move into "scare mode", raising the spectre of doom and destruction if we vote "no", this of course meaning that we will have to leave the EU.

An impoverished Tory Party, with its morale shot to hell, will squeak from the sidelines but the centre stage will be occupied by UKIP, proclaiming loudly that indeed a "no" vote will mean withdrawal, thus ably doing Blair's work for him – and the BBC will gleefully give it as much publicity as it wants.

Scared witless by the prospect of doom, enough of the British public will hold their noses and vote for the least-worst option. They will cast their "yes" votes, giving Blair the victory he so desperately needs. The game will be over.

The crazy thing is that even "above the line" figures like Jenkins can see it. Everybody else can see it. But Howard can't – he and his crew are so far up their own backsides all they can see is teeth. Theirs is the victory to come; "hold the line" chaps and everything will come right. As for those funny little people jumping up and down in the background – er… the electorate – well, nobody is interested in hearing your views, old boy. We know what we're doing.

So, when they’ve done playing with their "position A", the public will be expected to do their duty – to bend over and adopt "position C". However, there is also "position D". They really don't want to know about that one… but it's coming mate, and they ain't going to like it.

Footnote: have a look at this article on the constitution by Tim Worstall: worth a read click here.

That’s enough Europe - ed

By common accord, the two main parties yesterday abruptly switched their emphasis to domestic issues – both "coincidentally" choosing to major on choice in "schools 'n' hospitals". The BBC obligingly rolled over and followed their lead. "Europe" was definitely off the agenda and the politicos could breathe a sign of relief.

Not Lib-Dem MEP leader Graham Watson though: he was complaining to the news agency EurActiv that Euroscepticism was gaining ground "because of our national elites failure to explain how the EU works and why it is important". He has a sort of a point – as evidenced by yesterday's carrying-on. The only thing consistent about our national leaders is the determination with which they avoid the subject.

Meanwhile, something eerie is happening on the constitutional front. Spurred on by the prospect of failure at the summit, and stunned by the wave of apathy and voter rebellion throughout the member states, a realisation is dawning amongst the national leaders that if the summit on Thursday and Friday does not succeed, the constitution is probably dead and buried. There will never be another chance – at least, not in the foreseeable future.

Behind the scenes, therefore, the Irish presidency is filleting the constitutional text – chucking contentious issues off the sledge in order to neutralise opposition. And, on the key issue of voting rights, a glorious fudge is in the making whereby, whatever the percentages agreed, there will also be an "emergency brake" which will allow member states to block – or delay - a proposal if their "vital national interests" are affected.

This is a variation of the "Luxembourg Compromise" agreed with de Gaulle in January 1966, devised in order to resolve the "empty chair crisis", where the French were blocking Community business. The compromise had no legal force, but served as a fig-leaf to assuage national pride and was quietly forgotten after a passage of time.

Thus, what we are going to see over the next few days is some pre-summit posturing, the like of which has already started with Blair announcing that he will negotiate "constructively" while sticking to his "red lines", accompanied by some "tough talking" to make it look good in front of the television cameras.

Come the Friday, each of the leaders of the member states will then come beaming out of the conference room and make bee-lines for their press rooms, proclaiming that they have succeeded in doing a deal that protects their national interests. The fabled "consensus" will have been achieved.

In their wake, they will leave a partly-emasculated version of the constitution, the consensus view actually being that it is better to have something, and thus avert the ignominy of failure, rather than have nothing at all.

As to ratification, that is another problem for another day. But the elites have already convinced themselves that the reason for public antipathy is simply because we don't understand what "Europe" is doing for us. Wrapped in their own little delusional world, they believe that all they have to do, pace Watson, is go out and "make the case for Europe" and "educate the voters".

Their only problem is that – as pointed out in a previous Blog – many of the voters are better educated than them. Their guff is going to fall on stony ground. But that, as they say, is for another day.

Meanwhile: Sinn Fein

While everyone is getting excited about UKIP or the Vlaams Blok (see previous posting), little attention has been paid to the fact that Sinn Fein, who have not broken their links with the IRA, a terrorist organization that has refused to disarm, despite allegedly accepting the democratic process, now have two seats in the European Parliament.

In Northern Ireland, it came second in the vote after the Democratic Unionist Party, with the once mighty Ulster Unionist Party trailing in at a miserable third and the SDLP far behind them. It is not the job of this blog to analyze the politics of Northern Ireland but one can say that the political revolution that came out of the highly unsatisfactory Belfast Agreement has been completed – the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP have given way to the DUP and Sinn Fein.

Another seat has gone to Sinn Fein in Ireland, where the ruling Fianna Fail party suffered as did most governments around the EU, its vote going down to 28.8 per cent. They will have four seats.

The opposition Fine Gael party scored 26.5 per cent and will have 3 seats. The Labour Party with 11.5 per cent will have 2 seats and Sinn Fein, coming in very close with 11.4 per cent, will have 1 seat, as will the Green Party.

The odd thing about Sinn Fein is that, although a cross-border Irish party, it has no cross-border policies on the EU. In Ireland it sides with the eurosceptics, much to their annoyance, and campaigned in both referendums for a no vote. In Northern Ireland, it is a europhile party, its thinking possibly influenced by the amount of EU money that pours into that province for various projects.

Something stirs in Belgium

It is good to know that politicians in other countries are as much at sea after last week’s elections as the British ones. It is also good to know that the British media, particularly its europhile part, continues to view everything that happens on the other side of the Channel very much de haut en bas and refuses to take interest in the details or even in big stories.

Take the case of the Vlaams Blok in Belgium. We have already written in this blog about the curious campaign waged against the main opposition party in Flanders, whose crime appears to be, according to the pro-government paper De Standaard: “Its conservative family policies, its deeply felt ethical objections to abortion and euthanasia, its radical pursuing of the interests of Flanders, its republicanism, these are the issues voiced by no other party, these are in practice the indiscussable phantasms of the Vlaams Blok.” [see A Very Dangerous Precedent]

For this they have been labelled as extreme right-wing and racist. Actually, they have been labelled racist because they have said that immigrants must either adapt to the culture of the country they choose to live in or go home. The news service on AOL entitled the piece on the subject Far Right Threat in Belgium and ended it by saying: “Apart from advocating a stop to immigration and even sending North African immigrants home, the party wants a break-up of Belgium, where Dutch- and French-speakers have obtained significant powers of regional autonomy in the past two decades.”

All of which possibly explains why the Vlaams Blok has secured an electoral success both regionally and in the European elections and why the political establishment of Belgium is panicking.

Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt’s Flemish speaking Liberal party came in third in the European elections, getting 13.56 per cent of the vote, while the Christian Democrats got 17.43 per cent and the Vlaams Blok 14.34 per cent. The Francophone Socialist Party 13.54 per cent and the liberal (definition of “liberal”, of which there are many, unspecified) Reform Movement 10.35 per cent. The Christian Democrats and the Socialists will have four seats each in the European Parliament, the VLD (Verhofstadt’s lot), the Reform Movement, the Flemish Socialists and the Vlaams Blok three each.

On top of that, the Vlaams Blok took 24 per cent of the vote in the Regional Assembly elections in Flanders, up from the 19.9 per cent of the last general election. With 32 seats it will be the second largest party in the Assembly, behind the Christian Democrats but ahead of the government coalition of Flemish Liberals and Socialists.

There is, as one can imagine, a great deal of pother about this with all the other parties scurrying round, trying to form a coalition to exclude the Vlaams Blok and hoping that their appeal against the rather disgraceful decisions by the Ghent Court (as described in this blog) will be dismissed.

Especially worried is the Francophone press, since Flemish nationalist sentiment is largely directed against what it considers to be the etatist Walloon establishment that runs the Belgian state for their own people’s benefit and to the detriment of the hard-working Flemish, who bring in most of the country’s wealth. La Libre Belgique calls this a racist and nationalist plague and considers it to be out of tune with the modern world of international organizations such as the EU and human rights treaties.

It is amazing how many things people do or say are defined as being completely at odds with the modern world, as if the “modern world” were some kind of a defined association that only the initiated can understand and define. You can be sure it has nothing to do with modern life as it is lived by most people.

We will not give in to the people

The Dear Leader, aka Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that he has heard the message the electorate was giving him (well, it would be difficult to miss that resounding boo – hiss!) but he had no intention of giving in to it. Instead, he is "prepared to win these arguments".

Mr Blair has been "prepared to win" arguments ever since he became Prime Minister seven years ago. He has not yet won any of them but he is still preparing. Perhaps, having been trained as a lawyer he just goes on practising all his life.

What are those arguments that the misguided people of this country (and several other European ones) do not consider to be valid? "It is in Britain's interests to be at the heart of Europe whatever the problems and difficulties of Europe." We seem to have heard that one from numerous politicians, including and especially, the last Prime Minister, John Major (who?). But what does it mean?

Britain cannot be at the heart of Europe because she is an island on the edge of it and has, therefore, had a different history and outlook from other European countries. As have others on the edge, like Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.

In any case, it is not Europe many of us object to, which would be a nonsensical and idiotic attitude, but to the European Union. We also think that a large proportion of those problems Europe is facing stem from the political, social and economic construct, which is the European Union. That is why many people want to start disengaging themselves from it: in order to try to solve the existing problems in a sensible fashion.

What else? "I think it would be an act of extraordinary foolishness for us as a country in the early 21st century to withdraw from the biggest political alliance in the world, and the biggest economic market right on our doorstep." So said the Great Leader but did he know what he was talking about?

Is anybody talking about withdrawing from any alliance or any economic market? At the risk of boring all our readers, we must repeat the obvious fact: no country has to be part of the European Union, accept its legislation and regulatory structure or its Constitution in order to trade with the countries of the Single Market. Norway does it, Switzerland does it, Japan does it, the United States does it. And many others.

No country needs to be part of the European Union in order to have a political alliance with some or all of its members. The problem at the moment is that it will become more and more difficult to have agreements and alliances with other countries except where the EU says so.

And that Mr Blair, is what the electorate is saying. You are there because the electorate put you there. Unless you can produce better arguments, you had better start listening.

Nobody is interested in hearing your views

Thus spoke the great leader, addressing his troops in the aftermath of the Euro-election debacle. Not the great, great leader, His Excellency Tony Blair, of course, but the leader of the opposition, Mr Michael Howard QC, MP.

Back benchers must stop debating the party's European policy in public. We are not going to talk about it, we don't want to hear about it and we’re not going to change our policy. Everything is fine and nothing can go wrong, go wrnong, go wonrng….

If ever there was a classic case of what the psychologists call "in denial", this has to be it – a performance that left not a few MPs shell-shocked. One described the meeting as "surreal" as the mindless drones banged their desks in approval before scurrying gleefully to the door to collect their "excused thinking" chitties on the way out.

From now on, the agenda is going to be "public services" – the "schools 'n' hospitals agenda" that everyone knows that everyone is really, really interested in and wot is going to sweep the Tories into power at the next election.

It was left to Mark Steyn in The Telegraph to point out that this "mainstream" thought is in fact the minority – in last Sunday's results, the only two parties most Britons have ever known couldn’t muster 50 percent of the vote between them.

Furthermore, UKIP and BNP pulled 32.6 percent of the vote. Between them, Labour and the Lib Dems got 33.9 percent. "What, other than the blinkers of the media-political Westminster village, makes 32.6 percent the fringe and 33.9 percent the mainstream?", Steyn asks. Yet here are the Tories responding not to what the people are saying, but to the agenda of these "mainstream" parties.

Actually, UKIP and BNP are wrongly named. Taking the cue from Prescott, who occasionally does hit the spot, they are just different wings of the "give politicians a kicking" party - the "U-KIK" party, so to speak. And their spokesman articulated their message, not from the "mainstream" columns of the Telegraph, but from the letters page in the form of Suzanne Taberner.

Writing of the "intellectual snobbery" from all the main parties about UKIP, she notes that they "have all assumed that the great unwashed are simply not clever enough to grasp the real issue of Europe". "But", she writes, "we take a lot of satisfaction in knowing that we have demonstrated our contempt for those politicians and social commentators who insist on patronising us in this way".

Unfortunately, Mr Howard has just given Suzanne Taberner, and the many others like her, his considered response: "Nobody is interested in hearing your views…". Come the next election, I suspect that the response will be to give the politicians another kicking. This time, they may not be able to get up.

Of candour and humidity

Foreign Ministers are gathered today in Brussels for the final phase of the negotiations on the constitution, preparing for the make-or break (probably break) summit on Thursday and Friday which will decide whether the project lurches forward or drives into the sand.

The Tories were of course calling for the government to "show a bit of humidity" – I think that was what they said - and abandon plans to adopt the constitution, in the wake of the Euro-election results.

However, Jack Straw, on his way over to Brussels, immediately demonstrated that he didn't know the meaning of the word. He turned up in a BBC studio for World at One to tell the listener that the constitution was a jolly good thing really and that he and the prime minister – whoever he is – were going to secure a jolly good deal for Britain and Europe if they jolly well could.

What's more, they were jolly well going to win the referendum, just like Harold Wilson did in 1975 when he managed to shift hostile public opinion to support the Common Market. "When people shifted from heart to head and started thinking about the issue in detail... they voted Yes by a very substantial majority", he said.

As to his jolly good constitution, he reminded the listener that "People complain about lack of efficiency and transparency in the EU, they complain that national governments are not sufficiently in control over what happens, they also say national parliaments don’t have a big enough role." "All true", he declared, "and all things which this draft constitutional treaty is there to put right."

Funny thing is, none of us seem to remember anyone – people that is – ever complaining about the lack of efficiency in the EU, especially when by "efficiency" is meant the rate at which this dire organisation churns out new laws. In fact, the general preference seems to be for a little less efficiency or, if Mr Kilroy-Silk is to be believed – and I think he should – none at all.

Not quite so funny was Neil Kinnock, the other side of the Channel, urging Blair to launch a drive to win the support of the British people for the proposed constitution. "The battle is joined and we had better get stuck in," he said. "We will do it by candour, explanation, fact and destroying myths and legends," he said.

Kinnock could do well to start with Mr Straw and his claims that the constitution would address the problem that national governments were not sufficiently in control over what happened, and national parliaments didn't have a big enough role.

Perhaps he could explain how creating another thirty policy areas subject to QMV, so that individual member states can be over-ruled, actually gives national governments more control, or how allowing national parliaments to protest about the lack of "subsidiarity", only to be over-ruled by the Commission, actually gives them a bigger role.

Perhaps we'd better forget that bit about candour and go for the humidity – at least you can sort that out with air conditioning.

Talking of which - humidity that is - Jaques and Gerard had their little tete-a-tete in Aachen yesterday for their traditional pre-summit meeting, when they stitch up the agenda and make sure the Franco-German "motor of integration" keeps the project on track.

After their meet, the deadly duo cooed at the press, saying, "Our will is to succeed in adopting the constitution." They wish. There are 25 countries in the EU now, chuck, and the Poles - to say nothing of the polls - are not in a pretty mood.

Are they listening to themselves? - Part II

It seems that the media cannot cope with the fact that the peoples of Europe have, one way or another, administered their governments a kicking any more than the politicians can. Perhaps, they should all start reading this blog.

Here are a few examples of the way the European elections of the last week and the results are being reported:

AOL News this morning insisted that both Blair and Berlusconi were being punished for their stand on Iraq while Zapatero in Spain was being rewarded for pulling Spanish troops out. As the turn-out in Spain was considerably lower than ever before and as the margin between the two parties was 2 per cent, this was a questionable proposition. Unfortunately, this theory could not explain the shattering defeat inflicted on the two leaders of the opposition to the war: Chancellor Schröder and President Chirac.

To explain the rise of the eurosceptic vote, AOL, copying certain newspapers, such as the Guardian, rather disdainfully attributed the vote to fears of enlargement and the consequent immigration, fomented by the eurosceptic parties. Unfortunately, that did not explain why eurosceptic parties did well (on a very low turn-out) in the Czech Republic and Poland.

That story has now been replaced by the equally preposterous one of Charles Kennedy’ call for a euro-debate (see Are they listening to themselves? – Part I click here).

The New York Times, usually fairly accurate in its analysis, this morning went into a tailspin:

"The voting in Britain, which took place on Thursday, was read by many as a protest against Prime Minister Tony Blair's support for the United States-led war in Iraq. A similar sentiment was expected from the polls in Italy, while Spanish voters were expected to reward the new government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.

In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats were on their way to their worst defeat in a quarter-century of direct European elections as voters cast ballots for the opposition to protest against the country's stalled economy and slashes in social benefits."

The two juxtaposed paragraphs may have made sense to the journalist but not really to anyone else.

Reuter's UK disgracefully departed from its usual high standards of objective reporting of facts and insisted over and over again that Mr Blair’s government was being punished for its stand over Iraq. In the course of its reporting, the journalist, Paul Taylor, managed not to mention that it was, in fact, the Conservatives who gained most in the local elections, as that would have undermined his central thesis.

In the light of the European results, with UKIP making its fantastic break-through and the Liberal-Democrats, the one completely anti-war and europhile major party, being humiliated, the reporting has been toned down and has almost reverted to the usual standards. One would like to think that someone at Reuter's noticed what was going on and issued a reprimand. However, even the most recent story carries the following completely illogical and factually not entirely accurate paragraph:

"Voters punished Blair for his role in the U.S.-led Iraq war and governing parties in France, Germany and Poland for economic stagnation, unemployment and painful social reforms."

The European Commission has announced that the reason for voter apathy and the surge in the eurosceptic vote is that the European Parliament does not have enough power. This ignores the well-known fact that its powers have been increasing steadily, while the turn-out for the elections has been plummeting. Can’t have everything.

There is also the alternative theory, much loved by the eurocracy of the new member states, such as the Estonian Foreign Minister Kristiina Ojuland, that people do not understand the European Parliament’s importance. She will have to learn not to use that particular excuse. It has been used by various other eurocrats and politicos in the past and has never been very successful.

The whole extraordinary saga was summed up best by the BBC Russian Service. It headed its main story this morning: "Politicians are calling the election results a catastrophe". As well they might. This is a democratic protest that outeclipses the rather pathetic rent-a-mob anti-globalization demonstrations.

The same story raises another issue, not to be ignored. For years we were told that clearly the EU is a good thing as so many of the post-Communist countries want to get into it. Of course, that ignored the fact that the EU in its ineffable generosity gave them no options by refusing any free trade or other agreements except on the basis of future membership.

Now we see another problem. The referendums in the many East European countries had fairly low turn-outs, sometimes skimming the half-mark, sometimes not even that. And in the first triumphant pan-European elections, the East Europeans contemptuously stayed at home.

They still don’t get it…

Comment and Analysis

Some time about 1.30 in the morning, I think it was Peter Kellner on the television – the memory is a little bit hazy after a fine bottle of Burgundy, quaffed while I waited for the results to roll in – who was having more than a little difficulty coming to terms with the UKIP result. He wasn’t the only one.

The proximate cause of his distress – and one which will exercise many a mind in the forthcoming months – was the news that UKIP was going to use its new-found resources and profile to mount a full-scale general election campaign and contest all the seats in Britain.

As Kellner analysed this detail, he concluded that such a strategy could not bring UKIP any seats and would only damage the Conservatives, possibly preventing them from winning the election, allowing the pro-Europe Labour party back in. "That", mused Kellner, "would be a spectacular own goal", shaking his head in disbelief.

However, if this strategy seems irrational to Kellner, and the many other pundits who have reached the same conclusion, it is only because they do not have the correct framework of reference to be able to understand what is happening.

They start with the assumption that UKIP is primarily an anti-EU party – which it is not. For sure, the core UKIP activists dislike the EU, but in fact they know very little about it. They have that vague dislike of something unpleasant – sinister even – over the water, run by foreigners whom they instinctively distrust.

Many of them – a very substantial proportion – see it is a Nazi construct and mutter darkly about "conquest by other means". Others see it as a West European version of the Soviet empire, while others are convinced that it is part of a darker plot to create a New World Order (always written in capitals), masterminded by American capitalists, the shadowy Bilderberger group or the equally shadowy "trilaterals".

Some of them believe it is all of them, the Nazis, Soviets, Bilderbergers and the trilaterals, all rolled into one dastardly plot to enslave free-born Englishmen, presumably as punishment for winning the last war.

But, if the UKIPites do dislike the EU, for all the reasons they articulate, or harbour, it is a matter of dislike. There is in fact, no real hatred. Johnny foreigner is inherently untrustworthy. You’d expect him to behave like that anyway, so he is only playing to form.

No, the real hatred is reserved for the Conservative Party. They are the class enemy, the traitors who betrayed England by selling bits of their beloved country down the river to the foreigners, and who have been plotting and scheming behind their backs to give even more of it away. Their ire is at its most splenetic when they contemplate "traitor Heath" – the name never written without the adjective - Major, Heseltine, Clarke and the rest.

To get a flavour of the relationship, consider the Scargillite Yorkshire miners and their dislike of Thatcher for her role in the miners' strike. She is indeed an enemy, but their really passionate hatred is reserved for their own kind, the Nottingham miners who broke the strike.

It is these "scabs" who are the class enemy and are therefore beyond the pale. In the UKIP litany of hatreds, the EU is to Thatcher as the Tories are to the "scabs". Thus, far from the Eurosceptic Tories being regarded as kindred spirits, they are treated with a special kind of loathing. They at least have seen the light but have put their careers and well-being first, rather than do the decent thing and come over to UKIP.

Within the hard-core UKIPite vision, no difference is seen in substance between the Conservatives, New Labour or the Lib-Dems. They all want to give the country away and, in historical terms, the Conservatives have done more to achieve this aim than any other party.

But, while selling out the country can be expected of Labour and Lib-Dems, something better is expected of the Conservatives. They are the custodians of the nation. Thus, if the battle is to be lost – and few UKIPites believe they can win – they will ensure that the Tories will not benefit from their treachery. The destruction of the Tories, therefore, has become the primary aim. If the whole edifice is to come tumbling down, then they will bring the Tories down with it.

Now with their 12 MEPs, the "dirty dozen", UKIP is fortified by their salaries and expenses packages, each worth approximately £250,000 – giving the war chest an injection of something like £3 million a year. Add to that the burgeoning membership income, and the continued support of multi-millionaires like Alan Bown and Paul Sykes, and UKIP have a sizeable campaign fund. Every spare penny of it will be devoted to bringing down the Tories.

This is not irrational, in the way that Kellner thinks. It's just that he still doesn't get it. But if you understand the conceptual framework, it makes perfect sense.

On this basis, there is nothing Howard, or any other Conservative leader can do to assuage the ire of UKIP, short of an absolute, unequivocal commitment to immediate withdrawal from the European Union. This, of course, no Conservative Party leader can do. It simply does not lie within the realms of political practicalities.

Yet, throwing policies off the sledge in the hope of distracting the wolves, hardening the Eurosceptic rhetoric will not work either. Each concession is interpreted as a sign of weakness, spurring the UKIPites on to redouble their efforts in seeking to achieve the ultimate goal – a Tory Party committed to EU withdrawal.

Nor can he appeal to UKIP's rational side – it hasn’t got one. The hard core do not want to know about the problems or consequences of withdrawal. They would be prepared to fill in the Channel Tunnel, erect barbed wire on the beaches and fill the seas with gun boats to keep Johnny Foreigner out. They have no coherent "exit strategy" and have refused to devote any resources to developing one. Rather, they would be content to see the country consigned to economic penury in pursuit of that single, all-embracing aim – withdrawal from the EU.

Tragically, therefore, neither will the other Conservative option work - "holding the line" and hoping that the broader electorate will see the sense of the Conservative arguments and return to the fold. Inaction will be seen – and portrayed by the UKIPites – as evidence of that arrogance and indifference to the voters wishes, and will be exploited with a vengeance. All Blair would have to do at the next election is sit back and watch UKIP and the Tories slug it out, and then move in to pick up the pieces – and a third term in office.

So what can the poor Tories do? Well, strangely, Howard has almost got it right. His commitment to opposing the euro and the constitution does create "clear blue water" between him , Labour and the Lib-Dems. And the policy of repatriation of certain powers is exactly what the bulk of the electorate wish to see. When push comes to shove, it is unlikely that an electoral majority would ever support an outright withdrawal from the EU, especially if the consequences were made clear.

The problem for Howard is the credibility gap. He may mean what he says, but few believe him. Somehow, he must provide the electorate with the evidence that his intentions are sincere. Rhetoric and promises alone are no longer good enough.

Howard’s best bet is to announce the formation of a powerful "task force" to embark on a nation-wide process of consultation and debate, with a view to fleshing out the policies that will replace those repatriated from the EU, and to devising the strategy to make sure that these policies are indeed repatriated. He can then appeal, with conviction, to the broader electorate, citing the plans that emerge as evidence of his intent.

By then pointing out the penalties of precipitate withdrawal, and the fact that UKIP simply have not thought through the consequences of their one and only policy, he can then marginalise UKIP and show it up for what it is – a party of dreamers, detached from reality, pursuing a vision of an independent England that never in fact existed and would not in any case be desirable.

Are they listening to themselves? - Part I

Charles Kennedy, as we know, is the leader of the Liberal-Democrat Party, which has performed well in the local elections, as it always does, and abysmally in the European ones. He is apparently delighted with both results, insisting that "This is proof positive of three-party politics in British mainstream political discourse." . Um, maybe. But then, Mr Kennedy said the same after the last local elections and the ones before that (or was that his hapless predecessor, whose name escapes me at the moment?)

Mr Kennedy is also calling for a cross-party debate on European matters. Mr Kennedy is always calling for cross-party debates on European matters when there is the least likelihood of anybody taking up his suggestion. When, however, people might engage in said debate he usually finds that he is otherwise engaged.

The best possible opportunity for that debate would have been during the European election campaign. Isn’t that what it should have been about? Not for Mr Kennedy, who memorably said that the European vote should be on Mr Blair’s involvement in the war in Iraq.

Alas, as Mr Kilroy-Silk, one of the successful UKIP candidates pointed out, the electorate appeared to be interested in the one party that spoke on European matters and spoke loud and clear.

It is our experience that when people do engage in a debate and a discussion on the EU, they tend to turn against it. The europhiles’ best defence is secrecy and obfuscation. What will Mr Kennedy’s excuse be when he is taken up on his suggestion?

In a separate development Patricia Hewitt, the singularly unsuccessful Trade and Industry Secretary has stated that the election results were more of a problem for the Conservatives than Labour. While the Conservatives do have a problem on their hands, one cannot really say that Labour politicians can rest on their laurels, having been somewhat notably trounced everywhere, except, maybe Scotland and Wales.

Just to show that she understand the democratic political process, Ms Hewitt added: "We have always known that there is a minority of the British people who are adamantly against the European Union and would like Britain to come out.” Indeed, there is. And it is growing. In fact, it is almost as big as the minority of the British people who adamantly vote Labour despite all indications that it is something of a wasted vote.

The Dirty Dozen

UPDATE: 2.00 pm

Eleven results are now in, with only N. Ireland to come.

UKIP have made it a round dozen MEPs and that is now the final figure. Thus do the "dirty dozen" make their way to Brussels.

Individual regions are as follows:

The North East returned one each, Con, Lab and Lib-Dem, the latter gaining a seat from Labour. Herron got 5.1 percent and retains his deposit. Even with the UKIP and Herron vote combined, the seat would not have been won.

London has returned three Cons, three Labs, two Lib-Dems, one UKIP and one Green. UKIP polled 12 percent.

Yorkshire and Humberside returned two Cons, 2 Lab, 1 Lib-Dem, and one UKIP.

Wales, predictably, is UKIP-free with two Lab, one Con and one PC.

South West had three Cons, two UKIP, one Lib-Dem and one Labour. Knapman is on his way to Brussels,

South-East, the biggest region, returned four Cons, 2 UKIP, 2 Lib-Dems, one Lab and a Green.

Eastern returns three Cons, two UKIP - Jeffrey Titford is back in - one Lib-Dem and one Lab.

West Midlands narrowly failed to return two UKIP candidates with three Cons, two Lab, one UKIP and one Lab.

East Midlands have two Cons, including Roger Helmer, two UKIP, including of course, Kilroy, one Lab and one Lib-Dem.

North West finshed off the night with three Labs, three Cons, two Lib-Dems and on UKIP.

Today, Scotland - which is not a region but a country within the UK, as lead UKIP candidate Peter Troy keeps reminding us - returned two Cons, two Lab, 1 Lib-Dem and two SNPs. That is one Labour loss, owing to the reduced number of seats due to enlargement - otherwise no change.

UKIP came fifith, being pipped to the post by the Greens, votes cast being respectively 79,695 and 78,828. The UKIP vote is just shy of 7 percent, but reached 10 percent in the Orkneys. Troy's message to the nation is "I'll be bakc" - but then he is slightly dislexic.

Pundits earlier were are leaping in saying that the UKIP poll would not be as high as anticipated when, by some strange chance, both UKIP's worst areas had reported first. Clarke thought UKIP will get 15-20 percent as a "protest vote" made up from Telegraph and Sun readers. "Tonight's the night for protest voting".

UKIP is also being attacked for its poor performance in the parliament. Knapman says, "We're not here to make it work".

YouGov earlier predicted that UKIP will get 18 seats on 20 percent of the vote, neck-and-neck with the Tories on 22 percent, but with Labour also on 22 percent. Lib-Dems trail in fourth place, taking 10 seats only. The result turned out to be optimistic for UKIP.

Overall turnout is 40 percent.

From elsewhere, Poland was polling a mere 13 percent by six pm and the authorities have extended the polls by an hour in a desparate attempt to increase the turnout. Spanish turnout is also low, but this is put down to voter fatigue. Throughout Europe, ruling parties are taking a bashing.

A stupid woman said on BBC last night that the reason people don't vote for the Parliament is because they don't know what it does. My experience is that they more they know about this dreadful institution, the more likely they are to vote against it.

Finally, stop press news: David Lott has resigned as chairman of UKIP, for "health reasons". He is replaced by Mike Natrass.

N. Ireland to follow.

More on those pesky East Europeans

With about 75 per cent of the Czech vote counted, the clear winner to emerge was the euro-sceptic opposition party, the Civic Democrats (ODS), with 29.55 per cent of the vote.

The Social Democrat Party (CSSD) of Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla, that has, inevitably, been enmired in various financial scandals, is in fifth place with 8.80 per cent of the vote. One cannot help feeling that the Czech dissatisfaction with the enlargement agreement must have played a part in the vote.

Second and third were the Communist Party (KSCM), the usual repository of protest votes in east European countries, with 20.76 per cent and the Association of Independents – European Democrats with 10.76 per cent.

The Christian Democrats, junior members of the government are in fourth place with 9.78 per cent.

Final results will be available soon.

Spain bucks the trend

With a newish government in place the Spanish electorate did not follow the example of the other membet states. The PSOE (Socialist Party) led by the Prime Minister Zapatero gained 43.3 per cent of the vote against 41.3 per cent cast for the PP (Popular Party)

The Socialists won 25 seats, the Popular Party 23, 3 seats went to a coalition of nationalist Basque, Catalan and Galician parties, 2 to the Communist-Green coalition and 1 to another coalition, Europa de los Pueblos.

Turn-out was low, only 45.94 per cent, considerably lower than the 63 per cent of 1999.

It's all a bit of a muddle

“Anti-EU parties are expected to pick up seats, not just in the UK but in Poland and the Czech Republic along with maybe Denmark and Sweden.” So says the BBC World Service, for once describing the parties in question accurately instead of daubing the slogan “anti-European” all over them.

The new member states seem not to have been all that impressed by the wonderful opportunity to vote in what some media outlets have called “the greatest trans-border exercise in democracy”.

In the Czech Republic, 29 per cent of the electorate took part in the elections, according to early estimates. In Latvia, the turnout was 41 per cent, the lowest in any election since the country broke with Moscow in 1991.

In Hungary, where, unusually, there were no exit polls published about one third of the electorate went to the booths.

Overall, the turn-out in the new member states was estimated at 29 per cent, compared to the estimated 45 per cent averaged in the older member states, though it is fair to note that voting is compulsory in many of the latter.

In Hungary the mildly eurosceptic Fidész has overtaken the two left-wing parties that make up the government but that may be attributable to the Hungarians’ well-known refusal to vote for the same party twice in two succeeding elections. Keeps the politicians on their toes.

In the Czech Republic the free-market, eurosceptic ODS led by President Vaclav Klaus polled considerably more than the socilaists led by Prime Minister Spidla, though final results have not come through yet.

Meanwhile, in Belgium the regional elections gave a huge victory to the Vlaam Blok in Flanders calling into question the very existence of Guy Verhofstadt’s coalition government. (Would that be the voters punishing him for his stubborn refusal to support the USA in the fight against terrorism in general? One hears nothing of that.)

Votes have gone up from 1999 in the UK and the Netherlands, crow some of the euro-parliamentarians and their supporters in the media. Unfortunately, many of those votes have gone to UKIP and, as we have already reported, two seats were won by Paul van Buitenen’s new party that is dedicated to a complete cleaning up of the European Union.

Really, it is quite a pleasure to be reporting on the carnage governments being inflicted on governments across the EU by the people.

Well, no, actually it is not about the Iraqi war

An extraordinary amount of tosh gets said and written by the political classes at a time of electoral upset. Since Thursday’s entirely predictable local election results in Britain we have been told ad nauseam by has-been politicians and media commentators that the electorate was punishing Blair for his stand on the Iraqi war. Presumably by voting for the Conservative Party, who equally firmly supported him. A funny way of showing one’s dissatisfaction.

In the European elections the biggest winner appears to be the UK Independence Party (UKIP), who also supported the war but who, in any case, is associated in the electorate’s mind with one policy only: they are calling for British withdrawal from the EU.

Going on to what is going on in the rest of the European Union (as I write), it seems that Berlusconi may be punished by the electorate for his support of the American policy while Chirac and Schröder for their opposition to the war. Or so it would be if there were the slightest evidence that the vote was about Iraq. It seems to be about anything and everything. The Iraqi war is a detail that is of little interest to the European voters.

In the first place, one must note that the average turn-out across the EU fell again to 44.6 per cent. Not only have the new members not pushed up the figures, they have registered some of the lowest ones. The East Europeans have been EU citizens for just over a month and they are already disillusioned with the European elections. Not bad.

No country apart from Greece has registered a turn-out so far of over 50 per cent and some have been as low as 20. In almost all, the opposition parties are taking votes. John Palmer, the political director of the European Policy Centre in Brussels has announced wearily and a shade disdainfully: ``The election campaigns once again have been the reheated leftovers of national political debates.'' Which in itself proves that the famous European demos remains as elusive as ever.

More than that, it is becoming clear that the electorate of Europe is either contemptuous of the electoral process that gives them nothing or feels alienated from the rulers and legislators. On the one hand, this is quite a healthy attitude and the idea of kicking governments in office is what keeps democracy alive. On the other hand, is it not time those governments and, in many cases, the official oppositions asked themselves why they are so disliked?

Chancellor Shröder's Social-Democrats seem to have had their worst electoral result since World War II at under 22 per cent with 45 per cent or even more going to the Christian Democrats. President Chirac’s party and its allies are predicted to get 38.3 per cent with the Socialist opposition groups coming in at 42.9 per cent.

In the Netherlands the ruling party seems to be holding on by a margin of 0.2 per cent but there has been an interesting and unreported development. The European Transparency Party, founded by the whistle blower Paul van Buitenen seems to have acquired 2 MEPs. This still remains to be confirmed.

We do not know how the Polish eurosceptic Samoobrona has done but predictions were good.

While it is fair to say that much of the voting was over domestic matters, Britain has once again bucked the trend. Apart from Scotland, where there were no local elections, the turn-out was higher than before at around 40 per cent. Also, the general dissatisfaction with what is turning into the most unpopular government for a very long time was expressed in the local elections. In the European elections the British electorate voted, for possibly the first time since 1979, on European issues. The result is not comfortable to the integrationists.

Will they now call another European election to get a “better” result? And how will the government leaders of the EU negotiate in Brussels next week, when their mandate has just been undermined by the electorate?

And another one…

Another Irish draft

Yet another revision of the constitutional draft has been issued by the Irish presidency. The joke about the library not having a copy of the French constitution because it did not stock periodicals is wearing a little thin now. The Irish drafts are getting more frequent than a daily newspaper.

Anyhow, this one has the merit of being a little shorter a mere 25 pages. The main institutional questions have been left for the heads of state and government on 17/18 June so this document deals merely with those issues which are to be addressed by the foreign ministers tomorrow. To find it, click here.

One of the main changes is in taxation, with the deletion of Art III-63. The Irish presidency also recommends that Art III-62 (2) is deleted, which makes provision for the Council to act unanimously in deciding whether a tax harmonisation proposal does not affect the fiscal regime of a member state. As the paragraph stands, if the Council so finds, the proposal can then be adopted by QMV.

This became a new kind of "red line" - what one might call a "perforated red line" – as the Article is judiciable so that we could find a Council decision that a measure did affect the fiscal regime challenged in the ECJ, and over-ruled, following which the member state would be obliged to harmonise tax by QMV. Clearly, the fate of Art III-62 (2) is going to be one of the main battlegrounds tomorrow, in which Brown is "prepared to die".

Booker

Break silence or be broken, Mr Howard

From The Sunday Telegraph

The indications are that tonight we will be looking at one of the most remarkable political events of our lifetime: that the British people will have risen up in extraordinary numbers to say "no to the European Union" by voting for the UK Independence Party, putting it ahead of one or more established parties all over the country.

One of the greatest mistakes made by the political establishment in assessing this phenomenon is to imagine that this revulsion against the EU is due to "xenophobia". What the British people have instinctively most come to resent - as I know from thousands of letters I have received in recent years from readers who will have supported UKIP last Thursday - is the realisation that we are being taken over by a wholly new form of government.

They view this system as alien, not because it is "run by foreigners" - they are well aware that our own political class plays just as active a part in it as those of other countries - but because it is undemocratic, oppressive and because it does not work.

No one will the "UKIP rebellion" put more firmly on the spot than the Tory Party. For years it has tried to anaesthetise its supporters by limiting reference to "Europe" to just a few empty "Eurosceptic" slogans, otherwise seeking to suppress any proper discussion of just how far this new system of government now dictates how our country is run.

What this meant in practice is that the Tory Party has had to abdicate from its role as a proper opposition. Currently, as a result of handing over the control of our policymaking to the EU, we are faced with all sorts of problems - the huge looming crises over energy and waste being just two - to which, because these are "European competences", the Tories seem terrified of giving any proper response.

Almost the only issue on which the Tories have been doing their job as an informed, effective opposition is the crisis of our fishing industry, where Michael Howard last week reaffirmed his pledge that a Conservative government would take back national control, if necessary by exercising the sovereignty of Parliament.

As our main opposition party, the Tories get £4 million a year from the taxpayers. If, as the Government itself admits, half our laws are now made in Brussels, then for at least half that sum we are not getting value for money. To show themselves fit to govern, the Tories must first show themselves to be a proper opposition. That is the lesson they must learn from the disaster which, as will emerge tonight, the British people inflicted on them last Thursday.

The power of the internet

A revolution is in progress – and the elites do not even know it is happening.

One of the more entertaining activities, during what is going to prove a long night, is going to be watching the serried ranks of politicians, commentators and hacks try to make sense of the events that unfold.

Already, we are seeing the print pundits all over the place, with many-fold different reasons being offered for what amounts to a political earthquake. The same phenomenon will be evident when the broadcast media take their turn on the stage this evening.

What it all adds up to is that the great sages – who collectively make up that tiny political elite and opinion-formers – simply do not know what is going on. Furthermore, having been locked in their own little self-regarding bubble for so long, they have lost the capacity to understand the signals they are being sent, and do not even have the vocabulary with which to express their increasingly incoherent thoughts.

One of the more important reasons for this, I am convinced, is the internet. This web of high-speed communications has provided an alternative channel, outside the control of the establishment, offering the means to exchange views, analyses and information, at a speed even the broadcast media cannot match.

Part of that phenomenon is the "blog" or "weblog", of which this site is but one example. Less than two months old, it is now taking over 300 hits a day, and traffic is growing by the week. That may be small beer, but many of the postings are downloaded and circulated to discussion sites and e-mail circulation lists, as well as other blogs, while a small but influential circle of journalists are regularly consulting the site. With this multiplier effect, posting are being read by thousands, within hours of publication.

But this is just one blog. Altogether, there are now no less than four and a half million active blogs on the web, some taking more than 10,000 hits a day. Most of them are American. Many are devoted to unutterable rubbish and trivia – but many are not. The best offer fast, perceptive analysis, this one by Iain Murray being one good example click here.

For the first time in history, therefore, a small but significant proportion of the electorate is better and more quickly informed than either the political elites or the media. While the establishment is still receiving old information and struggling to assimilate and analyse it, the "bloggers" have already dealt with it, understood it and moved on – often benefiting from much wider sources of information than the narrow filter that constrains the horizons of the establishment media.

From this new source of information comes the cascade effect, as information trickles down through a myriad of channels, to a wider circle of people – by telephone, word of mouth, leaflet and even snail mail - amounting to an explosion of people power.

Such is the effectiveness and breadth of the new pathway that I find that even when I visit the so-called centres of activity, such as Westminster, rather than picking up information, one feels deprived of it – out of touch.

People who traditionally would have been regarded as at the centre of events are looking at information that is days and sometimes weeks old. They are unaware of current discussion topics and developments, and are fatally limited in their breadth of understanding. Worse still, they still believe themselves to be informed, at the centre, not even beginning to understand that they are being left at the margins.

What we are witnessing, therefore, is nothing short of a revolution, where information is no longer in the hands of the select few. But information is still power – so with the change in the pattern of its availability comes a step-change in the distribution of power.

The pity of it is that many of those who believe themselves to be in power are unable even to turn on a computer, much less surf the net. As the revolution builds its momentum, they do not even know it is happening.

Understatement of the Century

From today's Observer

"We cannot take it as read that people in this country understand or are passionate about Europe".

Lucy Powell, campaigns director of Britain in Europe.

Bright girl, this one. Should go far.

Howard’s way - forward

The word is getting out. Several newspapers this morning are telling the same story. According to The Independent, "Labour Party managers" fear that UKIP could "emerge as the sensational victors" of the Euro-elections. Labour's exit polls have shown that UKIP has polled "disproportionately heavily" in the south-west of England, making it possible that its share of the national vote may be higher than any other party's.

"Labour's polling also shows the Conservatives ahead of Labour, with the Liberal Democrats in fourth place. One senior Labour source says: 'UKIP could be first, second, or they could be third. It's difficult to tell, because we don't know exactly where their votes are coming from. A lot are coming from people who don't normally vote at all.'"

That last comment is particularly significant. Sources in UKP believe that the party may have been successful in attracting a large number of "Euro-virgins" to their cause, motivating them sufficiently to cast an anti-EU vote. This could upset predictions for further elections as these "virgins" have no fold to go back to. Having tasted blood in this election, they may have caught the voting habit and cast their votes in the general election in a wholly unpredictable way.

That apart, Nick Wood, the Conservative Party's media director, 2001-2003, offers his observations in The Independent on the expected "Euro-rout". He notes that, a few weeks ago, hardly anyone in senior Conservative circles thought that UKIP would prove to be much more than a minor irritation.

"The received wisdom", he writes, "was that both the local and European elections would be a referendum on Blair and his government. Accordingly, Michael Howard went negative, constructing a campaign built around the slogan Let Down by Labour and seeking to capitalise on Labour's domestic unpopularity. Charles Kennedy did much the same - making his party's opposition to the Iraq war the core of his appeal for town hall and European votes.

"At the time", Wood concludes, "Howard's strategy seemed sound. Only now, with the luxury of hindsight, have the flaws become apparent." He identifies three things that went wrong: UKIP hired Dick Morris, who gave the party a simple, clear message; second, it made Robert Kilroy-Silk its front man; and third, UKIP became the home for the protest vote which "had to go somewhere", and the Tories were not seen as the natural repository because they were not yet in "election-winning shape".

Wood is right about UKIP being underestimated by the Tories, but they can hardly be blamed for that. At the beginning of the campaign, many people outside the UKIP party zealots thought that the party would be hard-put to retain its three seats, especially as the number available had been reduced. The Dick Morris influence is probably overstated as much of the thinking and strategy was in place before Morris arrived. What made the difference was the backing of two multi-millionaires, Alan Bown and Paul Sykes, who stumped up the money to make it happen.

They, in turn, were influenced by the arrival of Kilroy. He suddenly seemed to give UKIP the aura of electability, but his recruitment was a stroke of good fortune. Courted for many years by the party, he has always been reluctant to pitch in and, had he not been fired by the BBC from his day job, he would not have touched UKIP with a barge pole.

If UKIP won it, the Tories also lost it, through a series of tactical errors. The first was to under-rate the electoral significance of the Tory European group deciding to stay aligned with the federalist EPP group in the European parliament. Thought to be an arcane technical issue, the lid was blown wide open by Charles Moore in the Telegraph and many horrified Tory supporters rushed into the arms of UKIP.

Secondly, when Howard and his party managers did perceive UKIP to be a threat, they relied on an extraordinarily badly crafted "attack" briefing produced by the Conservative Research and Development unit, which managed both to patronise and vilify Conservative core supporters. The result was a rush order for "proud to be a gadfly" badges and a hardening of the UKIP vote.

Finally, Howard was to pay for the years of indecision and lack of clarity in the Party on the whole issue of the EU, leaving the party leader floundering on the Today programme, under the incisive – and well-briefed – attack from John Humphrys, sounding shifty and uncertain.

On that basis, Wood's analysis is not convincing. Perhaps it is just as well that he is the Conservative Party's former media director – because his recipe for recovery is not much better either. "Howard needs to make clear that under him, a future Tory government will insist upon a new long-term relationship with Brussels and one that halts the federalist ratchet for good", he writes.

That is not the point. Mr Howard has already told everyone who will listen that he intends to do that. The trouble is that no one believes him. Until he can come up with a credible and realistic way of turning rhetoric into action, the disbelief will continue.

Howard does not, as Wood suggests, have to "harden his anti-European policies and rhetoric". People are sick to the back teeth of "policies and rhetoric". They want action. He has to convince them that what he already says he intends to do will actually happen. That needs to be Howard's way forward.

And now for something slightly different

A curious poll by Gallup Europe, published on June 7 tells us that Americans do not seem to know much about the European Union. (On the other hand, one has to admit that Europeans know very little about the United States, but that may not be considered relevant.)

It seems to have been a somewhat odd poll with an odd selection of questions. For instance Americans were asked about purely factual matters on whether the EU was larger or smaller than the USA with only two per cent answering correctly that the EU is, indeed, larger. Of course, with the borders of the EU constantly moving, it is a little hard to keep up with its size.

Other questions were not exactly factual. 48 per cent of those polled saw the EU’s role for the world economy as positive, which is a matter of opinion and is, in any case, a meaningless question. Only 33 per cent saw the EU’s role in fighting poverty as positive. Again, a matter of opinion but not inaccurate, given the EU’s tendency for slapping all kinds of tariffs and anti-dumping regulations on poorer countries.

But the oddest part of it all was the comment made by Alec Gallup, chairman of Gallup Poll and board member of Gallup Europe in an interview with EurActiv. Apparently, this “lack of awareness of EU as a player could be related to the fact that the EU’s foreign policy is perceived as being run by the individual European nations, not the EU”. This apparently shows that Americans “are not very receptive and knowledgeable”.

Receptive to what exactly? We have been told endlessly by our Government that foreign and security policy are among those famous red lines that Tony Blair will fight for at the Summit on Waterloo Day. If the foreign policy is already run by the EU then what is he going to be fighting for?

Come to think of it, how many people in the various member states know that the EU runs their foreign policy and how many fondly imagine that it is run by the government they elect?

Tomorrow, however, those Americans who are interested in affairs on this side of the Atlantic will learn a new fact: that a large proportion of those British voters who can be bothered to turn out to vote in the election for the European Parliament, dislike the whole enterprise so much that they cast their votes for the one party that is calling for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. Now that will be a fact worth knowing.

Euro-election update

In what is the calm before the storm, a more refined estimate of the extent of the UKIP victory is now available. The vote looks to lie in the range 23-27 percent which, at the top extreme, could give the Party as many as 19 seats in England alone. A similar performance in Scotland could bring the number of seats to over the 20-mark.

This puts UKIP neck-and-neck in the poll, alongside the Tories, with the result too close to call for first place.

What is also now very clear is that UKIP has drawn votes from right across the political spectrum. Labour is being as much damaged as the Conservatives. This presents Blair with a particular problem as he was hoping to recover some of the ground from his drubbing in the Council elections by exploiting the Tory discomfort over the Euros.

Political insiders, therefore, are reporting that both Labour and the Tories are "looking very worried". Unusually, a lobby briefing is planned for 5pm on Sunday night, which means Blair might have something up his sleeve in order to divert attention from the issues raised by the election.

For earlier (but still relevant) coverage of the election, click here.

In praise of apathy

David Harley, the European Parliament's official spokesman, is crowing about the increased turnout in the European elections. The parliament "is winning the war against apathy", he purrs.

With overall UK turnout expected to be in the order of 40 percent, compared with the all-time low of 24 percent for the Euro-elections in 1999, Harley sees this as evidence of the European Parliament "turning the corner". "If confirmed", he says, "it would mean that at last the gap between the importance of what the European Parliament does in terms of people's daily lives and people's perception of the European Parliament is beginning to close."

Perhaps the most incredible thing about this statement is that the man who made it is actually paid a salary. If he is going to utter such facile, nay, moronic bilge, one would at least expect him to do it for free, in his own time.

Not least of the tiny facts that demonstrates Harley's manifest error is the turnout in Scotland, where there were no council or other elections to distract the voters from their solemn task of awarding the lucky few their five-year season tickets on the gravy train. There, the turnout is estimated to be 25 percent, almost exactly the same as the 24.7 percent garnered in 1999.

Second in the catalogue of rather inconvenient facts is a phenomenon which seems to have passed by Harley's dim little brain – that upwards of 25 percent of the British vote will have been cast in favour of UKIP.

If that means that "...the gap between the importance of what the European Parliament does in terms of people’s daily lives and people's perception" is "beginning to close", it also means that a very large number of people have woken up to what it is doing, and want none of it.

Thirdly, as has been noted on this Blog, much of the campaigning, here and in most of the member states of the EU, has been on domestic issues. The electorates of Europe are taking the opportunity, as Prescott so aptly put it, to give their governments "a kicking".

But, if all of that hardly adds up to a ringing endorsement of the European Parliament, the Harley's of this world will still be well-satisfied. What they are concerned with is the "crisis of legitimacy".

In this context, the more intelligent of his colleagues are quite happy to see a place in the European parliament for UKIP – as long as it does not become dangerous. Its presence demonstrates to the world that the EU is "broad church" and can tolerate – or even embrace – dissent. Their "token eurosceptics" are thus regarded with a surprising amount of warmth.

But what these people cannot tolerate – and what they fear most – is being ignored. We are here talking about a federal parliament, which has no inherent legitimacy and is always under challenge from the true representatives of the people, the national parliaments.

Its ultimate ambition is that its own popular vote should match, or even exceed, those of national parliaments. Then it will lay claim to be the superior representative body for the "peoples of Europe" and the right to legislate for them. Therefore, within bounds, it does not care who you vote for in the European elections, as long as you vote for someone. It is not the choice, but the act from which they seek to draw their legitimacy.

Thus, arguably, the most powerful vote against the European parliament is in fact an abstention - a vote for apathy. With that in mind, for the first time in my adult life, I did not cast a vote in an election. Single-handedly, therefore, I have reduced the turnout by 0.0000002 percent. There, now - that will really get them worried.

Another day, another draft

Irish presidency issues a new constitutional draft

Just to remind people (and myself) that there is life outside the election bubble, the Irish presidency have issued yet another of its constitutional drafts, in preparation for the final pre-summit meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels click here.

In the 75-page document, much of what was objectionable in the earlier drafts survives with only minor textual amendments. For instance, the European parliament still retains its veto on the EU budget. Also, by virtue of what appears to be a new declaration on Article III-308 (page 22), there is an inbuilt ratchet effect which can be used to prevent member states ever reducing the budget from whatever level has been set previously.

The European Union foreign minister still presides over the foreign affairs council, and there are still plans to set up a full-blown EU diplomatic service under the control of this minister. There is a nasty little addition (p. 31) which gives power to Eurojust for the "Coordination of investigations and prosecutions...", effectively putting Eurocops in charge of a whole tranche of criminal law, and the previous deleted Article on energy seems to be back in.

To cap it all, there is a protocol on "permanent structured co-operation" (pp. 36-38). To my reading, this is the basis for setting up a standing European Union Army - unless you think differently.

If Blair signs this, as it stands, he will not so much be giving up his "red lines" as shredding them and stitching them into a white flag.

The end – and the beginning

Euro-election coverage

While attention is still focused on the council elections, information on the Euro-elections - with the results delayed by EU diktat until Sunday - is drfting in.

Two more Euro-election results are in from the unofficial "verification" samples recorded in South West constituencies. Both put the Conservatives first, at 38 and 37.5 percent. UKIP comes second on 22.4 and 23.4 percent, the Lib-Dems come in at just shy of 16 percent. Labour trail fourth at 10.9 and 7.8.

One result from the West Midlands gives UKIP a relatively modest 15 percent but, generally, returns for UKIP seem to indicate a range of between 20-25 percent.

Despite the perception that most of the votes are coming from disaffected Tories, key Labour insiders are also reported as "very gloomy" on the outcome. One "very key insider" is now saying that the result will be "even worse for us" than the Council elections. We have lost "lots of votes to UKIP".

One factor which they may not have foreseen was the layout of the postal ballot form. While all three main parties concentrated on the Council elections, hoping for a carry-over of the Euro-vote, the form presented the Euro-candidates first, which means that most voters will have cast their Euro-vote first and then made their choice for the council seats.

Displaying more sophistication than they have been given credit for,they have been able and willing to cast their votes differently for the two elections. This means that the 7 percent vote polled for UKIP on the council elections cannot in any way be translated into a prediction for the Euros. On present showing, UKIP could possibly gain 15 or 16 seats.

This takes account of the substitute exit poll carried out by AOL (at 17.00 hrs), which now puts the Conservatives at 24 percent, with UKIP having dropped back to 22 percent. Labour moves up to 14 percent and the Lib-Dems and BNP share 12 percent.

At 11.30 today, the UKIP poll put UKIP in clear first place with 27 percent of the vote, leaving the Tories trailing in second place with 23 percent and Labour polling a mere 14 percent. The Lib-Dems managed a mere 11 percent, putting them in fifth place behind the BNP which got 12, capturing fourth place in the rankings.

By 13.00 hours, the UKIP lead had dropped to 24 percent as against the Tories 22 percent with Labour up one at 15 percent. Overall, however, the rankings remained the same.

There is an enormous health warning with these types of polls, although in the past, my impression is that AOL subscribers tend to display a Europhile bias. However, as the data settle down, they still point to a massive swing in favour of UKIP, putting the Party in a strong second place. This is a much stronger position than indicated by the Gallup Poll released last night (which was actually conducted on the Wednesday).

With the UK total seats falling from 87 to 78, the Gallup predictions were that UKIP would get 12 seats but the victor would be the Tories with 23 seats, ahead of Labour with 20. The Lib-Dems were expected to boost their presence from 10 to 14 seats. If this did happen, it would have been largely as a result of the Moslems expressing their disapproval of Blair's Iraqi adventure. For the first time, a block ethnic vote would have had a measurable effect on the result of a major election.

The Green vote still looks set to fall and there still are no good indications on the fate of any of the independents, particularly Neil Herron, who has been fighting for a North-East seat. Here, with only three seats up for grabs, the hurdles are impossibly high and the best that is expected of him is that he will keep his deposit.

However, the loss of Newcastle - a traditional Labour stronghold - to the Lib-Dems is a good sign, more so with Tony Flynn, the council leader, having lost his seat. Flynn is a strong and voluble Europhile and has been a leading player in the North-East Region "yes" campaign for regional assemblies. Whether this will help Herron is difficult to determine but private polling does suggest that the North-East will be the only region which does not return a UKIP MEP.

The only certainty at the moment, however, is that the closure of the polls yesterday marked not only the end of the Euro campaign but also the beginning of the post-mortems, with the blood-letting to follow shortly thereafter. Already, the Today programme has picked up on the Howard letter to John Whittingdale, pledging to invoke the supremecy of Parliament in order to repatriate fishing - as an indicator of a hardening in the Tory line towards Europe.

Behind closed doors, massive heart-searching in the Tory camp has already started. The Europhiles have been quick to get their oar in, with sources close to Jonathan Evans, the Tory group leader, blaming their own eurosceptics for the debacle. Showing their characteristic failure to understand the message they are being given, the line is "If you hadn't gone on about the EPP link, or about how dreadful Europe was then the electorate wouldn't have noticed our split loyalties".

Evans, however, will be under considerable fire, not least because his advice on campaigning tactics was to concentrate on the council elections and play down the European issues. When the discarded bodies are seen, Evans may be one of the high profile casualties. Liam Fox may be another.

Yet another casualty may be the Tory group membership of the EPP, demanded by disappointed candidates and activists as a guesture to demonstrate the Party's Eurosceptic credentials.

Just so you know who (and what) you are voting for

Wilfried Martens is not exactly a household name in Britain, but he has a significant stake in the Conservative performance at the Euro-elections and will be one of those who helps shape the thinking (and actions) of Conservative MEPs when they go to Brussels.

Martens is a co-president of the European Peoples' Party – the group to which the Conservatives are attached – having held that post since 1990. From October 2000 to November 2001 he was President of the Centrist Democrat International. Previously, he was Belgium's Prime Minister on various occasions from 1979 to 1992.

On the eve of the Euro-elections, he has given and interview to the Europhile "Euractiv" web-based news agency, and some of his comments are more than a little revealing.

There have, for instance, been "strong tensions" between the eurosceptics and the "pro-europeans" in the EPP, and speculation on whether this would cause a break-up of the group. At centre-stage is the continued Conservative membership, with objections being expressed, not least by another EPP member, François Bayrou, head of the Union for French Democracy.

Bayrou is a convinced "federalist" and wants to see the EPP become the midwife to the birth of a new European political force, "whose programme would consist of rebuilding political and democratic Union in Europe". He complains that the EPP is no longer "defending the heritage of the (EU) founders."

But Martens denies this. "The EPP is not becoming less pro-European", he tells Euractiv - rather shooting the fox of some of the Tory MEPs. He dismisses the claims that the EPP is softening its line, denouncing the actions of some of the players as "manoeuvres" due to "the internal political situations in different countries and people wanting to raise their profiles." So now we know - it was all posturing and pretence.

"We want the MEPs from the parties of M. Prodi and M. Bayrou (who were threatening to join the Liberal group) to stay inside the group", Marten says. But do the voters in the UK know that Martens regards the Tory MEPs and Prodi's men as natural soul-mates?

So unlikely does that seem that even "Euractiv" is driven to ask whether it was time to "reappraise the idea of an alliance with the UK Conservatives?". This elicits a dusty response from Martens: "Personally I was not in favour of changing the status of the group", he says.

But the real revelation comes in his follow-up. "Anyway, the debate on the Constitution is a transitional one", he declares. "The day the constitution is ratified, this issue will disappear - if the UK ratifies..." In other words, once we've got the constitution in the bag, it's business as usual.

Martens and his Conservative pals can get on with their main agenda, which includes building up the EPP and the leading "European political party", and lobbying to combine the functions of President of the Council and President of the Commission.

For as long as the Conservative European group remains in the EPP, that, unfortunately, is what a Conservative vote will help promote. Even if the individuals are Eurosceptics, it dosn't really make any difference. Their money will support the likes of Martens and his agenda (see our previous Blog click here).

Group Bondage

Joining in on what has become a traditional sport for continental farmers, around 200 Greek Cypriot animal breeders with their sheep and goats yesterday demonstrated outside the presidential palace in Nicosia.

Predictably, given the niggardly accession settlement, they were demanding more subsidies, arguing their livelihoods have suffered since Cyprus joined the EU. The farmers have given the government a 30-day deadline to act.

Their woes would strike a chord with British farmers, centred as they are on higher fuel and animal feed prices, both of which have increased since Cypriot accession. In this case, the Cypriots blame the EU, which has banned the subsidies previously paid by the state.

But what also strikes an eerie chord is the response of the Cypriot government. "The government can only move within the specifications laid out by the accession agreement with the EU," agricultural minister Timmis Efthymiou complained. The government would try to negotiate a deal with the EU but could not take immediate action because its "hands were tied" by EU rules.

Some years ago, while attempting to deal with the problems facing small slaughterhouse operators crippled by EU rules, on one day I met separately several senior civil servants and a junior minister. But, as the hapless Cypriot agriculture minister is now doing, they all expressed their sympathy and apologised for their inaction, explaining that their "hands were tied".

Walking down Whitehall afterwards, I formed a mental image of thousands of civil servants and politicians, all sitting at their desks with their hands tied. I thus concluded that the only meaningful activity in government allowed by the EU was group bondage - which now seems to be becoming a European phenomenon.

This might explain why Czech porn queen Nora Baumberger (screen name Dolly Buster) is rushing to get herself elected to the European Parliament. One wonders, incidentally, whether Mz Buster will be bringing her daughter "Filly".

Back from the Abyss

Michael Howard reaffirms that he will repatriate fishing policy by national legislation.

Yesterday, at 19.33, I received by fax direct from Michael Howard's office, a copy of a letter signed by Mr Howard, addressed to John Whittingdale, OBE MP, shadow agriculture and fisheries minister. This followed a meeting between Mr Howard and Messrs Whittingdale and Owen Paterson MP. The letter reads as follows:

Dear John

You told me this evening that a number of those in the fishing industry have commented on my remarks on the Today Programme this morning. I thought it would therefore he helpful if I reiterated the position which I set out very clearly in Dundee click here and in my subsequent visits to fishing communities during this campaign.

We are determined that the next Conservative government will establish national and local control over fishing. We intend to raise this in the Council of Ministers at the first opportunity and I believe we can achieve this through negotiation. However, should negotiations not succeed, it remains the case, as I said in Plymouth, that the British Parliament is supreme and we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring about full national and local control.

Yours ever.

Michael.

I have a hard copy of this letter and the same in .pdf format. Thousands have now been circulated and anyone else who wishes to have their own copy can contact me click here, with your fax number if you wish a fax copy, and I will send it to you.

Personally, I cannot stress enough the historic importance of this document. The sentiments are not new but this is nevertheless an absolute commitment from the Leader of the Opposition that, if elected to government, he will seek repatriatiation of an important EU policy, by invoking the supremecy of the British Parliament.

This is the result of the tireless work of fishermen and their representatives - not least John Ashworth of Save Britain's Fish - and countless others, the work of Messrs Whittingdale and Paterson and, of course, because Mr Howard is now convinced of the case, and committed to the means by which it will be secured.

Have your fun at the Euro-elections, by all means, but for those of you who are committed to turning back the tide of European integration, the next task is to give Mr Howard the tools to do the job, at the election that really matters - the general.

Howard blows it!

The Today Programme BBC Radio 4
Interview - John Humphrys and Michael Howard

John Humphrys: "So in other words, your position is precisely the same as the Labour government’s."

Michael Howard: "Oh! Absolutely."

Here, let it be said, is the turning point. Michael Howard today proved, beyond doubt, that the Conservatives are unelectable.

Extract as follows:

MH: …I think we should be saying to our partners there are things which Europe does today which would be much better done by the nation states. And we ought to be looking in the light of experience at the things which Europe does do today and seeing if we can restore some of them to the nation states. And I was very interested to hear Jim Naughtie’s interview earlier this morning with the Dutch foreign minister who seemed to be saying something very similar indeed to what I have been saying.

JH: Well that’s a bit milder the way you expressed… it’s a bit milder than the language you’ve been using, and the language you used in the Daily Telegraph this morning. You’re talking about restoring things to Britain that are now controlled by Europe, such as the Common Fisheries Policy.

MH: That’s one. Em… Overseas aid is another. We all want our overseas aid to go to the poorest people in the world. They clearly need help and that’s why hard-earned taxpayer’s money in this country is used to help the poorest people in the world. Now everybody knows that British aid is clean, is not corrupt, is effective, gets to the people who need it. That unfortunately isn’t true of the aid policies of the European Union and their programmes, despite Chris Patten’s Herculean efforts to reform them…

JH: But er…

MH: BUT why, why should hard-earned British taxpayers’ money go to aid programmes run by the European Union. Instead it would be much better if they went to the poorest people in the world through British aid programmes. That’s another example

JH: But the Common Fisheries Policy is something that you cannot restore and it’s misleading to suggest that you can.

MH: But you CAN. You see fishing was actually one of the things on the agenda in the constitution discussions. It still is on the agenda. And our government could have said because it’s on the agenda, we want to talk about this and we think this is one of the things that is done at European level which would be better done at national level.

JH: Interruption (unintelligible)

MH: Instead it’s going the other way. There is a change to the status of fishing in the constitution. It makes it even clearer than it is now that it’s to be an exclusive European competence. And instead of saying no to that, and arguing about that, and discussing and negotiating that, as is so often the case, the government of this country have just thrown up their hands and given up the ghost.

JH: Well the fact is that it existed before we joined the… the Common Fisheries Policy existed before we joined the European Union and we signed up to it as part of the accession treaty that we signed. And therefore, if we wanted to change it, we would have to get the approval of all the other members, 24 other countries. The idea that Portugal or Spain or indeed France would say OK, we’ll give you back your fishing is daft. It’s like you inviting Kilroy-Silk into your shadow cabinet or something. It’s not going to happen.

MH: That is exactly the sort of argument that took place when Margaret Thatcher said she was going to get our rebate back.

JH: Not a fair comparison…

MH: It’s an entirely fair comparison. People said why should anyone give up their money so that you can get this rebate? You need the agreement of every other member state. You’re not going to get it.

HM: So you really believe you could get the agreement of for instance, France and Portugal and Spain to restore all our fishing rights?

MH: I tell you…

JH: Do you believe that?

MH: Yes.. I tell you why…

JH: You do?

MH: I tell you why. Because, you see that this would not be one isolated subject. I want to have a new deal in Europe. I want to have a fresh look at the whole basis on which the European Union is currently run. And I want to say to our partners, look there are those of you who want to integrate more closely. And Britain’s been saying no for some time now, and you’re fed up of our saying no, and I’m fed up of our saying no. So let’s have a new deal. If you want to integrate more closely, that’s fine. We don’t want to stop you doing what you want to do. I…

JH: (interruption – unintelligible) …integrating more closely… it’s not the point here, that’s not what we’re talking about here.

MH: Let me finish. We don’t want to stop you doing what you want to do as long as you don’t make us do what we don’t want to do. So let’s sit down together, let’s look at the current arrangements. Where they’re working well - and there are many respects in which they are working well - that’s fine, that’s very good. We won’t disturb those. But where in the light of our experience over the many years for which the European Union has been operating, we can see that it’s not working well and it would be much better if things were restored to national control, let’s do that. Let’s not have a one-way street Europe in which the only decisions that are taken transfer yet more power from the nation states to Brussels. Let’s have a look and see that where there are things that the nation states could do much better, much more effectively, let’s sit down together and say that would be a good idea.

JH: And if they say no, actually, we think the Common Fisheries Policy is working abso… I take this as a very important example… We think it’s working fine. Then what do you do?

MH: Nobody thinks it’s… (interruption) Nobody thinks its working fine… It’s emptied the seas of fish.. (interruption)

JH: You know as well as I do that there’s no way that those other countries that I refer to will say all right, let us restore Britain’s fishing rights in the way that you and British fishermen no doubt would like to have it restored. You know that there is not a cat in hell’s chance of that happening.

MH: Well, as I say John, that is exactly what people said to Margaret Thatcher. And I’m afraid I don’t agree with you.

JH: All right.

MH: She achieved it before. And I think we can do it again.

JH: So is that one of your red lines, then, to use the expression that’s in vogue?

MH: It is only the Conservative Party that says we should stay in the European Union but we shouldn’t go down the road of creating a single state. We shouldn’t give more and more power to Brussels…

JH: I take that point…

MH: Continues with EVM (Extruded Verbal Material) until JH gets Howard back to the point…

JH: All right, well let me return to the question I put to you, which I don’t think you answered. Would this business of the fishing policy, would that be one of your red lines, to use this voguish phrase? In other words, in other words – and this is a very important point isn’t it – in other words, if you could not get that changed, would you say that we cannot stay in this institution, in Europe as it exists.

MH: Margaret Thatcher, when she negotiated the rebate never said if I don’t get the rebate I’m going to pull out.

JH: No, I’m asking whether you would say that?

MH: No, I would take the same attitude that she took. And it succeeded. And I see no reason why it shouldn’t succeed again.

JH: But it might not. You’d accept that. You’re an intelligent man. You know that it’s distinctly possible that you would fail in this, what no doubt some people would see as a noble endeavour. If you failed, you would nonetheless say, OK we’ll just have to live with it. That’s would you would have to do isn’t it?

MH: You can go into negotiations determined to succeed or you can go into negotiations contemplating failure. I would go into those negotiations determined to succeed.

JH: But you will not be saying as you go into these negotiations, if we do not get what we want, then we will leave the European Union. Be very clear about that.

MH: That was not the way in which it was done before and I don’t think that this would be a sensible way in which these negotiations should be conducted.

JH: So your problem remains then that you’re fighting this election tomorrow against a party that says we are actually prepared, indeed want to pull out of Europe. And you have left therefore the sceptics in your party nowhere to go – or sceptics not necessarily within your party, those who are sceptical outside your party who might have otherwise voted for you – saying well it looks as if we’re going to vote for Europe, er for UKIP because we want to send a message.

MH: Well it’s not the position of the Conservative Party and it’s not my position that we want to pull out of the European Union. That is absolutely clear.

JH: And indeed you go further and say under no circumstances would we pull out.

MH: We want to stay in the European Union because we think there’s an important job to do in Europe standing up for Britain’s interests and putting Britain first.

JH: So in other words, your position is precisely the same as the Labour government’s.

MH: Oh! Absolutely…

JH: We will stay in Europe and fight…

MH: But they give in…

And so it continues…. To hear the full interview click here.

"Perestroika" europhiles

While we remember the man who led the West to victory in the Cold War (a victory that has since been to a great degree squandered by many, not least the European Union), we must also spare a thought for the man who lost because he miscalculated. No, for once I do not mean President Mitterand but President Mikhail Gorbachev.

Gorby, as he was known affectionately in the West (the Russians called him and his expensively dressed wife considerably worse things) had become leader mostly because even the sclerotic Kremlin leadership realized that against a growing American threat they had better put up someone who was a tad faster on his feet than the moribund Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko (who?). He then proceeded to introduce reforms as he saw the need for them.

The aim of the Gorby reforms was not to introduce freedom, democracy or liberalism but to make the Communist system more efficient. Reminds you of anything? It gets worse. In order to reform that unreformable system and make it strong enough and productive enough to square up to the Americans, Gorby hit on three ideas: glasnost, perestroika, uskoreniye.

The first can be translated roughly as transparency (or propaganda, as some preferred), the second as restructuring and the third as speeding up or growing efficiency. Unfortunately, it did not take the Russian wags long to work out that the trinity or troika had the initials GPU, one of the reincarnations of the ubiquitous secret police in the 1920s. So uskoreniye or efficiency, was dropped. It was a lost cause, anyway.

As one reads through the statements made by Gorbachev and, even more so, his followers, one sees a striking continuity: behind the vague talk of democratization, move forward, efficiency and so on, there is the undoubtedly fierce defence of the indefensible communist system. He did not respond to Reagan’s challenge to open the gates and take down the wall if he really believed in openness and freedom. The wall was taken down and the gates were burst open by the people.

Why this dull historical analysis, one may ask. I am constantly reminded of Gorby and his doomed “reforms” by a certain class of europhiles, whom one may call the “perestroika” europhiles. They, too, think that it can all be made to work if only a few rather insignificant reforms are carried out. And they, too, when seriously challenged will respond by a ferocious defence of European integration, come what may.

The most important of these organizations in Britain is the Centre for European Reform, run by Charles Grant, the erstwhile biographer of Jacques Delors and, for some time, Tony Blair’s adviser on foreign affairs.

Mr Grant has produced a very cogent paper on the possible outcome of the referendum If Britain votes no .... His view is that the two alternatives posited, that the EU will stay as it is or that Britain will be thrown out are unconvincing. He does not exactly produce his own alternative but goes through various developments, which is what a good think-tank should do. Oddly enough, he would agree with the view frequently expressed on this blog, that a no vote in the referendum will throw the EU into a whirlpool.

Mr Grant’s preferred scenario is the formation of a core group that will move more speedily towards integration, that is, unless France has a referendum and votes no. Then, of course, all bets are off.

What is so odd from such a judicious writer is that he considers that to be a tragedy for all. The idea of the people of Britain (or any other country) expressing their preferences against a demonstrably bad and badly written constitution is abhorrent to Mr Grant and his Centre. Glasnost and perestroika are all very well, but, in the end, it is the system that must be defended.

For instance, he is clearly appalled to think that some European politicians might use a no vote to throw Britain out. (Actually, they cannot, as Mr Grant reluctantly allows.) “They despair of Britain’s loyalty to the US, its xenophobic press, the smug superiority of many of its politicians and its unremitting hostility to most kinds of European integration.”

Is Mr Grant listening to himself? What can be more xenophobic and smug than the unremitting French hostility to all things American and, what they describe with loathing as Anglo-Saxe? And if the people of Britain are hostile to “most kinds of European integration”, maybe their views should be listened to. Has Mr Grant heard of democracy? (Probably only vaguely. It was, after all, Charles Grant, who some years ago presented a paper to a Foreign Office seminar, in which he argued that Britain must learn to manoeuvre better in the EU and work harder to find allies. One such possibility was Spain, who could be talked into supporting British views on the choice of Commissioners and Commission Presidents as well as, possibly, putative CAP reform. And for this, according to Mr Grant, Spain should be offered a deal on Gibraltar. Well, we know what came of that particular idea.)

At least Charles Grant is relatively judicious. His colleague, Mónica Roma, the senior research fellow for justice and home affairs at the CER, is less so in her paper Who's afraid of the Charter of Rights?

Not only she sees nothing wrong with that rather dubious document, she castigates the evil eurosceptics and foolish businessmen for raising doubts. It is a most inoffensive document, she says, though, for some reason rather a necessary one, and there is no need for British politicians to listen to worried businessmen and to try to extract concessions and explanations from the IGC. (Those concessions that Blair has allegedly extracted turn up in Charles Grant’s paper as well. It would be interesting to see a list of them.)

Ms Roma dismisses the fears of “woolly distinction between rights and principles” but in her analysis she says that “[t]he charter itself does not contain a list that neatly divides rights and principles. But the ‘explanations’ to each article added by the Convention which drafted the charter, go a long way towards making that distinction.” One worries about Ms Roma’s understanding of law. Explanations do not have a legal standing in court.

In fact, one worries about her understanding of many things. She says that preambles do not usually have legal force. Not in British law maybe, but this is not British law. But the real problem lies in her explanation of why one must not worry about the Charter, as it does not have to be translated into national legislation:

“The charter is an integral part of the EU’s constitutional treaty. Governments sign international treaties (and that is fundamentally what the new treaty is, despite its grand name), but they do not implement them through secondary legislation. No government has transposed the UN charter into national law, for example. There is no reason why this case should be different.”

Mr Grant had better have a good look at Ms Roma’s arguments. Even for a perestroika europhile, that is silly. The treaty, Ms Roma, is to bring into effect a Constitution, which will be the source of legislation in the EU. By making the Charter part of that Constitution, the Convention has asserted its position as a source of legislation. That is why Jack Straw has been trying to clarify certain issues. Furthermore, previous treaties signed by governments did, indeed, result in a great deal of legislation that had to be transposed into national laws and regulations, sometimes through primary, sometimes through secondary legislation. (Perhaps Ms Roma thinks all national legislation is secondary.)

Indeed, it is rather disingenuous to say that the Charter does not matter as it applies only to EU legislation. EU legislation is our legislation and will be more so if the Constitution is adopted. But then, let’s face it: transparency and reconstruction are all very well, but what matters ultimately is the system. And that must be defended to the death.

"Man bites dog"

Here is a story akin to that famous apocryphal one: European Parliamentary candidates promise to be honest (well, almost). According to an article in the International Herald Tribune “[m]ore than 200 candidates have signed a pledge in nine different languages with the Campaign for Parliament Reform to strengthen the Parliament's code of conduct.”

To the candidates’ (and some journalists’) surprise the issue has shown itself to be more important than “weightier ones like the war in Iraq or immigration”. Why anyone should think that the subject of our legislators’ honesty and how the taxpayers’ money is spent are not weighty issues, passes comprehension, but that’s journalists and politicians for you.

Almost 100 German candidates have signed a pledge to take reimbursements of travel expenses at actual cost. They have been supported by the Austrians, even the socialists, who have been shunning their colleague, Peter Martin, since his temerity of filming various MEPs signing in to collect expenses without doing any work at all.

The Greek socialist party, rather tarnished by past financial scandals, have chosen a completely new list of candidates. These have pledged to impose stringent accounting controls on their pay and privileges, causing some surprise among hardy campaigners for reform in the European Parliament as the Greeks had never signed or supported any previous attempts to overhaul the system.

In Britain, the inevitable Martin Bell has popped up and promised the following: "If elected, I shall: Open my expense accounts to public scrutiny on a monthly basis. Work from a constituency address that really exists. Not employ any of my relatives." He, of course, as some of our readers will remember, forfeited his white steed and shining armour by admitting that his campaign against Neil Hamilton had been run and financed by the local Labour and Lib-Dem parties, by breaking his previous promise not to stand the second time, and by standing against an inoffensive Conservative MP rather than any very offensive and corrupt Labour ones.

The problem with all this outbreak of transparency was perceived immediately by the Austrian Peter Martin and the Dutch “whistleblower”, now independent parliamentary candidate, Paul Van Buitenen. A rather patchy, nationally based set of pledges and promises, which remain infuriatingly vague as to date of commencement, is not going to alter the fact that the European Parliament is incapable of putting its own affairs into order.

We shall have to see how many of the pledge givers, when elected, will live up to their fine words.

Without comment

Taken from an AFP report this morning:

If UKIP, which won three seats at the 1999 European elections, maintains its momentum through to the British general elections, expected in 2005, some observers feel it could split the right-wing vote - doing irreparable damage to the Conservatives.

"There's a wonderful prospect for Labour that, if UKIP can really do well and take 10 percent of the vote in the general election, then Labour need never fear for its future again," said Patrick Dunleavy, a professor of government at the London School of Economics.

The "handbag" ploy

Why Howard’s invocation of the Thatcher spirit won't work

Demonstrating yet again his lack of campaigning skills, Michael Howard is continuing his maladroit Euro-election campaign by invoking the spirit of Margaret Thatcher.

In his recent Southampton speech, click here, he told his hand-picked audience of party workers that "Lots of people think that you can only do business with Europe in one of two ways. Either you've got to hand over ever more powers. Or you have got to give up altogether."

"But I take a different view. And so did Mrs Thatcher," Howard continued. "She was told there was nothing that could be done about the fact that Britain paid more than her fair share of the total EU budget. People said to her 'you'll never get our money back from Europe'."

But, according to the Howard version of history, "…she wasn't having that. She said no…and look what happened - Britain got her rebate which is still being paid to this day."

By invoking Thatcher, Howard is of course trying to convey the impression that, like Thatcher, he can go storming off to Brussels and bang his (metaphorical) handbag on the table and get his way. All it will take, he implies, is a little bit of firmness, and the "colleagues" will roll over and give him exactly what he wants.

What is particularly dismal about this fantasy, though, is the way it completely misrepresents history. Yes, there is no question that Thatcher did hold out for the British rebate, famously in popular myth, going to Brussels and "handbagging" the opposition.

But the reality is different. For a start, she had right on her side, which even the "colleagues" acknowledged. The financial settlement agreed by Heath on our accession was outrageously one-sided, with Britain set by 1980 to become the highest contributor to the community budget despite being seventh (of nine) in the per capita GDP league.

In fact, had events been less kind to Thatcher, and a Conservative government had not been elected, a Labour prime minister would have been "batting for Britain" in exactly the same way. Our budget payments were entirely unsustainable.

But what particularly gave Thatcher the edge – and would have been useful to anyone negotiating for Britain - was one central point. Costs of running the CAP were spiralling out of control and the Community was on the verge on bankruptcy, unable to pay its bills. Supported by Kohl and Mitterand – the latter desperately needing to keep his politically strong farmers happy - the "colleagues" were frantic to get agreement to an increase in the Community's "own resource", mainly though an increase in the percentage of VAT paid to the budget. Mitterand wanted a hike to 1.6 percent.

Their problem was that changes to the "own resource" required unanimous agreement, giving Thatcher the whip hand. Against a deteriorating financial situation, which had to be resolved, all she had to do was refuse to agree a new budget settlement until the colleagues had also agreed to a rebate.

What became known as the "Bloody British Question" nevertheless dominated Community politics from March 1979 until 1984, when it was finally settled at the notorious Fontainebleau Council. There, Thatcher famously secured a rebate of 66 percent on the VAT payment made to the Community budget. But this was at the cost of agreeing to an additional "own resource" whereby each member state would make an additional payment representing a proportion of its Gross National Product.

This, in turn, created new budgetary imbalances, which had to be corrected, so this was far from the end of the story. What happened then is taken directly from The Great Deception, by Christopher Booker and myself (pp. 193-4).

"Tied up in the small print was the establishment of a 'correction mechanism' for dealing with the continuing budgetary imbalances. Its complexity was such that, according to Hugo Young, it was 'outside the comprehension of every normal European citizen'. Even the Commission itself was to admit that it 'inhibited transparency in the financial relationships between the Member States and the Community budget'."

"In 1988 at the Brussels European Council, further revisions were made to the funding system where what became known as the 'Own Resources Decision' was made... These, in turn, created new distortions and required a new mechanism to calculate Britain's rebate. So complicated was the calculation that, according to the Commission's own reckoning, it produced the somewhat surprising result that the United Kingdom appears to participate in the financing of its own rebate (our emphasis)."

"While the Commission suggested that this 'self-financing' involved only 'very small amounts', the cumulative effects of the Fontainebleau agreement and the Brussels 'adjustment' were to be substantial. They created a situation whereby, whenever the UK applied for funds over and above a threshold level agreed in 1984, the Commission, through its 'correction mechanism', was (and is) able to 'claw back' a substantial proportion of the funds paid. By 2003 this equated to 71 percent."

"Because this meant that, in applying for certain funds from Brussels, the Treasury would end up paying for most of them itself, the British government decided that, having won her rebate, Britain should take maximum advantage from it. This in turn meant that, wherever possible, the UK would refuse to apply for such funds, even though other member states were doing so. This further meant that other countries were able to draw on considerably more money for their farmers from Brussels than was available to British farmers, whose ability to match the prices of their EEC competitors was thus reduced."

"By 2003, this would have become a significant contributory factor in the collapse of British agriculture. Thatcher’s 'victory' turned out to be a very mixed blessing." Putting it more crudely, despite Thatcher having all the aces, she was still hoodwinked, and Britain is still paying the cost.

But the really interesting thing is that a copy of The Great Deception was sent, free of charge, to every single MP, including Howard. One has long ceased expecting politicians to read books, but at least one of his ghastly teenage scribblers in Central Office could have read the copy - if indeed they can read - and corrected the myth about the use of Thatcher's "handbag".

Translated into the current situation, with Howard seeking such things as the repatriation of fishing policy, he holds none of the cards that were available to Thatcher. His only bargaining counter is the threat, unequivocally made, to act unilaterally in the event that there is no agreement. This, he and the Tory leadership seem increasingly reluctant to do.

Thus, when Howard says, "…the truth is that if you stand up for what you believe in, you can get things done in Europe," he speaks not the truth but simply transparently hollow rhetoric. And too many people now recognise it for what it is. That is why the Conservatives are going to get "creamed" in the Euros.

Sorry folks, that's the way it is. Don't blame the messenger.

How Americans see it

The Wall Street Journal Europe writes of the European Union and the economic disaster area known popularly as euroland more in sorrow than in anger. In common with many American commentators their writers often appear to believe that the original idea behind the project was the creation of a free-trade area that would then spread the idea of a free economy and free trade to other parts of the world. Only it keeps going horribly wrong and all the attempts that are supposed to overcome problems are shown to be counter-productive.

On Monday, June 7 most of the issue was devoted, naturally enough to Reagan with the Wall Street Journal congratulating itself on being one of the few media outlets that appreciated that remarkable man from the beginning. But one article, by Alan Friedman, looked at the situation in Europe.

Mr Friedman sounded like a man at the end of his patience with the European leaders. He pointed out that for most of June they will be doing nothing but meeting, whether in Normandy, in Georgia, USA as part of G-8, in Brussels for the summit, in Dublin for a session with US leaders or in Istanbul as part of NATO. And in none of those meetings will they discuss the dire economic situation.

There is a slight economic recovery but it is export-led not fuelled by the domestic consumer. Oil price will remain high and that is catastrophic for western Europe. (Yes, that war was about oil but not the way commentators put it. It was the opposition to it that was about oil.)

The ECB will not now cut interest rates because it fears inflation being fuelled by oil prices. The 2004 growth is likely to be 1.5 per cent, about one-third the rate of the US, adds Mr Friedman.

These are the things they should be talking about and this is what the European elections should be about. However, Mr Friedman thinks that all the talk and all the electioneering is going to be about Iraq. He is partly right. There is a fair chance that the American Administration will recognize overtly or covertly that France, which lost its lucrative deals with Saddam Hussein will need to be bought off with some business arrangement in Iraq. Otherwise it will not support the UN resolution and will try to derail any NATO involvement in the post-June 30 Iraq. The latter, as it happens, can be circumvented – it would not be the first time, or the last, when France will be effectively isolated in NATO. The former will require some economic sop.

The European elections, however, are not about Iraq, though some parties have placed the issue high on their policy priorities. Mostly the electoral campaigns are about the running unpopularity of almost all incumbent governments.

Mr Friedman, with the usual optimism of writers on the Wall Street Journal cannot take the constitution seriously and, apparently, cannot see its many implications, not least the economic ones. And yet, that is what at least one of the meetings is going to be about: the Summit in Brussels on Waterloo Eve and Waterloo Day. Still, his main conclusion is inescapable:

"Come July, Europe's leaders will still be haggling over failed budget-deficit targets, unfinished welfare overhauls and Western Europe's fears of lower corporate tax rates in Eastern Europe." The only thing is, much of it may well have been written into the Constitution by then.

Elsewhere in the newspaper, the editorial discussing President Reagan's achievements commented in passing that "the Reagan tax cuts saved America from following Western Europe into welfare-state decline". That is what Dominique Strauss-Kahn's vaunted "European model of society" looks like from outside. Not all that attractive, really, more a standard of measurement of what to avoid.

Implications… and consequences

Although it is still early days, it is perhaps time for reflection on the implications, and consequences of a major UKIP "victory" in the Euro-elections.

Premature it might be because until all the votes are cast, anything can happen. We had the same sense of euphoria in the 1997 general election when, working for the Referendum Party. On the Monday before polling day we were getting excellent canvassing returns and all the positive signals that convinced us we were going to be sending members to Parliament. Two days later, former staunch supporters could not look us in the eye – the mood had changed and we knew it was all over.

For sure, the dynamics of a Euro-election are different. People are not electing a government, so they can afford to – as UKIP puts it – "lend" another party their vote, without fear of any serious consequences. Thus, we can assume, on the basis of the evidence we have at the moment, that UKIP will do well out of the election.

So, what are the implications and consequences?

Significantly, that will rather depend on how the Conservatives Party reacts to what it perceives as a "defeat". If it learns the right lessons, knuckles down and addresses the legitimate concerns of those natural Conservative supporters who felt impelled to vote for UKIP, then the damage can be contained. Many of the faithful will return to the fold for the election that really matters, the general election.

If it draws the wrong lessons it could make matters considerably worse. Already the Party, which had the glimmerings of electability under the leadership of Mr Howard, is damaged goods, as a result of its maladroit campaign. It has much ground to recover, which it must do very quickly.

But the signs are not good. From the different levels of the Conservative Party are coming mixed messages. At the grass roots, there is being expressed utter frustration at the inability of the leadership to understand the message they are being sent. At the top levels, however, there is a sense of betrayal. The view here seems to be that they are entitled to the unconditional support of the "other ranks" and are angry that they are not receiving it. In other words, the debacle is not their fault – it is the electors' fault for not voting for them!

Added to that there also seems to remain a combination of that arrogance and detachment which contributed to the collapse of the Tory vote in 1997. I listened to the World at One on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, which had Charles Moore talking about the Tories and their membership of the EPP. This, he said, would "reduce the credibility of Conservative Eurosceptic claims" - or words to that effect. The interview followed Moore's Saturday op-ed in the Telegraph - a newspaper that has something like 1,000,000 readers. Effectively, a very large number of the Tory constituency is "up to speed" on the EPP issue.

Yet, on the programme, Moore was followed by Liam Fox who was entirely dismissive of Moore's claims. His line was that no one would be interested in the "internal workings" of the European Tory Party. This shows that, far from actually getting the message, he is being stupendously arrogant. Fox conveys precisely that message to which I referred. The Party hierarchy consider they have a God-given right to support and if it is not forthcoming then it is our (or anybody else's) fault, but not theirs.

What seems now possible is that the Party hierarchy, failing to understand the message it is being sent and fortified by an unwarranted sense of grievance, will turn on their former supporters and drive them further from the camp. The result could be a split Party, in disarray, allowing Blair to sweep to victory at the general, by default.

From there, starting from a base of speculation, we now move deeper into unknown territory. Generally, the perceived wisdom is that we are looking to a general election in the spring/early summer of next year. But that timetable depends, in part, on the fate of the constitutional IGC in twelve days time. If the constitution is agreed then, this gives Blair time to take the combined ratification and referendum Bill though both Houses and gain Royal Assent before Parliament is dissolved for the election.

The European issue is then neatly sidelined, as the debate can be postponed until after the election. Blair and his cronies can concentrate on domestic issues, depriving the Conservatives of the one issue on which they score well.

So far, so good. But if the agreement on the constitution is delayed until, say, December, under the Dutch presidency, the timetable is shot to pieces. There will not be time before the election to pass the Bill. The ratification question will be hanging – open for Mr Howard to campaign on a platform of refusing to ratify the treaty. That would put the European issue at centre stage, something that Mr Blair would travel a million miles to avoid.

Blair could, of course, delay the election until the autumn – not the best of times, but at least his Bill would be successfully through the Houses. However, in the latter part of the year – we are now in 2005 – the UK hold the presidency of the EU. A general election would be out of the question. A delay in the outcome of the IGC, therefore, could possibly push the general election into the spring of 2006. Going full-term is electorally risky, of course, but it is an option.

There is, nevertheless, another option. If the IGC fails, Blair could call a snap election this year, on or around October. He could thus exploit the disarray of the Tories, leaving them no time to recover from their June Euro-election defeat. Aided by UKIP which could draw sufficient votes from the Conservatives to deprive them of essential seats, Blair could sweep into power for the third time, by default.

He would then have a free hand to take his ratification Bill through Parliament, and then hold the referendum at his leisure, relying on his authority as a newly mandated leader to con the electorate, much as Wilson did in the 1975 referendum.

There are, of course, other scenarios, not least that the constitution is not agreed, relieving Blair of the need to hold a referendum. That would be helpful as, again, it would take "Europe" off the agenda – although it could hurt UKIP as its pitch at a general election would lose much of its force.

However, the potential damage caused by its maladroit Euro-election campaign, if exacerbated by an equally maladroit response, could damage the Conservative Party sufficiently to ensure it remained in opposition.

Much, therefore, rests not on the election on Thursday – for those who are still allowed access to a ballot box – but on the actions and events in the weeks and months afterwards. As they take shape, we will have a better idea of how the drama will unfold.

The demise of the Greens

Lost in the general excitement – if that is the right word – about the meteoric rise of UKIP in the Euro-election campaign is another political shift of seismic importance, the demise of the Greens. Once the rising star of the political firmament, an EU-wide assessment of the Green Party’s performance carried out by Agence France Press predicted that its share of the vote would fall from the current 6.0 percent to a mere 5.5 percent.

Not least of the indicators of the decline of the party’s fortunes is the situation in enviro-fanatic Sweden. Its party was founded in 1981 during the anti-nuclear movement, when the Swedish Greens posted their highest election score ever during 1995 European Parliament elections. They won 17.2 percent of votes. In the 1999 Euro-elections, however, support plunged to just 9.48 percent of votes and it is destined for even further falls this time, estimated at a mere six or seven percent.

Part of the problem for the Greens is that they face both ways on European integration. In Sweden and the UK, for instance, both parties present an anti-EU face while, on the other hand, have worked with the other parties in the Community to form an alliance of 25 Green parties, a proto-European party with strong federal leanings.

Popularity in Germany has been affected by the Greens forming a coalition in government with Schröder – although poll results are mixed – but there is an increasing recognition that the political leanings of the Greens lie very much to the left of centre. Not for nothing have they acquired the soubriquet the “watermelons” – green on the outside and red inside.

In the UK, vicious in-fighting has reduced the effectiveness of the party, and muted its voice. But from the melee has emerged MEP Caroline Lucas, a skilled self-publicist whose antics on the European Parliament temporary committee of inquiry on the Foot and Mouth epidemic managed to draw protests from her normally somnambulant colleagues and stern censure from the committee chairman.

While the Greens were once the darlings of the BBC and the environmentally conscious left, their showing in the UK polls is lacklustre, scoring a mere six percent in the latest YouGov poll, against UKIP’s 26 percent.

Interestingly, in Eurostat opinion polls of approval ratings on EU policies, "environment" shows up consistently as the most popular. The demise of the Greens, therefore, may in part reflect the increasing disillusionment with the EU, which relies on its "successes" in pursuing environmental legislation as justifying, in part, its existence - relying on the tedious mantra "pollution knows no frontiers".

But, as people are learning, EU and Green environmentalism has its costs. The disaster over the "fridge mountain", the forthcoming nightmare over the end of life vehicle directive – which has multiplied the number of abandoned cars on our streets – and the slow-motion catastrophe of the WEEE directive, which is going to make disposing of electrical equipment difficult and hideously expensive, have all helped to create a perception that the environmental movement has come off the rails.

Perhaps, the most visible – and intrusive – illustration of this is the Greens' support for renewable energy, with the UK party calling for a 100 percent target. They have thus nailed their flag to the mast of wind energy, while in the real world, opposition to wind farms is fast growing into a national movement that dwarfs the Greens.

And, when the father of environmentalism, James Lovelock – author of the Gaia thesis - last week pitched in to support nuclear energy, it became clear that, for the Greens, the writing was on the wall.

Some Russians are European

The three centuries’ old debate of whether Russians are Europeans, Asians or a bit of both has taken another turning. Last week representatives of the Russian communities of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Cyprus and the Czech Republic came together in Prague to form a Europe-wide Russian party, to represent the interests of the Russian-speaking population in the European Union, now, apparently numbering six million.

Some might say that they could do worse than finding out that Norway is not in the European Union.

The presence of all these Russians is due to various factors. Some of the Baltic Russians have been there for some time, moving to those small countries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Others, the majority, are descendants of Russians sent there after the Second World War and in the ensuing decades, to take the place of the exiled and murdered Balts and to dilute the population. One suspects that the language problems is greater among the second group.

The Russians in the other countries are different. Though there might conceivably be some in the Czech Republic who are descendants of the large number of White emigrés and refugees who flooded there after the Revolution and Civil War, the likelihood is that most of these people are the various Russian “biznessmeni” as they are known, part mafia, part secret services, wholly dishonest, who are moving into Eastern and Central Europe with a great deal of money and few, if any, principles.

Cyprus is, at present, over-run by Russians, who prefer to keep themselves and their money out of Russia for all sorts of reasons and who like the warm, friendly climate and atmosphere. How long the Cypriots will remain friendly remains to be seen. They are already grumbling.

The Russian population of Norway remains a mystery.

Though to be fair, there are some Russians, who have come to the West in order to have a better life, to work and to live in better conditions. One would think that their first priority would be to learn the language of the country they have moved to, but according to the new political grouping, that is not so. One of its top political priorities is the recognition of Russian as an official EU language. If the numbers are accurate, there is a better case to be made out here than that of the Irish Presidency, now definitely in its last lap, for Erse.

Other political aims are the protection of the Russian language in Estonia and Latvia and the formation of a pan-European political party that would put up candidates for the European Parliament. All this has to be achieved and the structure of the new political grouping worked out by May 1, 2005.

According to the BBC Russian Service correspondent in Helsinki, the prognosis is not good. Some of the Russian politicians in the Baltic states are standing in these elections and it is not clear how much they will achieve, though as he points out, surprises are always possible.

Furthermore, a Russian bloc did achieve good results during the last Latvian parliamentary elections, only to disintegrate immediately afterwards.

Letter from Rome

In fact, this letter is being written after my return from Rome, where between wandering round the Forum, the Colisseum, the Circus Maximus, numerous baroque churches, the old Jewish quarter (where, alas, as a sign of the times, the police was out in greater force than anywhere else in the city) and many other places that indicated Rome’s long history as the centre of western (though not necessarily European) culture, I managed to note one or two interesting facts to do with the European Union.

The first thing that strikes one is the ubiquitous presence of the EU flag. Wherever the Italian flag flies, there flies the azure blue with the gold stars. It is hard to work out whether this means a stupendous loyalty to the EU, gratitude for moneys and favours received or, simply, an indication that neither of the flags means anything. Rome, after all, was the last part of Italy to join the united country in 1870, even though it immediately became its capital.

The second thing one notices is the extraordinarily large number of posters with pictures of political leaders fighting for a seat in the European Parliament. Many of these have been torn down. Not defaced but actually torn down either by opponents or people who cannot stand large electoral posters. There seem to be many parties standing for the European Parliament but they all have one thing in common: they are fighting the election on Italian issues.

The flag may fly and the election campaign may be more in evidence than it is in Britain. But European issues seem to mean as little in Rome as they do in London.

We shall have to wait and see whether the turn-out in Italy with all the flags and posters will be any more significant on June 13 than in other member state of the EU.

Remembering a great leader of the Western alliance

It would be wrong for this blog not to honour and remember President Ronald Reagan, a great leader of the Western alliance and, possibly, one of the greatest American presidents.

His death, after ten years of Alzheimer’s on the eve of the sixtieth anniversary of D-Day was particularly poignant. The D-Day landings and the battles across Normandy, the rest of France and Germany, in conditions that were infinitely more horrific than anything we have heard of from Iraq, accomplished the victory against Nazism in Western Europe. It was President Reagan with Maragaret Thatcher, who helped to accomplish the final victory in Europe against totalitarianism by destroying Communism, just as Nazism was destroyed far more bloodily in 1945.

Everything about Reagan shows up the wrongness and shallowness of the clever dick mentality that is so prevalent in the political and media establishment and has had such a dire effect on political thinking and writing in the West in general and in Britain in particular.

Ronald Reagan was described as being stupid; was laughed at for having started his life as an actor; was derided for being “politically crude”, “unsophisticated”, “prone to seeing things in black and white”, “a cowboy”. He was not like those sophisticated, highly intelligent west European and American politicians, who had had no experience of anything outside their own world and who were always ready to strike a deal in the name … well, what exactly? Their vision of a comfortable political existence. Does this, by any chance remind anybody of anything?

In fact, Reagan, was highly politically motivated with a very good, clear understanding of the reality of politics. He knew the basics very well: people want to lead their own lives with as little interference from the state as possible; they want to have a good life and give their children a good life; and this is true for people wherever they happen to be, whether in the United States, whose economy grew under his “unsophisticated” and “economically illiterate” but somehow successful reforms, or in the Soviet Union and the then Communist countries, whose future has been changed for ever through his actions.

President Reagan understood freedom. He understood that the West is nothing if it does not know it and fight for it. It is, perhaps, as well that he could not see what has happened to the western alliance in its hour of triumph.

He did not see the relentless attempt to destroy it by the “sophisticated” west Europeans; he did not see the alacrity with which EU apparatchiks have preferred to deal with former Communist apparatchiks instead of democrats, who may be free-market opponents of the great “European ideal” of social-democratic corporatism; above all he did not see the way in which the EU has claimed credit for victory in the Cold War while positing quite shamelessly that the only purpose of that desperate struggle was to integrate the whole of Europe into a highly centralized, bureaucratized, inward looking state.

The coincidence of President Reagan's death and the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the D-Day landings should inspire us all, in Europe as well as America to think more clearly about the Western alliance and its purpose in the twenty-first century.

Straddling and migratory stocks

An example of EU myth-making

In last Saturday's Telegraph there was a letter headed "Fish need European protection to increase", written by John Godfrey, Consumer member of the EU Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

In it he challenges Michael Howard's claim that fisheries are a "...clear example" of a policy "that would be better dealt with at a national level" by making the oft repeated point that "...fish do not respect national boundaries. Most stocks in British waters swim in seas nearer to our neighbours around the North Sea, the Channel and the Irish Sea".

This is typical of the disingenuous approach by Europhiles who claim that the EU is the be all and end all, when it comes to things like conserving fish stocks. But, as is also so often the case, this is a "little European" talking, and talking rubbish to boot.

The problem of what are known as "straddling and migratory stocks" is well known, and affects fisheries around the world. In order to deal with it, in 1995 there came into being the UN Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, together with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to which all EU member states are signatories. Its objective is to ensure the "long-term conservation and sustainable use" of these marine living resources.

Nor is it a toothless agreement. Signatories which share what are known as "regional seas" have committed themselves to implement the principles of the agreement – which includes wide-ranging conservation measures - through regional management arrangements

With that, the Agreement then gives participating states strong enforcement powers. The flag state still has primary jurisdiction over its vessels, but if it fails to act after being notified of a likely violation, any other state which is party to the relevant regional management arrangement or organisation has the right to board and inspect the suspected vessel.

Should the CFP be repatriated, as Mr Howard advocates, the UK would of course, abide by this Agreement and enter into regional management arrangements with its neighbours – not all of which are in the European Union. It would then expect other member states, either separately or under the aegis of the EU, to continue to honour their international obligations.

On this basis, fact that UK fisheries were taken back under national control would not affect the fate of these stocks. The point Mr Godfrey makes is specious.

Gadflies

You may wish to know that the more common name for the "gadfly" in farming and veterinary circles is the "warble fly" - Hypoderma bovis or Hypoderma lineata.

This insect causes much distress to lumbering bovines and is of considerable economic importance as it bores through the hide of cattle to lay its eggs, where they subsequently hatch. In so doing, they ruin the hide.

Once the larvae hatch, they do a great deal of damage to the carcase as they migrate through the flesh to the gullet, causing great irritation and sometimes damaging the spinal cord in the process, causing death to the hapless victim.

In other words, gadflies get under your skin, cause a lot of irritation and do a great deal of damage, sometimes killing the victim. Howard may have been more accurate than he imagined.

The missing link

To the Sunday Telegraph readers who have visited this site today as a result of reading the Booker column, welcome! And welcome to all other readers past and present too.

For those who have joined the site to find the Commission report on "Building a political Europe", I have put a link on the sidebar to the left, under the heading "EU documents". Click on the entry underneath and it will take you straight to the report. It may take a while to load as it is 112 pages long in pdf format.

The story behind the link, as recounted by Booker, is an interesting one. As a Commission report, actually addressed to Mr Prodi, it should have been on the official Commission web site, www.europa.eu.int. However, it did not show up on the search engine attached to the site, which made finding it a little laborious.

Eventually, I saw a reference to it in the Euractiv website, and followed the link. This took me to the Secretary General's page, with a link to the president's page. I followed that and there indeed was a further link to the Strauss-Kahn report, but only in French.

At this point I gave up and went to the tried and trusted Google search engine. This did point up the report, available on the site of the EU delegation to Australia and New Zealand. There it was on the front page of the site, clearly marked. This was the original link we provided on this Blog.

Subsequently, I revisited the europa site and this time clicked the report download icon, to see the French version. This actually led me to a page, in French, about the report. On this there were two more download icons, one for a French version and, hey presto, one for the same report in English. This is the link I have now provided.

Clearly, the Commission has not made it easy to get this report, and you can see why when you read it. We have also published some analyses of it on this Blog. The links to our reports are below.

Political Europe – the next step click here.
Managing the media click here.
Towards budgetary federalism click here.
Could it be something in the water? click here.

When or if we have a referendum on whether to adopt the constitution, this report will be a powerful weapon. It holds that the constitution is not the end of the process of political integration, but the start. This makes it all the more important that the constitution is stopped. How ironic that the Commission, albeit reluctantly, is providing us with the weapons.

Footnote: Apparently, we were by no means the only ones who had difficulty finding this report. For the story of another researcher's endeavours, click here.

Money down the drain

This is an unavoidably lengthy but important piece which lifts the lid on the murky world of Tory MEP finances and their membership of the federalist EPP group in the European Parliament. Readers are enjoined to tell as many people as possible about this piece, and are more than welcome to copy it and distribute it freely.

Charles Moore in today's Telegraph op-ed wants to vote Tory in the Euro-elections, but fears they deserve a bad result click here.

This is an interesting observation, his sentiments underlining the salient fact that, if UKIP do well, it will not be so much because of its skill in campaigning – and certainly not because of its policies (it doesn't have any worth talking about) – but simply because the Tories have abandoned the field to them.

Not least, Moore points up the misjudgement of the Tories in agreeing to continue the alliance with the European People's Party (EPP). This European Parliament political group, writes Moore, "believes in 'developing the EU into a political Union'. It wants a 'federal Europe' (albeit a 'decentralised' one). It supports co-ordinated taxation across the EU, and opposes national immigration policies".

"It calls for the institution of a European public prosecutor, and for political oversight of European policing by the European Parliament. It says that schools should teach a 'European civic spirit'. All member states must join the euro, it says, and a Common Foreign and Security Policy must be fully integrated into EU structures, with the European Rapid Reaction Force as its 'armed component'. The EPP supports the ratification of the European Constitution for 'the good functioning of the enlarged Europe'".

Speaking for what is undoubtedly the majority of people in this country, Moore then writes, "I don't want any of these things. In fact, they are an almost comprehensive list of the things I don't want."

With judicious even-handedness, he adds, "No blame attaches to the EPP for these policies: they are the natural views of a party which has always supported ever deeper European integration. It just seems strange that the Tory party should be teaming up with this lot."

Then he comes to the meat: "Ask more questions, and it gets stranger still. It turns out that the Tories had the opportunity to lead a new political grouping at the European Parliament which would have included parties from the new member states such as Poland, and would have been Atlanticist and Euro-sceptic. This party would have been the third largest in the parliament."

"But these negotiations were dropped, and instead the Tories made a new agreement with the EPP. The idea is that the Tories can sit and vote separately, but they get all the taxpayers' money which the European Parliament doles out for staff, research etc, through the EPP. The EPP skims a percentage off to campaign for europhile causes - things like a 'yes' vote in the Swedish euro referendum - and gives the rest to the Tories."

"Some Tories think all this is very clever. Others think it is a necessary price to pay for 'the deal', a pact, they whisper, between Mr Howard and his old Cambridge friend Kenneth Clarke to maintain peace between Right and Left in the Tory party."

"But for the voter, it produces a political party which makes Euro-sceptic noises, but takes europhile money, says it opposes the Constitution and the euro, but links up with one of their biggest promoters."

Herein, though, lies a story which has yet to be told, which demonstrates how devastatingly crass the whole EPP saga has been. It is a story about money, power and influence – but mainly about money.

Poorly understood by outsiders, European Parliament political groups are the driving force in the parliament, dictating the agendas, organising the voting and generally running the business of the parliament through the "conference of presidents", made up from the leaders (presidents) of all the different groups. The groups are also the prototype European political parties, much encouraged by the EU as a means of sidelining national parties and furthering political integration.

To promote their development – and this is the crucial point – the parliament is extremely generous in funding the groups, providing an income stream entirely separate from, and additional to the MEPs' own personal expenses and allowances. Unsurprisingly, the groups are extremely reluctant to give details of the extent of this largesse, and do not produce public accounts. But we do know that the budget of the smallest group in the EP (the Group of European Democracies Diversities – EDD) has an annual budget of about one million euros annually, say about £650,000.

This has allowed the eighteen MEPs of the EDD to secure additional staff, roughly in a ratio of 1:3, just over 40 staff. Thus, each MEP benefits from an additional three workers, over and above those they fund from their own secretarial allowances. Furthermore, these workers, based in Brussels and provided with full office facilities, come with their overheads paid, so the group funding is actually worth more than the bottom line figure.

By contrast, when I last enquired, the Tory group in the EPP, with twice the number of MEPs as the whole of the EDD, had a group staff roll of just seven people – when on the same ratio as the EDD, they could be entitled to up to over 100, depending on precisely how they spent their money.

Actually this is possibly an over-estimate as group funds are not disbursed in direct proportion to the size of the group, but on a sliding scale, the smaller groups getting a larger per capita allowance. However, there can be no dispute that the Tory component within the EPP qualify for very close to – if not over - £1 million a year of group funding, of which very little actually goes anywhere near the Tories, being absorbed in the EPP global fund.

On the face of it, therefore, the Tory MEP group is giving away something close to £1 million a year to a Europhile, federalist group, which uses the money to pursue an overtly federalist agenda. This is not what most Tory voters expect – and it gets worse.

One thing UKIP has arranged extremely well is the pooling of its MEPs’ secretarial allowances – roughly £105,000 each, annually. With minimal amounts taken for their own personal staff, they use the rest to finance party staff working to the common agenda. Each of the Tory MEPs gets the £105,000 but they pay only a small subvention to Tory Central Office for central services, and pocket the rest, to spend as they wish.

With 36 MEPs, that sum collectively amounts to £3.8 million a year - or £19 million for the full five-year parliamentary term. Allowing the MEPs even to keep a fairly generous fifty percent of their allowances, and pooling the rest, that leaves £1.9 million - £2 million in round figures - a year. Add the group funding of approximately £1 million and the Tory group could marshal something like £3 million a year. The obvious outlet for that money is to spend it on policy research and development – the crying need in the Conservative Party – and a perfectly legitimate way of spending the money.

To put this in perspective, the Conservative Party is paid £4 million a year from public funds for the function of policy research and development – the so-called "short money". Clearly, this is not enough, and another £3 million a year would make a powerful addition to the fund. Furthermore, with the Party currently admitting to a £2.5 million overdraft, the EP money would make a sizeable dent in the deficit.

In short, therefore, the Tory group – in continuing to cosy up to the EPP – is throwing shed-loads of money down the drain, money which is vitally necessary for the Party to expand its woefully inadequate research function. In fact, it is worse than that. It is giving money to the "enemy". Thus, Mr Moore may want to vote Tory but, as he admits, Mr Howard's Party is not making it very easy for him. Actually, he understates the case. A vote for Tory MEPs at the moment is the equivalent of writing a very large cheque for federalism.

They do indeed deserve a bad result.

Confusion reigns

Source: AFP

We seem to have reached a stage where the serpentine twists and turns of the negotiations on the constitution are becoming so complex and baffling that it is almost impossible to keep up.

To add to the confusion, we now have the intervention of Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, who has added his ha'porth to the debate by proclaiming that only a "strict" double majority would ensure equality among European Union member states. "The ideal", he says, "would be that for taking decisions the EU gathers a majority of 50 percent of the states representing 50 percent of the population" of the EU.

This was the original formula in the draft constitution, but the Irish presidency has expressed its willingness to consider a 55 percent population threshold, or perhaps even 60 percent. This is supported by Germany, France, Italy and Britain.

However, Austria, like every other member state at the IGC summit, has one vote, and if it insists on parity – i.e., a 50:50 based population vote - the constitution is in further trouble. It seems to widen the gap with Spain, which has demanded a 66.6 percent threshold. This is something that Poland has supported, although its caretaker prime minister has also said he wants 80 percent.

In an attempt to break the deadlock, Germany and Ireland have joined together to call on other EU nations to make compromises and, despite the increasing uncertainty, Ahern is now claiming that the chances of a deal are "slightly more hopeful" than the 50:50 chance he give it earlier.

Schröder, for his part, has promised that Germany "will go to the limit of its possibilities" in trying to reach an agreement and therefore hopes other member states which have been "hesitant" to compromise will now move. Nevertheless, the German chancellor is not declaring what his limit is.

Portugal and Spain seem to have responded to Schröder. The Portuguese secretary of state for European affairs, Carlos Costa Neves, has met his Spanish counterpart Alberto Navarro, and is talking of "an open spirit and flexibility on the part of all."

Spain is now suggesting that the compromise could be achieved by setting at four the minimum number of countries needed to block a decision, to avoid the EU being dominated by larger members. Navarro said this "would avoid, for example, Spain, France and Germany blocking a decision".

By the time they have finished messing about, one would like to think that attempts at an agreement will be finally abandoned because none of the heads of state and governments at the summit will be capable of understanding what is on offer, much less be able to explain it to their peoples.

Gutless! – the BBC strikes again

It is fair to say that one of the main issues in Scotland during the Euro-elections is fishing – or to be more precise, the EU's Common Fisheries Policy and its baleful effect on the Scottish economy.

The Scottish National Party have made it the centrepiece of their campaign, the Lib-Dems are wobbly on the issue and the Tories have pledged immediate repatriation of the policy, once they are able to form a Westminster government.

Clearly, the time was right to inform the debate with a hard-hitting exposé of precisely what damage has been caused, especially after years of misinformation – with series ranks of mindless hacks faithfully trotting out the Commission's mantra that the cause of the problem is "too many fishermen chasing too few fish".

Enter the BBC with a film about the "Cod Crusaders", Carol MacDonald and Morag Ritchie, and the fishermen of Fraserburgh. The film tells the gripping story of skipper Sandy West who was forced to decommission his six-year-old trawler, Steadfast 4, ending a tradition of fishing in his family that goes back generations.

Yet, while the British government has spent £31 million on decommissioning the Scottish fleet, the EU is paying £200 million to the new accession countries to upgrade theirs, with £36 million of that being paid to the three landlocked countries.

Such a film – appropriately called "Gutted" - would have undoubtedly set the Euro-elections afire, especially as it was scheduled for showing on prime time in Scotland for last Wednesday. But that was to reckon without the BBC. After showing the film privately to a preview audience, the film was unceremoniously pulled as being "too politically explosive". It has been rescheduled for 16 June, when the Euro-elections are safely out of the way.

Local politicians have protested, but to no avail. The BBC is adamant that it will not be shown. "Gutted" may be the name of the film, but "gutless" is the organisation that refuses to show it.

The worm turns?

Far more significant than the general media have realised is Wednesday’s speech in Berlin by Dutch foreign minister Bernard Bot. Reported only by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Daily Telegraph click here, it has been likened to Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 Bruges speech.

Bot has called for a major return of powers from Brussels to the nation states, saying that integration has gone too far and lacks popular consent. It was time to consider taking back control of health, culture, social policy, aid to poor regions and the subsidy regime of the Common Agricultural Policy.

According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, "while Mr Bot endorsed the overall idea of European federalism, he put forward a list of concrete national demands that go further than those suggested by Michael Howard, the Tory leader. Calling on the EU to learn self-restraint, he said it was time to stop shoving fresh treaties down the throats of citizens every couple of years."

Said Bot, "We must realise that there are limits to the degree of integration that Europeans can digest," he said. "People must be given a chance to adjust. There is a widespread sense of unease about Europe, about loss of national identity, and about an EU that increasingly intrudes into their everyday lives. The European Union is, after all, a union of member states. That is something we should never forget."

He said that "patronising" Eurocrats were pushing through idiotic regulations "such as telling window cleaners how to hold ladders". By doing so they were "creating a culture of tolerance for rule-breaking" by forcing local authorities to defy the law. Such meddling reflexes would stretch the European project to snapping point.

A senior Dutch official said the speech was intended to be a warning to a high-handed elite in Brussels that appeared to have lost touch with reality. "There are some very British elements in this speech," he said. "The feeling is that we risk a popular revolt unless the citizens start to feel represented."

Some informed commentators have long believed that the Dutch, not the British, would ultimately pull the plug on the EU superstate. Now, it seems, the worm has turned in The Netherlands.

A French protectionist ramp?

Xenophobic, inward-looking and devious – no not Britain, but France. In today's Times business section, the admirable Patience Wheatcroft recounts that the French government, under the aegis of its finance minister Nicolas Sarkozy, is ordering food retailers to cut their prices by an average five percent.

But this is not what it seems. She recounts that Carrefour, the world's second-biggest retailer, and rivals such as Casino, are not objecting too much. "Prices of big brand groceries tend to be up to 13 percent higher than in next-door Germany, in part because of state-imposed laws and practices designed to protect small shops", she writes. "Under the Loi Galland, retailers cannot sell below their purchase costs. There could be no baked bean wars or 10p sliced white loaves in Paris, in the unlikely event that consumers would be interested."

So much of course for the euro and its supposed great advantage of bringing "price transparency". But that is not the main story. We hear from Ms Wheatcroft that:

"Discriminatory deals extracted from suppliers by the top retailers are also hidden in the questionable form of rebates and paying for shelf space, leaving the invoiced purchase cost relatively high. The Loi Galland then ensures that this is passed on to consumers. The double-action process swells hypermarket profit margins, but is losing them business to deep discounters who rely on own brands."

And here comes the hidden agenda. Sarkozy's plan to make the loss-leader law apply only to realistic purchase costs "ostensibly aims to stimulate the French economy by encouraging consumers to buy more cheap goods", writes Ms Wheatcroft.

Only then comes her really delightful and illuminating comment, which gives the game away. "There are other motives", she observes. "Given M Sarkozy's insistence on protecting French firms from foreigners, even from the rest of the EU, it seems more than coincidence that he is acting just after Wal-Mart, America's king of the loss leader, declared its interest in cracking the profitable French market."

In other words, what we are seeing is yet another protectionist ramp. Last week Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's chairman, was in Brussels complaining about continental restrictive practices, where in Germany Wal-Mart's operations are running at a loss. But while German law can be sustained under EU law, French restrictive practices can be challenged as bad for consumers. Thus Sarkozy is moving to pre-empt action from Brussels.

As for protecting the consumer interest or opening up the market to competition – especially to US interests – forget it. This is France we're talking about, home of the unlevel playing field.

Wrong end of the telescope?

The Independent, today – amongst other media sources – has reported that Europe's leaders are "close to a deal" on the constitution.

This fond hope arises following a meeting between Blair, Ahern and Zapatero in London yesterday. Blair, on the one hand expressed confidence that his red lines "can be defended" in the summit negotiations (note, not "have been secured", even though he seems to be in the process of giving most of them away – ed) while Zapatero told reporters that he is "preparing to compromise" on the voting rights issues.

Following Ahern's statement that there was only a 50-50 chance of agreement, a "Whitehall source" is reported to have said that the mood "had become more positive", particularly in the light of the Spanish move.

And with a predictability that becomes almost tedious, a "senior minister" told The Independent that Europe's leaders were "moving in the direction" of a deal. He said: "People have realised we need a nation-friendly constitution. I don't think any of the British red lines are menaced."

So much for the propaganda, but neither Spain nor Britain are in the front line any more. Poland is the key, and its position alone would justify Ahern's later pessimism when he went to Brussels (see Blog below). Not only that, but Ahern has had to announce that God will not get a slot in the constitution.

As always though, Whitehall is exuding false optimism. But its record for predicting outcomes of summits is not good. To often, it is looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

They’ve started!

Irish president Bertie Ahern was reported today as saying that there was a 50:50 chance of member state leaders agreeing on the constitution at their summit on 17/18 June. There is nothing new in that, of course - and certainly not to readers of the Blog – but it gets better.

This time Ahern was speaking at a news conference in the Hague but later in the day he went to Brussels for talks with Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt. There, he reiterated the 50-50 prediction, but this time added some crucial and highly revealing words: "Of course it's important that we get success. It's important that we conclude, but that doesn’t mean that we will conclude" at the June summit."

There it is. As predicted in this Blog on 31 May, click here,

"...what we can now expect is a series of increasingly clear signals from the 'players', talking down the chances of success at the June summit. By the time it is held, the expectations of success will be minimal and the damage arising from its failure will be contained."

They’ve started. The summit is dead, dead, dead.

Democracy – EU style

With thanks to Anthony Coughlan

The following report about former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene was carried on page 11 of yesterday's Irish Times by reporter Tim King in Brussels, under the heading "Belgian PM to put EU treaty to referendum".

"In a radio debate with Mr Verhofstadt yesterday, Mr Dehaene strongly criticised the idea of a referendum. 'We know that nine out of 10 people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say,' he said. 'More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes.'"

Jean-Luc Dehaene was one of Giscard d'Estaing's two Vice-Chairmen of the Convention on the Future of Europe which produced the draft EU
Constitution.

These revealing remarks by Mr Dehaene typify the arrogance, sense of superiority and sheer contempt for democracy that characterise the members of the EU political elite who are currently seeking to impose an embryonic State Constitution on the EU's 25 Member States.

Perhaps, even at this late stage, they should read the Article I-1 of their own draft, which starts, "Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe…."

The Blessings of UKIP

Love them or hate them, UKIPites have certainly put the EU on the agenda, in a way that the main political parties would prefer to avoid.

But, with "withdrawal" on the agenda, foreign secretary Jack Straw has come storming into the debate with the declaration that withdrawal would be a "unmitigated disaster" for Britain. "It would threaten British jobs, British businesses and British influence in the world. It would put our future prosperity and security at risk," he claimed.

Not missing the opportunity to tilt at the Tories, he then added that the Conservatives' European policy was "rapidly unravelling" in the face of the surge of support for UKIP, nevertheless applauding UKIP's "clear and consistent" position. This was better than the Tories "unconvincing, unsustainable and absurd" stance.

Central to Straw’s attack was an assertion that Michael Howard had been unable to name a single one of the other 24 members who backed his call to renegotiate the CFP, Social Chapter, or Common Foreign and Security Policy. "This would therefore leave him with the grim reality of whether to back down or to withdraw from the EU altogether".

However, Straw’s posturing is thinner than it looks. Michael Howard’s position on the CFP – as set out to the Scottish Conservative Party conference in Dundee click here is that "if necessary we will legislate in Parliament to make it happen". In other words, he is committed to unilateral withdrawal if necessary.

Clearly, what the foreign secretary is trying to do is force Mr Howard to admit to seeking withdrawal, aligning the Conservatives with UKIP and thus countering their attempts to occupy the centre ground.

But the way is now open challenge Straw on whether he believes the EU or Parliament is the supreme authority in the UK. Let us hope that Mr Howard is up to the challenge, and willing to expand the debate into this area. If he does, UKIP will have truly been a blessing in having opened up the discourse.

You have been warned

From the Financial Times yesterday, in a leader entitled "Europe cut off".

"For the government, UKIP's advance looks tactically helpful, splitting the Conservatives and perhaps diminishing support for the racist British National party. A strong UKIP voice inside the 'no' campaign in the promised referendum on any new constitutional treaty for the EU could make it easier for supporters of a 'yes' vote to argue that the only alternative was withdrawal."

You have been warned.

The attack of the teenage scribblers

Comment

The furore over the European elections, enlivened by the robust stand of UKIP – which is the only party which seems willing to fight the election on European issues – obscures rather than illuminates the debate about whether we should leave the European Union.

For sure, Mr Howard has rather neatly contrasted the "extremism" of Labour and the Lib-Dems, who want more integration, with the opposite polarity of UKIP, who want instant withdrawal from the EU. He is using it to position his own party as the centrist moderates who want to stem the tide of integration and claw back some of the powers from Brussels, restoring them to national control.

In ordinary times, the Howard strategy would be a sure-fire winner, as the perceived wisdom is that the laurels always go to the party which holds the centre. But these are not ordinary times.

The experience of thirty years of membership of what is now called the European Union has convinced a large swathe of the British public that they have been mislead. They are no longer satisfied with centrist blandishments. Quite simply, they want out.

Moreover, they are increasingly aware that it was the Conservatives who took the greatest and most important steps in pushing Britain into the EU – from the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act to Maastricht.

They have listened to the rhetoric of Mr Howard, who tells them that he does really, honestly, want to claw back powers from Brussels. But the collective memory tells them that this has been the continual refrain from the Conservatives, who then drag them deeper into the maw of European integration, all the time protesting that they are "putting Britain first".

Thus did Mr Kilroy-Silk turn on the inoffensive John Redwood yesterday in the Newsnight studio and proclaim – with considerable justice – that "the people do not trust you". Conservatives, he argued, have been telling lies for so long that no one believes them any more.

One has to turn to the Daily Telegraph leader this morning, however, for a more considered view. Referring to UKIP's message of early withdrawal from the EU, it notes that this "may sound exciting, but we still disagree that withdrawal would in itself be a good thing".

This, if anything, is far too bland. Speaking as a profound Eurosceptic, totally committed to our withdrawal from the EU, a former member of UKIP and for four years, research director of UKIP at the heart of the party's European Parliament administration, I have concluded that the UKIP policy of immediate withdrawal from the EU, far from being a "good thing", would be disastrous.

Simply put, after thirty years of building an intricate network of treaties, agreements and administrative systems under the umbrella of the European Union, we are so tied into the fabric of the Union that immediate, unilateral withdrawal would be a recipe for chaos. What has been built up over so long a period simply cannot be unravelled overnight.

Looking at this problem in detail – and the devil is in the detail – one notes that Howard has committed to withdrawing from the Common Fisheries Policy. On the face of it, this seems a beguilingly simple option. No sensible person will dispute the fact that the CFP has been anything other than a dismal failure, and uniquely damaging to the British fishing industry. It is an ideal candidate for repatriation.

But the central question, put to Mr Howard by many fishermen, is how would you do this? How would you withdraw from the CFP when it is part of the treaty structure? For Britain to withdraw would require the unanimous assent of all 25 members of the European Union.

Mr Howard's answer is that we would go to Brussels and seek to renegotiate the treaty. But, faced with the likely prospect that he would not get agreement, he has conceded - albeit under pressure - that in the final analysis, the UK Parliament is supreme. He would be prepared to act unilaterally.

So far so good, but this ignores the realities of the situation. Not least, there are such issues as reciprocal rights. We are used to the idea of Spanish and other fishermen exploiting our waters, but the other half of the equation is that there are also a substantial number of British fishermen who have access to French waters, and other national zones. They would lose those rights if we withdrew unilaterally from the CFP.

We have a situation also where some nursery stocks which supply our fishing grounds with mature fish lie in the waters of other member states. We would need to safeguard those stocks through international agreements. But those very agreements we would have abrogated by unilaterally withdrawing from the CFP.

All this, and many more complications, point to the fact that, while we could theoretically leave the CFP, the upshot would be a period of turmoil while new arrangements were carved out with our former partners. Even that presupposes that they would be prepared to negotiate. One could imagine that the Spanish fleet, to say nothing of the Dutch, the Danish and the French fleets – calling on international law – would simply claim that their rights were enshrined in the European treaties, to which the UK was a signatory, and continue fishing in our waters.

Apart from the fact that we do not have enough gunboats to fend them off, are we really prepared to countenance a shooting war, on the lines of the Icelandic Cod War, with our continental neighbours? Would we do this simply to protect an industry which at the moment is worth a mere £500 million a year, when the knock-on effect on our general trade would almost certainly cost us billions?

In the real world, therefore, the only serious option we have, in terms of repatriating the fishing policy, is to do so by renegotiation. And that would have to be under the aegis of the European Union as we will eventually have to gain the common agreement of all the parties concerned.

That is not to say that it cannot be done. At the moment, fisheries are a wasting asset. Year-on-year, we see fishing effort being cut back and, although the British fleet has suffered a disproportionate share of the cuts, other national fleets have suffered as well. There is a case to be made that the CFP is not a bad policy simply because it is a common policy but because it is irredeemably technically flawed.

Under a wholly different management system, there is ample evidence that fish stocks could be safeguarded while increasing fishing effort way beyond current levels. There are more than enough fish for all the national fleets exploiting our waters, while also supporting a healthy and prosperous British fishing industry.

It just so happens, though, that the quintessential prerequisite of an effective fisheries management regime is national control. There is plenty of good evidence of that, not least in the Falklands, where the lucrative squid fishery is managed by the Falklands Council whose main clients are the Spanish. And, contrary to the stereotype, they readily obey the rules and actively co-operate in their enforcement.

The case for repatriation of the CFP, therefore, is that it is in the interest not only of the British fishing industry, but of the fishing fleets of the member states of the European Union. Therefore, one can argue that it is in the European interest that Britain should manage its own waters. That case could be made; it should be made; but it has not yet been made.

If the argument has thus been a little laboured, it nonetheless points to the extraordinary complexity of dealing with what, on the face of it, is one of the most straightforward of issues in our relationship with the rest of the European Union.

And if fishing is complex, much more so is Howard's second candidate for repatriation – foreign aid. Again, this has the superficial attraction of being a cut-and-dried issue, but the actuality is again different. Bound up in the aid policy is a whole raft of trade deals and assistance programmes, all of which are intricately bound up in the projection of foreign policy, both on a national and EU level.

Simply pulling out of the EU's aid programme, without addressing the asymmetric effects on intra-EU and external relations, is simply not an option. Unravelling the skein of inter-related deals will require a sophisticated and imaginative series of alternatives.

Then there is the Common Agriculture Policy. Although repatriation was hinted at in Howard's Berlin speech, he has not yet affirmed his commitment to withdrawing from a policy which has had the same baleful effect on British farming as the CFP has had on British fishing.

Here, in fact, there is probably more room for manoeuvre in that the so-called "mid-term review" – the latest in a long line of "reforms" of the policy has given member states such a wide range of options on implementation that the policy is common in name only. The way is wide open for Howard to come up with a national programme which our EU "colleagues" would find it hard to oppose.

The point here, and in respect of fisheries and foreign aid, is that the only way forward is through negotiation. But the only way negotiation can succeed is if coherent and realistic alternatives have been prepared in advance. We then need to build alliances, with EU member states and third countries, in order to prepare the ground for a period of long, hard bargaining which, if handled skilfully, could be successful. We are not altogether without allies in being concerned at the direction the EU is moving.

Therein lie the basic failures of the Conservatives, which have created the opportunity for UKIP to shine. Instead of addressing the substantive issues, the policy "wonks" of Central Office have written a facile and enormously trivial "attack" briefing, which offers an almost childish view of the "benefits" of EU membership. How for instance can the claim that the EU has brought us cheap air travel be sustained when the EU seems bent on wiping out the cut-price operators? Yet that is one such benefit that the teenage scribblers behind the briefing have offered.

Instead, they could and should have brought to the attention of the British public the enormous difficulties of unravelling our relationship with the EU, and the perils of doing so precipitously.

They could have shown that UKIP have very little idea of the complexities of immediate withdrawal and have no cogent "exit strategy" to deal with the complications and consequences – nor indeed the intellectual capability or resource to attempt such a task. UKIP would, on the face of it, be content to ruin the economy in pursuit of a beguilingly attractive but essentially unrealistic objective.

As the coup de grace, what the Conservatives should then have done is show that by addressing specific policy issues, one by one, and devising coherent alternatives, a Conservative government could roll back the tide of European integration, gradually adapting and redefining the EU institutions and their powers, to end up with a construct which was more in tune with our own aspirations.

But to do this, the Conservatives would have had to have prepared those alternatives, which they have not yet done, and to which they are affording very little resource or priority. In their absence, no Conservative leader can stand up with confidence and convince a sceptical public that he is serious in his intentions.

In response to the vague rhetoric and benign intentions, the public will say we have been here before. The Tories will talk the talk, but they have no real idea of how to get from A to B. When they do go to Europe, full of good intentions, they will be comprehensively trashed by the colleagues, and we will all end up worse than we were before.

Only when the Conservative Party gets its act together, therefore, will it be in a position to take on UKIP. In the meantime, making trivial and facile attacks on their supporters is neither helpful nor productive. In fact, this sterile policy might simply drive UKIP sympathisers further into the arms of the Party, and alienate them from the Conservatives to the extent that, when they are really needed at the general election, their votes will not be forthcoming.

In short, Howard needs to listen less to his teenage scribblers and put more resource into real policy development. He needs to come up with genuine answers to the genuine concerns of those who are currently disposed to voting for UKIP. And this is not only an issue for the forthcoming general election. The same strategy is going to be needed for the EU referendum – if we have one – which is altogether far more important.

Rounding up the iceberg

Sources: Reuters, AFP, Eupolitix and others

Behind the scenes there is much activity on the EU constitution front although, like the proverbial iceberg, very little of it is showing above the surface. One stand of activity is a planned meeting between Blair and the prime ministers of Spain and Ireland on Thursday

Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will make his first official visit to Britain to “compare notes on where we are now." Before meeting Zapatero, Blair will confer with Ahern.

Blair will undoubtedly confirm to the Irish prime minister that he is prepared to be flexible on the remit of a new European public prosecutor, agreeing that the post should be able to combat terrorism and cross-border crimes like corruption, fraud and people trafficking. This represents a significant concession as previously the British line has been to restrict the remit to financial crime against the EU budget.

While Blair is thus eroding his own bargaining position before the summit arrives – a peculiarly British habit, shared by governments of all complexions - Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams is getting uptight about what he calls the “militarisation” of the EU.

At the launch of his party’s European election manifesto in Dublin, he warned that EU treaties had corroded Irish foreign policy and were threatening Irish neutrality. “The current situation – where there is a pretence that this state is neutral while our airspace and waters are used by belligerents in a conflict – that’s not neutrality,” he said. His particular beef is the use of Shannon as a refuelling base for thousands of US troops on their way to the “illegal occupation of Iraq.”

He has not commented so far in the campaign, however, about the demilitarisation of the Provisional IRA.

Meanwhile, Belgium has joined the ranks of Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Holland and others, deciding to call a referendum on the constitution. Prime minister Guy Verhofstadt announced that he would probably hold it in September, on the same day as a similar referendum in the Netherlands.

And in Paris, it has been announced that Chirac and Schröder will meet on 14 June in Aachen, three days ahead of the summit. The bilateral talks, also attended by the two countries' foreign ministers, are part of the so-called Blasheim process - regular meetings traditionally held before the EU summit to allow Paris and Berlin to harmonise their views.

It is during this meeting that the pair will aim to set the agenda for the summit and, in the past, the Franco-German axis has been able to call the shots. With ten more countries at the summit table, however, the axis may not be as powerful as it likes to think it is.

Howard, on the other hand – in between dismissing UKIP supporters as political gadflies and cranks - used a speech Southampton to warn about the report on “Building a political Europe”. “The Constitution is described as the start of a political Europe”, he told his audience. “The discussion document reveals proposals for a Europe-wide tax, a European minimum income, and giving the European Union ‘political territory’. It is an explicit commitment to create a fully-fledged European state in the next twenty years,” he said.

And, to complete the round-up, Ahern is telling everybody that he does not want to be the Commission president. Apart from anything else, he is unhappy with the thought of being stuck in Brussels. On this, for once, one can actually agree with the man.

Defrocked peers by Lord Willoughby de Broke

We are fortunate in being able to publish the first public statement by one of the Conservative peers who lost the whip a few days ago for signing an open letter, urging Conservatives to vote UKIP in the European election on June 10. Lord Willoughby de Broke explains what prompted him to put his name to the appeal.

As one of the recently de-frocked Conservative peers I believe that I ought to explain why I felt strongly enough to risk my membership of the Conservative party by putting my name to a letter urging my fellow-Conservatives to lend their vote to UKIP in the forthcoming EU elections.

All the EU treaties to which the UK has put its name have had one thing in common; they have taken away power from the elected Governments and Parliament of the this country and ceded it to the unelected Eurosalariat in Brussels and to the bloated, self-serving European Parliament. The Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice have gradually but inexorably reduced this country’s ability to govern itself according to the wishes of its people.

Not surprisingly the people noticed and started to ask questions, only to be told by their top political brass – of all parties - that there was nothing to worry about, everything was under control and the treaties did not really mean what they said – and anyway our destiny was at the heart of Europe.

Such manifest and patronising rubbish began to make the natives restless, but whenever those of us of a Eurorealist persuasion suggested to our party that they could reap an electoral benefit from a rather more robust line on Europe we were invariably told that “it would frighten the horses”.

Sadly that mindset is still in place; the Conservatives seem to be unable or unwilling to listen to what the polls tell them - that some 45% of voters want to leave the EU -and that is without any of the three main parties making that case. They also appear terrified of being demonised as ’Europhobe’ by Blair and the some of the grape-soft media.

Michael Howard’s “don’t frighten the horses” policy of ‘renegotiation’ does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Any amendment to the EU treaties has to be agreed unanimously; the idea of Spain for example giving up its EU acquired fishing rights in the North Sea because Michael Howard wants them back is quite absurd. Expecting to renegotiate the EU treaties on our terms is like going to MacDonald’s and ordering Lobster Thermidor; it would be nice to have it, but it is not on the menu.

So my intention in voting UKIP on June 10th and urging others to do the same is to help the Conservatives by sending them an unequivocal message that most voters in this country have had it with the EU and that they will give their vote at the next general election to the party that will take that message on board. So vote early, vote often –and vote UKIP.

People have stopped believing

Sources: AFP, The Times, International Herald Tribune

It is not only in the United Kingdom that the European elections are being seen as a mid-term verdict on the party in power. Both in Germany and France, the voters are expected to use the ballots to send a message to their respective governments.

In Germany, trailing in the polls, undermined by the struggling economy and beset by discontent, Schröder's ruling coalition faces precisely this dynamic, with the added problem that – as in Britain - regional and municipal elections also being held on June 13. These elections are expected to underline the unpopularity dogging Schröder's centre-left coalition of Social Democrats and Greens.

As Agence France Presse remarks, "Consequently, the main battlegrounds of the EU campaign have been anything but Europe: the opposition conservatives hammering Schröder's on jobs and the economy, and the government recalling its stance against the war on Iraq." The focus is national rather than European, with the parties are waging largely national campaigns and voters will be making their decisions based on what is happening in their own country rather than Europe as a whole.

Against this background, Euro-apathy is also expected to exert its influence, with the turnout predicted to fall as low as 25 percent of German voters. Much the same is expected in France, where the situation is compounded by the electors, having recently turned out for local and regional elections, are suffering from election fatigue.

France, particularly, is suffering from the lack of a credible opposition to the increasingly unpopular Chirac – the Socialists still failing to get their act together after the defeat of Jospin in the presidential elections two years ago. As in Britain, therefore, fringe parties are expected to do well.

Altogether, therefore, the Euro-elections are assuming an air of unreality, verging on the surreal. Aimed at giving a mandate to the only directly elected institution of the EU, they are in fact becoming a mixed contest where anything but Euro-issues are to be the deciding factors.

Perhaps the most significant comment of the day, therefore, comes Jan Wilczynski, a former ceramics factory worker living in Wloclawek, west of Warsaw, quoted in today's International Herald Tribune. "I don't really know anything about the European Parliament," he said, after attending an election rally over the weekend. "And I'm afraid not a lot of people will vote, because people have stopped believing." Quite.

How Americans see it

In the past those American commentators who showed interest in the development of the European Union and deplored its centralizing, bureaucratizing and anti-free market policies, expressed great hopes about enlargement. (A bit like the Conservative Party but more logical.)

The argument was quite clear: the former Communist countries, emerging from one of the most oppressive and backward looking political and economic systems, realized that the only way forward was to strengthen the private sector, lower taxes and regulate lightly. These ideas, when brought into the European Union would re-energize the economic developments in that rather stagnant organization. What this theory ignored was Gresham’s Law: bad money drives out good.

In the case of the European Union, specifically, the well-entrenched core members of the Union were not going to tolerate competition from the newcomers that would somehow undermine their own comfortable (for the legislators and regulators and other officials, that is) lives and the equally comfortable, not to say adipose, way of thinking.

This truth is beginning to dawn both on the East Europeans who had hoped, in the teeth of all evidence, that joining the EU would somehow help their own struggle to turn themselves into competitive liberal capitalist economies, and on those well-meaning American commentators.

Writing in today’s Washington Times, Richard W. Rahn, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute (in parenthesis one ought to note the number of well funded, highly intellectual and productive think tanks there are in the United States, which is, according to some British and European commentators, the stupidest country on earth) compares the latest developments in the European Union to a sports club.

In the light of recent obsessions with obesity, his comments are particularly apt:

“Imagine a club where members of the volleyball teams enjoy drinking and eating more than exercising and, as a result, are very fat and out of shape.

“The club decides to expand its membership to include a group of men who only recently gained their independence from abusive parents and now are working hard on bettering themselves. The newcomers wish to join the volleyball teams.

“The existing players say to the new guys: This is 'not fair' because you are slimmer and more energetic than we, thus you must put on weight belts so you are as slow as we are.”

He also touches on the dilemma that faces those “fat players” in the west – something that we have highlighted several times on this blog. On the one hand, the “fat players” are afraid of competition and want to load the new, lean, mean members of the team with as many taxes and regulations as possible to slow them down. In fact, the author of an NFU report on the effect enlargement will have on British farming actually boasted of this in my hearing.

On the other hand, there is a desperate fear, so far unconfirmed by developments, of a mass movement of people westwards, who will work for lower wages and outside the regulatory structure. (If only!)

Dr Rahn puts it well:

“The E.U. bureaucrats in Brussels cannot seem to grasp the obvious; that the best way for a Hungarian to stay in Hungary rather than move to Berlin in search of a job is to allow him to get a good job in Budapest. Instead, the politicians of old Europe go out of their way to impose higher taxes and regulations in Hungary that can only kill job growth, keep the Hungarians relatively poor, and thus increase worker flight to higher-wage countries.”

In the meantime, the EU has recognized that even imposing higher taxes on the newcomers (woops, sorry, introducing tax harmonization to counter “harmful” tax competition) is not sufficient. There must be tax harmonization everywhere. Nobody must be allowed to compete and overtake the stagnant European economies, where, as Dominique Strauss-Khan wrote in his report on the need for a “political Europe”, on average 48 per cent of GDP goes in tax.

At the behest of France and Germany, a meeting of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been called in Berlin for June 4 -5. The aim is to agree on a measure of tax harmonization that will force low-tax non-EU jurisdictions to abandon “harmful tax competition”.

It is worth remembering that all the members of the OECD are high income countries (though many of them are now economically stagnant) while many of the low-tax states are also low-income ones. Having to comply with French and German levels of taxation will scupper all notions of economic development.

Dr Rahn will also be one of the speakers at a roundtable on tax harmonization and tax competition that is being organized in Berlin on June 2 by the Heritage Foundation, the German Friderich Naumann Foundation and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. There will be speakers from the United States, Germany and Slovakia, all concentrating on the need for tax competition in order to continue or resume economic growth.

And before any comments are made, British speakers were asked. Unfortunately, prior engagements made it impossible for them to attend. But this blog certainly intends to report on the more interesting papers and discussions.

Back to the ethical foreign policy (or not!)

The European Council is reviewing the arms embargo imposed on China after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Naturally, the Chinese, who are busy building up and modernizing their armed forces, being one of the few countries in the world that is actually increasing spending on defence, are using carrots and sticks to achieve this. The recent trip round the EU capitals by the Chinese Prime Minister was part of that campaign.

Other pressure comes from the French government, always ready to do deals with nasty dictators, while upholding the rather curious idea of “a European model” that is somehow more virtuous than the supposedly trigger-happy Americans. Close behind the French government come numerous French arms producers who are looking for new markets and are, in any case, circumventing the ban.

The German government is also in favour of lifting the ban. Chancellor Schröder has already made it clear that, in his view, Taiwan should simply join the People’s Republic of China. After all, Germany was reunited. Somehow, he failed to add that Germany was reunited as a democracy, an unlikely contingency in the case of a “reunited” China, that never properly existed, in any case.

Now the campaign to lift the arms embargo has aparently acquired another supporter in the person of Prime Minister Tony Blair. There are rumours, notably in today’s Times, that he will side with France and Germany and against the Scandinavian and other countries, who are pointing to the dangers of selling more arms to a country with such an appalling human rights record.

Mr Blair will presumably make noises about the need to protect human rights and not use the arms to menace Taiwan, a developing democracy and a Western ally. Almost certainly the government of the People’s Republic of China will sign whatever agreement of code of conduct they will be asked to sign. What happens after that is anybody’s guess.

Then there is the United States, our greatest ally. They are vehemently against the lifting of the embargo and this attitude will not change, whatever the results of the November presidential elections. Their stand is based on political as well as human rights bases, the two being irrevocably linked. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the past seen by some Europeans as their ally against the hard-line Donald Rumsfeld, has already announced that should the arms embargo be lifted, the US may well deny members of the EU access to its own military technology.

This would hit the nascent EU defence and security policy hard, as the assumption is that the American technology and intelligence will be used to promote it, despite the fact that its aim is to undermine the American-led Western alliance.

Does Mr Blair understand what he is doing? And what will happen to the “red line” on defence and security in the negotiations on the Constitution if he sides with France and Germany on this crucial issue?