Yet another fine mess

It was picked up by The Times, the BBC and others in September last year, but it hasn't gone away.

We are talking here about Directive 2004/40/EC, known as the Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive, which sets absolute limits for workplace exposure to electromagnetic fields. It was adopted by the EU last year and must be incorporated into member states' national law by 2008.

Back in September, The Times was warning that the directive could needlessly endanger the health of thousands of British patients, many of them children, make illegal up to 30 per cent of the scans conducted in Britain each year, including half of those performed on children.

There are almost 500 MRI scanners in UK hospitals, performing over one million examinations each year. The government has recently invested around £100 million in over 100 new scanners.

The problem arises because medical workers who have to stand close to MRI scanners during imaging - which is required for certain types of treatment - are exposed to levels substantially above the limits set by the directive. The UK is especially badly affected as it is here that new uses of MRI have been pioneered, which let doctors see how treatments are working. These will also be prohibited under the new law.

However, there is absolutely no evidence that this exposure carried any risk, which led The Times to cite "leading experts on magnetic resonance imaging", including a scientist who won a Nobel prize for pioneering the technology, declaring that a particularly perverse consequence of the directive would be that many of those who would benefit from MRI scans will instead have X-rays, which are well established to pose a much greater danger to both patients and medical staff.

Back in September, a group of 12 MRI specialists wrote to heath secretary Patricia Hewitt, urging an amendment of the directive to reduce its impact on medical scanning.

The EU commission itself is now well aware of the problem, having published the British scientific reservations on its website in early February, but there is no record of it having taken any action.

Thus it was that two days ago, the Institute of Physics organised a meeting with other learned societies, to raise the alarm once again. At the meeting, professor Penny Gowland dismissed the directive as “overcautious and based on sparse scientific evidence”

Now, the Institute together with four other scientific organisations, has written to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to highlight the concerns over the proposed restrictions and the effects they will have both on research into and the treatment of life-threatening diseases such as cancer. They have also written to Vladimir Spidla, the commissioner for social affairs to call upon the commission urgently to review the directive.

Needless to say, this directive was scrutinised by the Council and our highly-paid MEPs, and subject to a regulatory impact assessment by the HSE, but none of these august bodies managed to identify this serious and life-threatening problem - and none opposed the directive.

And, despite a promise of government action, at this time, we are no further forward.

What a way to run a railway (not).

COMMENT THREAD

Why do we bother?

Not only did this week mark the retirement of the Royal Navy's last Harrier fighters, leaving the fleet without organic air cover until at least 2017, it was also the week in which in which six Scottish regiments disappeared "for ever", to be replaced by the "super" Scottish Regiment.

The demise of the Scottish regiments has been the subject of much press over term, and is currently being discussed in the letter column of The Daily Telegraph, most notably today, under the heading "Politicians knife Scottish regiments".

This follows on from a piece written by military historian John Keegan a couple of days ago but what is missing from this piece and only barely mentioned in the letters today is the correct reason why the regiments are being reorganised.

Keegan cites General Sir Michael Jackson, the Chief of the Defence Staff, who he says argues that the changes will improve the career patterns of soldiers by reducing postings between stations and so stabilising family life – but that is one outcome, not the reason.

Touched on in only one letter is a reference to "ministerial assurances on 21st-century mobility", and it is here that we need to look for the rationale for the changes. The Infantry is being be structured to provide the nucleus of the proposed medium-weight, net-centric armoured forces. These will form the core of the expeditionary capability of that will enable the UK to fulfil its commitments within the European Rapid Reaction Force. In other words, the current reorganisation has a very strong "European" component and is intimately associated with European defence integration.

The trouble is that we have made this point before, here and here, and have also remarked on the inability of the media to address this these issues, for instance here and here.

There are only so many time we can keep banging on, repeating the same message. But the information is there for anyone who wants to look at it, and our commitments to the ERRF are in the public domain. That the media, and especially the Conservative opposition and the Eurosceptic community – plus all the campaigners, have failed to engage with this issue represents one of the most egregious failures of contemporary politics.

Not for the first time, therefore, when those few who even take an interest in this issue seem content to winge about cap badge and the "loss of British traditions", without engaging with the real issues, we wonder why we bother even trying to point out what is really happening.

COMMENT THREAD

The website is theirs… and a lot more besides

A feature of each six-monthly presidency of the EU is that the member state in the chair runs its own website. National pride is very much at stake, and the sites become showcases for the presidency efforts.

However, not all is well in the virtual presidency world as the Germans have been complaining about their language not being represented on the sites and the EU's ombudsman has agreed that their complaints have not been treated properly.

All this started in 2004 when an association for the defence of the German language wrote to the Dutch and the Luxembourg governments asking from German as well as English and French languages to be presented.

For reasons that we can only surmise, however, both the Dutch and the Luxembourg governments rejected the complainant's request - slowly. The complainant's letter to the Dutch government of 21 April 2004 was only answered on 6 August 2004. The letter to the Luxembourg government of 2 September 2004 was only dealt with on 18 November 2004. Furthermore, the Dutch authorities replied to two e-mails sent by the complainant in English, although a reply in German had been requested.

That was enough to get the German association really worked up, sufficient for them to take a complaint to the council. Initially, though, the Council had offered the equivalent of "nothing to do with me guv". The member state holding the presidency was solely responsible for its website, it said.

EU ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros was then drafted in, and he disagreed. In his draft report issued yesterday, he decided that the presidency was functionally part of the Council, so the presidency's websites could not be considered as "national" websites outside the reach of Community law.

He thus concluded that the council's failure to consider the Germans' complainant constituted maladministration, and called on the council to consider the complainant's request that the internet presentations of the presidencies should be made available in German as well.

Perhaps of more significance though, this finding confirms that the EU presidency is not a national "perk" but a functional part of the council that must obey EU rules. When Tony Blair took on the job last year, therefore, he was not acting for Britain for those six months, but for the EU. The presidency was not ours, but theirs.

COMMENT THREAD

Another fine mess…

Detailed in The Times today, and at greater length in The Daily Mail (no link) is the latest act in the dire tale of the destruction of our once effective directory enquiry service.

These reports are based on Ofcom’s latest round of research into "the performance of the liberalised 118 directory enquiries market", which demonstrates that telephone customers have no idea of the cost of a call to directory enquiries – with prices varying on a BT landline at an average of 54p - up eight percent on last year – to a maximum £2 when dialling a 118 number from a mobile phone.

Ofcom's report states: "Given the wide variation costs and how costs are calculated, it is perhaps not surprising that call costs are not well understood by consumers. Many are neither able to say what their chosen provider charges for a single call nor where they would go for trusted information."

UPI adds more detail, noting that, of 2,000 users surveyed, 67 percent said they used the phone directory service less frequently. They either use a phone book or the Internet to look up numbers.

This is just short of three years after what Booker described as the great "118 directory inquiries fiasco". He was almost alone in claiming that the decision to abolish the old "192 system", in favour of a mad multiplicity of call centres providing numbers, resulted from a European Union directive.

This is a matter of fact. The abolition of the 192 inquiries service was made mandatory by EU Directive 2002/77 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, Article 5 of which required that:

Member States shall ensure that all exclusive and/or special rights with regard to the establishment and provision of directory services on their territory, including both the publication of directories and directory enquiry services, are abolished.

This was hotly disputed by Oftel at the time, and then by the EU commission.

The latter, in its weasel way, chose to confuse the issue by avoiding any discussion of Directive 2002/77 and focusing on the change of number from 192 to 118, denying that the EU had made that change compulsory. Strictly speaking, that was the case, as the EU had only "recommended" the change in its COM(96) 590 - "Towards a New European Numbering Environment" – but, as we all know, in our government's relations with its masters in Brussels, a nod is as good as a wink.

Number notwithstanding, the resultant shambles which, a year later had halved the number of calls to directory enquiries and had been roundly condemned by the National Audit Office, was entirely due to EU intervention.

Yet, despite that involvement, apart from Booker, there is little if any media acknowledgement of the role of Brussels, making it one of the many – and perhaps the most egregious – examples of "hidden Europe".

COMMENT THREAD

Sorted?

Following on from our report on the great organ saga, Douglas Levey of the Institute of British Organ Building (IBO) met officials of the Department of Trade and Industry yesterday, in an attempt to clarify the position regarding the application of EU directives.

The British officials, however, were adamant that, as they now stand, directives 2002/96/EC (Waste electronic and electrical equipment) and 2002/95 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS) do apply to these musical instruments, the latter depending on the former for its application. Their view is that, as long as their pipes are made from lead – and there is no alternative material - from July, it will become illegal to manufacture organs in the EU.

However, unknown to us at the time, the fragrant Margot had been on her feet in the EU parliament in Brussels on Wednesday 22 March, speaking during the annual policy strategy debate. While on her feet, she told MEPs:

I am very happy to have the opportunity to tell all the people in the UK that church organ pipes are not covered by the directive on electronic and electrical waste. You can fill all your churches with as many leaded pipes as you want. The Commission will not interfere with that. Just make sure that now and then the poor people in the UK hear the truth, as they rarely receive correct information. You can rest absolutely assured that the directive does not cover church organ pipes.

There we have it, from the horse’s mouth, on which basis, the problem would appear to be sorted. Once again, we seem to have the British establishment at odds with the commission on the application of EU legislation.

In passing, has also to remark on the intervention of East Midlands Conservative MEPs Roger Helmer and Chris Heaton-Harris who, even as the fragrant one was speaking, were issuing a press release, in which they declared that they had "reacted with anger to news that new EU legislation could threaten the future of traditional pipe organs in the region's churches."

Had, of course, they actually been in the chamber to listen to Margot, the tenor of their release could just have been a tad different.

COMMENT THREAD

I guess they don't read French

Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph was, understandably, full of the two strikes – the one in Britain to preserve the pension rights of public sector workers, specifically of UNISON members; the one in France to preserve the rights of young people to remain unemployed.

There is not much to say about the British strike. Slogans of “Hands Off Our Pensions” are not going to be read with any kind of sympathy by people who have in the last week received their horrendously inflated local tax bill and who know that “our” pensions are paid for by our taxes.

The French situation is, of course, much more interesting, what with students demonstrating for their right not to be employed or, at least, for their right to deny employment to other young people; unions going on strike; shoppers being attacked by students; and students being attacked by hoodlums from the banlieus. Actually, they might not be hoodlums, just people who have realized that the pampered denizens of the Sorbonne have taken upon themselves to decide their future.

And everybody is being attacked by the flics. All good fun.

I was intrigued by the article in the Business section. Ambrose Evans Pritchard outlines the various problems France is facing but comes to the rather surprising conclusion that

“In the long-run, France will out-perform, perhaps reclaiming its 18th-Century title as the Continent's hegemon, as it alone has avoided a collapse in birth rates.”

A very long run, I’d say and most French would agree with me. Birth rates are important but they are not the only thing and compared with an impossible economic and social situation with no sign whatsoever of the slightest attempt to change it, I’d say the fact that the the production of babies in France was at a marginally better rate than in Germany or Italy is less significant.

Then there was a picture headed: “Making a fist of it: French students take to the streets”. You will not find this picture on the website.

For in the printed newspaper the slogans in the picture are rather odd: “Stop la Grève”, “Halt au Blocage”, “SOS Education”. A quick check on the internet confirmed my suspicions: these were the slogans of the counter-demonstration, organized by Liberté-Chérie, which has had no coverage in the British media.

I know French is not an important language any more but does nobody in the Telegraph picture section read any of it? On the web they put up a Reuter’s picture of the correct demonstration.

COMMENT THREAD

Completely off-topic

Well, it’s my blog and I can post off-topic. Actually, my colleague has reluctantly allowed it.

Anyway, one of my many other hats (it gets very confusing in the morning, I can tell you) is that of the editor of the Conservative History Journal. Its owner, the Conservative History Group, an excellent institution, set up and run by Iain Dale, has been having problems with the website. So, errm, I suggested setting up a blog, to be turned into a new website at some later stage.

Well, of course, all ideas like that are always gladly welcomed by other people. So, here is the new blog. Not much on it yet, but it will grow.

Naturally, I am hoping that there are some potential conservative historians or historians of conservatism among our readers here, who will immediately get in touch with me and send me ideas for posting, complete postings and possible articles for the Journal. Well, I can dream.

COMMENT THREAD

A fatal confusion

A simple, cheap, life-saving road safety measure is being delayed by five years, owing to a fatal confusion over whether a British minister has the power to introduce it, or whether he has to wait for EU legislation before he goes ahead.

The issue at stake is the fitting of reflective markings to the side and rear of heavy trucks, which – at a cost of little more than £100 per vehicle - have been shown to reduce accidents involving trucks and passenger cars in poor visibility conditions by 95 percent.

In the UK each year, it is estimated that 30 to 34 occupants of cars are killed in collisions with the tail end of HGVs and that another 40 to 44 people are killed in side collisions. Many more are injured, some very seriously.

Research has since demonstrated that some 45 percent of all fatalities caused by road accidents occur in darkness and pioneering research by the Darmstadt University of Technology in Germany has shown that 37 percent of all side collisions with trucks at night occurred because the trucks were seen too late.

It was with that in mind, there is a provision within the Road Safety Bill, currently in its Committee Stage in the Commons to permit the secretary of state for transport to make regulations requiring the fitting of these makings to all new HGVs, as a measure designed to reduce the number of collisions.

However, during the second reading of the Bill it emerged that the secretary of state was not proposing to introduce regulations until at least 2011, some five years hence.

This was despite the government itself having commissioned its own research in 2005 from Loughborough university, which concluded that there was a cost benefit for fitting line or contour markings to newly registered HGVs. The government then launched a consultation, and of the responses, the vast majority were in favour.

On Thursday last, therefore, Labour MP for Bolton West, Dr Brian Iddon, supported by Owen Paterson, Conservative shadow transport minister, tabled an amendment compelling the introduction of regulations that would require all new trucks to be fitted with markings from 1 January 2007.

Nevertheless, despite the overwhelming case made during the debate, the transport minister, Dr Stephen Ladyman, was not going to be moved. We cannot make retro-reflective marking a requirement, he said,

…because of obligations under United Nations Economic Commission for Europe measures and EU directives, which mean that we are unable to make any unilateral requirement of vehicles in this country. Were we try to change the legislation in the way suggested, our partners in the European Union would certainly object and take infraction proceedings against us… the amendment and the clause are redundant and perhaps illegal.

On the face of it, therefore, this was yet another example of the dead hand of the Brussels bureaucracy holding up a measure, this time with potentially fatal consequences. Owen Paterson estimated that, should the present position remain until 2011, there will be 1,540 avoidable collisions.

As always, though, nothing is as straightforward as it seems. Subsequently, it was learned that, in 2003, the Italian government brought out a law making such markings a mandatory requirement. It notified the EU commission and received no objections, whence the law went into force in November 2003. Both Iddon and Paterson then tried to raise this at the committee meeting yesterday, only to be ruled out of order.

Thus we remain in a state of fatal confusion. Evidenced by the Italian government's action, there is nothing to stop regulations on this life-saving measure being introduced immediately, yet according to our own minister, the EU prevents him from so doing until 2011.

Just who is in charge here?

COMMENT THREAD

The end of independence

We cannot let the moment pass without a salute. Yesterday, twenty-four years after gaining legendary status during the Falklands War, the UK Royal Navy's last British Aerospace Sea Harrier fighters were retired.

The Fleet Air Arm decommissioned its last six Sea Harrier FA2s, along with its last operational fast-jet squadron to fly the type: 801 NAS, at RNAS Yeovilton in Somerset.

The aircraft will be flown to RAF Shawbury in Shropshire today and be placed in storage while discussions over their possible transfer to India can be concluded over the coming months.

Read the full story here, in Flight International, graced with the excruciating pun, "Hover and out".

The star of airshows, a showcase for British technology and the last front-line fighter ever to be produced solely by Britain – we will miss the beast.

COMMENT THREAD

Outcome remains unclear

As the crucial Israeli election has drawn to a close, several things have emerged. One is that the turn-out was low, despite the fact that much is at stake. 57 per cent had voted at 2 hours before the polls closed, so one assumes that 60 per cent is unlikely to have been topped.

Some analysts suggest (as analysts do long before there is data to analyze – a capital mistake, as Sherlock Holmes would have put it) that this may favour the smaller parties at the expense of the big ones. Some of the former are religious ones, some more secular, including one list that concentrates on the plight of elderly people in the country. There are also at least two Arab parties.

Kadimah, the party formed by Ariel Sharon in order to break up what he saw as the Likud’s stranglehold on power, appears to be in the lead, but not quite as far as it had expected to be.

The Labour Party is a close second with Likud trailing behind those two. However, the Israeli electoral system is very complicated and most governments are coalitions. It is not until we have the final results tomorrow that there will be any indication of how matters might develop. We shall report at greater length then.

COMMENT THREAD

Turkey drifting away

After the euphoria of late last year under the British presidency, we don’t here that much about Turkey’s accession talks these days. However, in the International Herald Tribune today, we have a comment from Sinan Ulgen, chairman of the Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies in Istanbul, who has some interesting observations.

There is, says Ulgen, a dangerous frustration is creeping in and the mood in Turkey has begun to sour. The initial jubilance has been replaced with alarm, and even anger, as scepticism about admitting a relatively poor, Muslim country into the EU has spread across the continent.

Acknowledging the obvious, that admitting Turkey was never going to be easy, Ulgen goes on to say that European public opinion toward Turkey can best be described as lukewarm. But, he says, EU leaders should not deprive Turkey of the promise of full membership that it has aspired to for decades.

Nevertheless, he claims, this is what is happening. The terms for opening negotiations with Turkey were riddled with unprecedented conditions and, even if the talks were successful, there was to be restriction on the free movement of Turkish labour into the EU - breaching one of the hallmarks of the EU's vaunted single market.

There have also been mentioned "special arrangements for agriculture and regional aid" and the argument that Turkey should be granted a "privileged partnership" that falls short of membership has failed to subside.

What particularly concerns Ulgen, though, is the measure was taken by France in amended its constitution in April 2005 to allow for a national referendum on all future attempts by the EU to expand. This, he calls "draconian" and he now expects it to be replicated by other member states, allowing European publics to directly vet future countries that want to join the EU.

And, as if that was not bad enough, Austria, has been pressing to insert tough political conditions on criteria Turkey must satisfy in fields that are normally not heavily scrutinised for membership, such as education and culture.

The last straw is the EU’s failure to deliver on its promise to alleviate the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots after they voted "yes" in a referendum on reunifying the divided island in April 2004, yet the EU is now insisting that Turkey lift its embargo on Greek Cypriot ships.

This sequence of events, Ulmet feels, is already denting domestic support for the EU in Turkey, with a growing swathe of Turkish public opinion questioning whether Turkey should become a full member.

According to a recent poll by TNS-PIAR, support for EU membership in Turkey has dropped 13 percent, from 72 to 58 percent, since last year - an all- time low and a significant decline in a country where the EU has been unquestioningly embraced by the political establishment for decades. Ulmert continues:

The risk is that an anti-EU backlash in Turkey could halt vital political reforms such as better rights for women and minorities that have been driven by the carrot of EU membership. The EU was able to exert maximum influence and bolster domestic reforms in Turkey by offering an impressive menu of benefits crowned by the ultimate reward of full accession. But recent developments are undermining the credibility of this reward.

Even if accession is officially on the table, Turks increasingly perceive the deterioration in the likelihood of achieving it. No credible political leader can realistically be expected to espouse a seemingly losing cause. As a result, a serious national reappraisal of seeking full membership cannot be ruled out.

Should that happen, political volatility in a larger region already beset by major instabilites would increase. It would then be up to historians to try to understand the causes which led the normally slow moving EU pendulum to swing from one end to the other in a matter of months.

For our part, we have said that, to get a true measure of which way the wind is blowing, watch the real power in the land – the military. And, from initial enthusiasm, reflected in signals that major procurement decisions could be directed towards European companies, Turkey is hedging its bets, widening out its purchasing spread and investing in domestic production.

Now, it seems, the population at large is beginning to fall out love with the idea of joining the EU – with who knows what consequence. For the EU, however, which boasts of enlargement as being its most successful foreign policy, it looks like another failure is on the cards.

COMMENT THREAD

JSF – "no decisions have been taken"

Despite the optimism expressed by the admirable Defense Industry Daily over the fate of the Joint Strike Fighter, yesterday's exchanges in both Houses of Parliament indicate that we are no further forward in resolving the issue.

In the Commons, Peter Bone tackled minister of state for defence, Adam Ingram, on the progress that had been made in discussions with the US, leading to an affirmation that the JSF would be bought. However, Ingram then admitted that "no final decisions have yet been made".

Liam Fox popped up ask whether failure on the technology transfer issue "could drive the UK into further European procurement that is not, in this instance, in the strategic interests of either the UK or the United States?", enquiring whether the minister understand the fears of the United States about the leakage of defence technology.

"Would he care to reflect on the damage done by today's news that 41 German companies are being investigated over sales of equipment and technology to Iran for potential use in its nuclear programme, and the impact that that will have on Capitol hill?" he asked.

Ingram retorted that it did not help "to point out that other nations are allegedly involved in things that they should not be doing, as such a claim has been the basis of press reports," but acknowledged that "there are some concerns within the US about this matter."

In the Lords, minutes later, Lord Astor of Hever was tackling Lord Drayson, who wanted to know whether the government "will now constitute a sufficiently funded integrated project team to reopen and take forward studies on a marine variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft."

All he got from Drayson was the assurance that "the necessary actions have been and will continue to be undertaken to ensure that we have the necessary contingency plans for the JSF project." Asked to deny reports that the MoD was considering the Rafale, all Drayson would say is, "I am happy to assure the House that the contingency plans that are needed to maintain our plan B are in place."

Asked also to give a guarantee "that there is no intention to share JSF technology with European countries?" as the US was "concerned that this could result in some technology leakage to the Chinese", Drayson stayed in assurance mode, telling the House that "we have all necessary safeguards in place to make sure that there is no leakage of information transferred to us as part of the JSF or any other programme."

That much is wishful thinking – at best. I do wish the Noble Lords and Liam Fox would read the Framework Agreement of 2000, which commits us to mutual recognition of the signatory states' security clearances. If we did take on the JSF and decided on a European weapons fit – like the Meteor or Storm Shadow – we would have French technicians crawling all over the JSF, their clearances approved by Paris.

Our parliamentarians need to wake up to the fact that, when it comes to defence secrets, we are bound in by Treaty to the other five nations of the Framework Agreement, to the extent that the "leakage" about which the US is concerned will be virtually impossible to prevent.

Nevertheless, if we take Ingrams at his word, no decisions have yet been taken on the JSF. That, in itself, is significant. A few months ago, the JSF was a done deal.

COMMENT THREAD

Populism

All it takes for a tarnished, jaded organisation, bereft of any serious or original ideas, to buy good publicity cheaply is to come up with a little populism.

Thus it is that the EU commission has latched on the (historically) high price of using mobiles abroad - the so-called "roaming charges" – and is proposing a new, EU-wide law banning mobile operators from making these charges.

You can already imagine the propaganda value of such a move, with the commission adding "cheap mobile calls abroad" to the list of other "benefits" it parades, such as cut-price air fares and er… er…

Anyhow, the EU's largesse is not impressing Europe's largest mobile operator, Vodaphone which, according to Reuters, has warned the EU against rushing in with a new regulation.

With about 100 million users throughout Europe, Vodaphone had written to the commission telling it that competition among operators is already forcing charges down and any "ill-judged" move could have unforeseen effects on the industry.

For sure, roaming revenues are currently a lucrative source of revenues and earnings for mobile operators and a steep cut could hit them hard, with the investment bank Credit Suisse predicting that outright scrapping would cost operators seven to none percent of revenues and around 15 percent of earnings.

But Vodafone points out that its own charges fell 30 percent in the last year for contract users, and sees competition driving them down further. "The normal reason why you regulate is that markets are failing in some way," says Richard Feasey, Vodafone's director for public policy. Therefore, he adds, the commission "will need to explain, given that national regulators have looked at this market and not found any market failure, why the Commission comes to a different view".

The operators' own GSM Association claims that any new regulation on roaming would increase uncertainty and could put at risk further investment and development of new services, with Vodafone arguing that roaming charges were just one element in which mobile operators competed with each other, and urged that market forces be left to decide how much they fell.

"Although it might appear to be an attractive and politically popular objective, there is no reason why retail prices for roaming and those for domestic mobile calls should be expected to 'converge' or be exactly the same," the company said.

Therein lies the rub. The operators are in competition with each other, and will package their charges according to what they believe the market will bear. If the EU interferes with that package and forces prices down in one sector, you can bet your last euro that the operators will simply make up the revenue elsewhere.

The end result could be that we all end up paying more, simply because those who travel abroad with their mobiles can pay less. But, when there's propaganda to be made in them thar hill, you can't expect the EU to listen.

COMMENT THREAD

A European conundrum

Heading towards Manchester the other day, as always I used the M606 to bring me to the trans-pennine M62. Just before you join, there is a speed camera enforcing an entirely irrelevant and unnecessary 50 mph limit. So unexpected is it that it is very easy to be caught.

Having been trapped by this accursed machine myself, on approaching the camera I usually slow right down to the requisite 50 mph and sit in the outside lane of the two-carriageway motorway until I am past it, thus dissuading the unaware from steaming past and adding to the coffers of the local camera partnership.

Generally, this works as anyone at least half-alert seeing a 3.5 litre 5-series BMW tooling along at 50 mph on the outside lane of a motorway tends to smell a rat and slows down.

This time, however, it did not. A Volkswagen Passat came storming past me on the inside, at a rate of knots, completely ignoring the camera. Before he disappeared over the horizon – emulating an EU "intervention" force – I managed to note the number plate. It was Polish. Effectively immune for the law, the car driver must have known that little things like speed cameras need not bother him.

It is with somewhat mixed feelings, therefore, that one reads today that the EU transport council has approved a single model driving license for all twenty-five member states, replacing the 110 models in force throughout the Community.

The license itself, however, will be only the visible sign of a much wider harmonisation programme, which also encompasses standard license conditions and a requirement that each member state maintain a central, electronic database of license holders.

On top of that, each member state agrees that penalty points imposed by one member state jurisdiction will be applied by administrations of offenders' home countries, where the offence has been committed in another member state and that a driver that has been banned in one member state cannot then drive in other.

Ostensibly, these moves make sense. Although I have enjoyed the freedom of being able to drive with impunity on French roads, taking their 130 limit at face value – I never did understand these killermeter thingies, so miles per hour was quite good enough – it cannot be right that freedom to travel on other countries' roads also brings with it impunity from their traffic laws.

Of course, there is always the option of the on-the-spot fine, but the greater deterrent are the penalty points. Currently there is no means by which one jurisdiction can impose these on a non-national. Nor would it be fair, for instance, to have that situation, if it ended up in a driver being banned in his own country for offences which would not have led to that outcome had he been tried in his own courts.

We have, therefore, a situation which, on the face of it, provides a justification for "common action", which is precisely the rationale on which the EU relies.

Interestingly, exactly the same issue is being confronted in the United States. Currently, driving licenses are issued by state authorities but there are moves to standardise the design and maintain a central database. There, as well as here, there are concerns that the license will become the de facto national ID card.

Thus we have a conundrum. Do convinced Eurosceptics reject the idea of a "Euro-license" because it is also a means of furthering European political integration, or do we accept the idea at face value and go along with it?

Alternatively, we could argue that the measure could have been achieved by a separate treaty or convention, without the European Union – which seems the best answer. We can accept common European initiatives, but do not need political integration to make them happen.

COMMENT THREAD

The Dafur nightmare continues

"With American forces heavily committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, European governments as always helpless to do anything without American leadership, and Khartoum assured of support from its Arab neighbors no matter how many Negroes it kills, recent Western efforts to expand the size and scope of peacekeeping efforts in Darfur have been, essentially, a transparent bluff. A halt to genocide there could happen only if the perpetrators of genocide saw fit to allow it.

Well, the bluff has been called. No one should be surprised by what happens next. Twelve years ago in Rwanda the governments of the civilized countries could say more or less plausibly that the explosion of genocidal violence in that country was well beyond anything they had expected. That can't possibly be the case where Darfur is concerned; Sudan's war against civilians has been going on since 2003, and Khartoum has now made it clear that it will continue. How will the United States and other Western nations respond?"

Read the story on Chequer-board and on Sudanreeves.

The one thing of which you can be sure - despite the bleating from the EU and its pretentions of being a "world power", it will do precisely nothing. So utterly devoid of any serious resolve is this construct that even in the Congo, all it can manage is an over-the-horizon force of 800 troops.

COMMENT THREAD

Unlucky for all

The Times business section has picked up on the tale of the new accession countries which want to join the euro. Slovenia is first in line with Lithuania and Estonia not far behind. All three would like to be fully signed by next year.

However, The Times notes a certain lack of enthusiasm for these "euro wannabes", not least because of the crisis surrounding the political dimensions of the European project. Eurozone politicians are presumably reluctant to court further popular discontent by ushering Eastern and Central European nations into the euro.

With the new EU countries also inclined to be more aggressively in favour of Anglo-Saxon-style economic reform, "Old Europe" may also fear that widening euro membership might lead to monetary union becoming more of a means to foster economic reform, and less an instrument for political ends.

Locked into the language now is the current definition of the downside of the euro, the paper referring to the "one-size-fits-none" — interest-rate regime. Critics who have complained of the current Eurozone not being an optimum currency area have been vindicated.

Far from converging, the euro, and the application of a single interest rate to its twelve members, has entrenched growth differentials between the zone's laggard core economies, led by Germany, and its fast-expanding peripheral ones, such as Spain and Portugal. The result has been the build-up of perilous economic imbalances and mounting political tensions that have led to speculation that monetary union might even collapse.

In Spain, which entered the euro as a relatively poor nation, it is not surprising that there has been rapid growth during a period of catch-up. But the inappropriately low Spanish real interest rates created by its relatively high inflation and the ECB’s low nominal rates have fostered a house-price bubble, as well as an explosion in the country’s current account deficit to levels as severe as those in the United States.

In Italy, meanwhile, the single interest rate has allowed the persistence of inflationary pressures from rapid increases in its wage costs that have greatly eroded its competitiveness and led to repeated, painful recessionary episodes.

The Times thus argues that the would-be new euro countries of Central and Eastern Europe would greatly compound the deep-seated difficulties already confronting monetary union. The national incomes of these states are a tiny fraction of those of existing euro members, implying even greater stresses from a catch-up process inside the euro than those experienced by the likes of Spain.

And, for the ECB's policymakers, a further expansion of the euro must risk making an already intensely difficult task all but impossible. For the twelve existing eurozone members, it can only amplify the forces that are already shaking the single currency's foundations.

Despite all this, The Times thinks that Slovenia will become the euro's thirteenth member state next year – but it suggests that going beyond that inauspicious number may prove not just unlucky for some, but unlucky for all.

COMMENT THREAD

Some good news

The BBC has finally decided to report on the Abdul Rahman case. In fact, the news is good. The man is set to be released, as one official, speaking on conditions of anonymity explained:

“The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case.”

While the prosecutor looks at the evidence again, he need not be in prison, particularly not in the maximum security Policharki Prison, which holds hundreds of Taliban and Al-Quaeda jihadists and terrorists.

President Hamid Karzai has been under some pressure over the case from the American, Canadian, Australian, German and Italian governments. The Pope, too, has made a plea for clemency.

Sadly, there has been nothing from our own Foreign Secretary as Charles Moore pointed out in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, nothing from the Prime Minister, who is, after all, married to a leading human rights lawyer.

Nothing, as we have said before, from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York. And nothing, absolutely nothing from the humanitarian, freedom-loving European Union.

While Rahman’s life remains in danger from clerics and some of his more excitable compatriots, one newspaper in Afghanistan has called for his release, arguing that the country cannot live in isolation. It needs western support and, in return, must show that it is prepared to abide by more open rules.

Meanwhile, in a completely separate development, the Iraqi embassy in Toronto has expressed its opinion of the bothersome and ungrateful Christian Peacemaker Teams hostages.

“Iraq's embassy to Canada lashed out at the Christian Peacemaker Teams Friday, calling them "phoney pacifists" and "dupes" after the antiwar group responded to the rescue of three of its kidnapped activists by condemning the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq.

The Iraqi embassy called CPT "willfully ignorant" and "outrageous," and accused the Chicago-based group of being on the side of anti-democratic forces in Iraq.

"The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism," the embassy's statement said.”

Couldn’t have put it better myself. The words "useful idiots" spring to mind.

COMMENT THREAD

Freedom has curious champions

The only story that has been circulating about the Freedom of Expression rally in Trafgalgar Square yesterday and has popped up in such widely differing publications as the Jerusalem Post, the Gulf Daily News and the Washington Post comes from AP and puts the number of attendees (as it was not a march, they are not demonstrators) at 200.

It is always difficult to work out who is an attendee, who has strolled up casually to listen to the speeches and who is a tourist intent on feeding pigeons, but I would put the numbers at 1,000 or just over at its height. So that is the good news: a rally for free expression, organized by two people, publicized through the internet and financed by supporters, could still attract 1,000 people on a grey Saturday afternoon.

The coverage in Britain has been thin and misleading. The BBC has used the headline to write about the anti-march organized by Muslims in Birmingham, who are not against freedom of speech, honest, but will not tolerate those pesky cartoons or anything else they do not like.

The Guardian used it to prosecute its interminable war with its sister paper the Observer and its coverage of the anti-war rally the previous week-end (also somewhat sparsely attended though better than the Freedom of Expression one). Why it should be news that Tony Benn or Hizonner the Mayor addressed another anti-American rally is hard to fathom but the Guardian thinks so. Freedom of expression it does not think is important.

As it happens, one of the organizers, Peter Risden, had been interviewed on the World at One on Friday, so there had been some pre-publicity in the MSM. Unfortunately, he was mostly interviewed about the instruction that went out not to bring those cartoons to the rally, though, of course, nobody would be stopped if they did so. The purpose of that rather odd decision was, as usual, to attract moderate Muslims. But, of course, if they really are moderate in the sense of understanding freedom, they would not mind the cartoons. Banning them is surrendering to the extremists.

Mr Risden has since been accused by correspondents on the March for Freedom of Expression blog of grovelling to the deeply unpleasant Muslim Action Committee.

The row about the cartoons, summed up the problems with the rally and, probably, contributed to the low attendance. Another reason may well have been the fact that there were seven speakers scheduled. In the event, all of them or the ones I heard, spoke far too long. When I looked at the final list, my heart sank and I seriously thought of not going. Duty as a blogger prevailed.

The organizers’ ambivalent attitude to the Danish cartoons and, therefore, the sequence of events that made it necessary to have yesterday’s rally spread to the participants.

Most of them turned up with carefully and uniformly printed placards, made, I believe, at a “workshop” last week-end, which carried very sober and well researched quotations about freedom. I am glad to say some people turned up with home-made posters, some with the cartoons, some merely expressing solidarity with Denmark.

I suppose the weather didn’t help but the fun and pleasure that came across in the photographs of the demonstration outside the Danish embassy in Washington DC was absent. Possibly because there were not Danish pastries.

What there was a great deal of is talk about all sorts of attempts to control freedom of speech and expression, so it would not seem to be an anti-Islamist rally.

There were several passionate calls for the right to publish cartoons and to broadcast “Jerry Springer - The Opera” on the BBC. Two problems with that. One is that the BBC is financed by the taxpayer, so the decision to broadcast something should be addressed with that in mind.

Secondly, I believe the opera was broadcast whereas the cartoons were not published in any newspaper in Britain. So, errm, where is the equivalence?

There are, of course, only so many ways you can say that you do not agree with all the speakers at the rally (in particular with Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance and Mark Wallace of the Freedom Association, these two not being on the Left of the political spectrum) but everyone should have the right to say what they want.

I wandered over as Evan Harris, a Lib-Dim spokesman held forth at length about the government’s attempts to abolish freedom in this country (true) and his own courage in standing up to it. As his party is absolutely in favour of further integration into the European project and the European constitution, some doubts on the subject might be held.

At least, I had missed the first speaker, Maryam Namazie, billed as a Human Rights activist, but actually an Iranian Communist, active in that party in the West. It is hard to see why Communists are ever allowed at these gatherings while anyone labelled neo-Nazi (the BNP, naturally) are not. The former are not known as supporters of free expression or free speech whenever they happen to be anywhere near power.

How much free expression would there have been in Iran if, instead of the Ayatollah, it had been the Workers’ Party (i.e. the Communists) who had come to power as it had been confidently expected at the time by the Western media. About the same as there is under the various Ayatollahs, though another ideology would have been pushed down everybody’s throat.

Ms Namazie was responsible for one little bit of entertainment, between two speeches when she informed us through the organizers that the police had taken aside and talked to one of her friends as someone had complained about their “banner” – a cardboard lid, actually – with the cartoons on it.

She then rather hysterically demanded that we all hold the banner in turn as they cannot arrest all of us. I have to say the police, who looked stolidly on as they have always done with demonstrations, did not appear to be about to arrest anyone but you can never tell.

I think Ms Namazie must have become confused and thought about police in Communist countries.

In his account Perry de Havilland of Samizdata says he saw some police taking photographs. I did not but that does not mean he is wrong. It may have happened after I had left or become semi-comatose with boredom. If they did, one would like to know the purpose.

But then, Mr de Havilland seems to imply that the presence of a largish police contingent at a rally in Trafalgar Square is somehow unusual or a new development. I wonder what makes him think that.

I did see one police officer talking earnestly to a group of Asian youths, who subsequently dispersed. Another person there wrote to me this morning to say that she had noticed a group of angry young Muslims in headscarves and fatigues being taken away as they tried to disrupt the proceedings just before Peter Tatchell spoke.

That, I imagine, was not about the cartoons but the general Islamist hatred for Tatchell and his campaign for the rights of homosexuals around the world. In fact, much of his speech was fascinating and horrifying.

According to him, he and his colleagues have been receiving death threats and worse for years from Islamists and the police has done nothing about it, not wishing to upset the Muslim community. (That I can well believe.)

Equally, according to him, nothing has been done about death threats to Iraqi and Iranian refugees who had been threatened. (I wonder if that is true.)

Tatchell called on the police to affirm the right of every individual to protection as long as they did not threaten others. It is easy to blame all this on Plod Blair but as the campaign of hatred seems to have been going on for years, perhaps that “copper’s copper” Sir John Stevens, now Lord Stevens, would like to explain the policy.

If only Peter Tatchell had stopped with his calls for freedom of speech for all, even the Islamists who abuse him (as long as there are no direct threats). Unfortunately, he had to go further and tell us of the things that we must not have: racism, Islamophobia and anti-semitism of the kind the BNP produces. The audience was left in some doubt as to whether he believed in freedom of speech for them as well or whether he thought that the likes of Nick Griffin should be imprisoned.

The trouble is that when speakers start equating matters, they run into difficulty. Tatchell, for instance, passionately called for the right to criticize the Iraqi war (not sanctioned internationally – by the UN, one presumes) and Guantánamo. I haven’t noticed that anyone has been banned from doing all of this. In fact, it is hard to open a newspaper without reading bleatings about Gitmo.

Freedom meant criticizing, if needs be, the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who is stopping him?). Someone in the audience shouted: “and the Prophet” but Mr Tatchell ignored that.

On the other hand, there were ideas that were beyond the pale: nazism, homophobia, racism, misogyny and creationism (somewhat random, that last one). The same person from the audience shouted: “Islamism” but again Mr Tatchell passed. And, of course, one must not mention the “C” word or the Iranian activist lady might get upset.

The next speaker was Keith Porteous Wood from the National Secular Society, who told us at length and with much repetition that the problem was with religion, any religion.
At that point I decided that he was entitled to his views but I was entitled to my right not to listen. As journalists used to say: I made my excuses and left. Luckily, the National Gallery was within a few steps.

This means that I missed Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance announcing that everyone is allowed free speech, even David Irving, Nick Griffin, Abu Hamza and Frank Ellis (I’ve read his press release).

Dr Gabb seems to think that he is the only one to say all of this and he probably was yesterday. But, actually, there have been many people (this blog included) who said that Irving ought not to be imprisoned for his falsifications.

Nick Griffin was found not guilty by a jury on two counts and there was no decision on two more. The re-trial is likely to come up with similar results and, again, many people have said that the trial was wrong.

The Danish cartoonists, meanwhile, are in hiding, as are Muslim politicians in the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.

The trouble with defending Abu Hamza is that you are venturing well beyond free speech or free expression into the realms of incitement of violence and attacks on a person. That this has never been allowed in this country, even when our newspapers were a lot more free to insult anyone they liked, is shown by the fact that six of the eight charges on which he was found guilty come under legislation of 1861.

As I wandered round the National Gallery I could not help asking myself who of all those people would stand with this blog, should Dr Waheed’s threats be repeated and, indeed, become more definite.

Of the speakers, Peter Tatchell probably and Mark Wallace, whom I also missed, certainly. I know enough of the Freedom Association to believe that. The others? Hmmm.

The Communist lady is unlikely to support us, given the rude things we have said about her creed. The Lib-Dims are not going to be anywhere near a eurosceptic blog. The other organizations seem little interested in anything but themselves.

Of those who attended, I have to discard all the ones who came with the carefully created identical posters. No stepping out of line for them. But I expect the lady with the Danish flag that bore the legend: “Londoners stand with you” will be on our side.

COMMENT THREAD

Those pesky organs… again

There is a general rule, the adherence to which reduces the chances of making a fool of yourself. Simply, that rule is: make at least some attempt to find out what it is you are pontificating about, before opening your mouth or committing fingers to keyboard. Others have put it better, in terms: "engage brain before opening mouth".

However, since the publication by The Times last week of the story about the possible banning of organs by the EU, any number of politicians have chosen to ignore that rule. They are thus in grave danger of doing precisely what comes so naturally – making fools of themselves.

This comes over with abundant clarity from Booker's column today, under the heading, "Organs will still sound despite the law's confusion".

Few EU directives, Booker writes, have caused more upset in recent times than the one said to threaten the survival of tens of thousands of organs, in cathedrals, churches and concert halls throughout Europe. The suggestion that this law might, in a way it was never intended to, do away with these magnificent musical instruments, which have been at the heart of European culture for centuries, has understandably sent a shock wave across the world.

Yet, astonishingly, he adds – being somewhat kind - it emerges that this furore arises from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of organs, leaving officials and politicians hopelessly at sea in their interpretation of a law that they themselves have framed.

The problem, as we know, began with a Brussels directive, 2002/95 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS). Among the substances which this bans from use in electrical equipment is lead.

We also now know that the metal pipes which produce sound in an organ can only be made from a lead-tin alloy. Nothing else will do, to create their incredible range of tones. The air that passes through these pipes (of which there may be many thousands - the Royal Albert Hall's organ, for example, has 9,999) is usually driven by an electrically-powered blower.

But now we get to the interesting detail. As long ago as January 2001, when RoHS, and a companion directive on the disposal of electrical waste, were first under discussion, Douglas Levey of the Institute of British Organ Building (IBO) wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry to make sure that any ban on lead would not apply to the organ pipes themselves, since these are wholly separate from any parts worked by electricity, such as a blower or electronic controls.

He had no answer to his point, and the directive was issued in 2003, followed last autumn by regulations passing it into UK law. It was now vital to everyone in the organ world that the issue should be clarified before the regulations came into force, on July 1 this year; so last month Mr Levey wrote to the European Commission.

But it became obvious that, since none of the officials involved had properly focused on how organs might be affected by the directive, they were unable to give a clear response. The Commission merely advised that the onus for determining whether any "product" is covered by the directive lies with its "producer", as the "person best placed to assess the characteristics of his product".

That is the nub of the matter. It is for the producer to decide whether their equipment comes within the framework of the directives, and it is therefore, for the IBO to convey its members views to government, and not the other way around.

On this basis the IBO was confident that, though the directive applied to the electrical installations in an organ, it did not apply to the pipes. To identify them as "electrical equipment" would be as absurd as to claim that, if a building is fitted with air conditioning, then the whole structure should be considered as an electric device.

Nevertheless, however clear this has seemed to legal and other experts, it has so far been too much for politicians or officials to grasp. When a DTI minister, Alun Michael, was challenged in the Commons last week, he could only suggest that the organ builders should apply for an "exemption" from the law.

As the IBO explains on its website, this wholly misses the point. First, it implies that organ pipes are covered by the directive (otherwise there would be no need for an exemption). Second, such exemptions are only temporary, so that, in a few years' time, the whole case would have to be argued again.

That is why, Booker tells us, on Tuesday, following the Commission's advice and with growing support from across the musical world, the IBO will visit the DTI to insist that there must no longer be any confusion about this matter: the directive is irrelevant to organ pipes.

Ultimately the only authority that could gainsay this is the European Court of Justice, the final arbiter on the meaning of EU law. And, with a good helping of irony, Booker concludes: "the possibility that the ECJ might interpret the directive in a way that would force the eventual removal of the organs from the cathedrals, churches and concert halls of Europe, and expose the EU to the ridicule of the entire civilised world, must be unthinkable."

Returning to our original point, though, despite the IBO specifically turning is back on the idea of an "exemption", what does the
Conservative website call for? Er… and exemption, claiming a "victory" because Alun Michael has agreed to consider this. Similarly, the MEPs Roger Helmer and Chris Heaton-Harris rushed into print on 22 March with a press release, headed "Hands of our organs", demanding that the DTI "ensure that the directive excludes organ pipes from its provisions entirely."

Perhaps, if we could exclude some of our MPs and MEPs entirely, we might be better off.

COMMENT THREAD

The break-up of the Union

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons why the European Union is struggling is that the primary driver of European integration – the so-called Franco-German motor – is spluttering. Some would suggest that it is on the point of stalling.

This is pointed up by an article in The Business today, under the heading: "Why Paris and Berlin are drifting apart". Here, it is notable that the very title takes it for granted that the drift is a reality.

Says The Business, the old closeness, that steered western Europe from the aftermath of war is giving way to a more edgy relationship, politically and economically. The watershed was the French rejection of the EU constitution creating a divide which has since been reinforced by the French blocking a merger between its ailing Alstom group and Germany’s Siemens. This, is seems, caused much bad blood on the economic front.

Central to the current tepid relationships, though, is Chirac. With only a year of his presidency left to run, he is seen in Berlin as an ineffective lame duck and his government as badly hit by the current unrest over labour reform.

This will not be a surprise to our readers, and any student of the EU will readily understand that, from the very inception of the project, France has taken a dominant role in shaping Community politics. In so doing, it has capitalised on its "victim" status as the aggrieved party in the Second World War, relying on "war guilt" to keep Germany quiescent.

But no more. The Business observes that French attempts to dictate political affairs now go down badly across the Rhine. The enlargement of the EU has put Germany in the middle of Europe, its eyes fixed on Warsaw as well as Paris.

It must also be a factor that chancellor Angela Merkel is an Ossie and of a generation that is distanced from the War. She takes a wider view than Schröder, and could not be more remote from the Rhineland influences of his predecessor Helmut Kohl. Thus, she is seeking better ties with Washington and is less ready to play the anti-American card that her predecessor used to chase votes.

Furthermore, structural and economic differences are beginning to re-emerge as significant political issues. France and Germany differ over the creation of a single market for services, with the Germans aligning themselves with the EU, expressing increasing irritation over French protectionist moves.

The French, on the other hand, sensing their loss of influence over Germany and no longer being able to dictate the EU agenda with such ease, are beginning to withdraw from the "project", projecting an increasingly nationalistic stance on a wide variety of issues.

It was once thought – not least by this blog – that the emergence of the right-of-centre Merkel would by matched by the election in 2007 of the right-wing Nicolas Sarkozy, and re-invigorate the Franco-German motor, but The Business seems to feel otherwise. It suggests that a newly assertive Germany is here to stay and the current cooling of relations presages a fundamental shift in the balance of power.

Concludes The Business, France has not yet accepted that shift, noting that, until it does, the scene is set for increasing tension between the two main European players.

The question left hanging, though, is what happens when France does wake up to the reality of its diminished position. If history is any guide, a possible outcome might be a French retreat from the project, with a new president adopting Gaullist tactics, actively sabotaging Community initiatives.

This time round, though, Germany is unlikely to back down, leaving the possibility that France will end up seeking to form new alliances, effectively leading to a break-up of the European Union.

Whatever else, it is abundantly clear that the days of the European Union as it currently stands are numbered. Already, we have reached the limit of integration and the central question is how member states are going to adjust to the new reality.

COMMENT THREAD

A political vacuum

We have been running this blog for nearly two years now, and following EU affairs for many more. And never in that whole time have we experienced such a dearth of news on EU issues – not even during the long summer holidays, when little activity is expected.

Given that the EU has just held its main European Council for the year, one would have thought that there would have been some follow-up in the Sundays, but nothing appears at the time of writing.

Even the Telegraph's David Rennie, on his own blog admits that the Council was an non-event, enlivened only by Chirac's grand sulk.

Clearly, there is a massive political vacuum at the heart of the EU, which bodes ill for the project. But that does not mean that it is no longer exercising its malign effect. Booker updates us on the organ saga, and we'll fill in the background detail later today.

COMMENT THREAD

Them Frogs ain't all bad

The Telegraph today records the passing of a boyhood hero of mine.

This is Pierre Clostermann, who has died aged 85, was one of the leading French fighter aces flying with the RAF during the Second World War. He flew 432 combat sorties and destroyed at least 18 aircraft in the air and on the ground. A charismatic and sometimes controversial figure, he wrote a classic account of his wartime experiences which is considered by many to be the finest aviation book to come out of the war.

I recall being transfixed by that book, first published in French as Le Grand Cirque (The Big Show). It was subsequently translated into 50 languages and sold three million copies worldwide. Marshal of the RAF Sir John Slessor described it as "a magnificent story, making one proud, not only of those French boys who fought so gallantly, but of the RAF in which they served".

They don't make them like that any more.

COMMENT THREAD

Don’t be nasty to Schröder

Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has once again resorted to the courts to protect his reputation (a lost cause in our opinion but it is his money).

Schröder’s lawyer, Michael Nesselhauf, has announced that he had won a temporary injunction against the leader of the Free Democrats, Guido Westerwelle, who is not allowed to repeat something he had said about the former Chancellor.

And what was this heinous comment that Gerhard Schröder simply cannot live with? What terrible crime was he accused of with no evidence whatsoever?

Herr Westerwelle apparently expressed his opinion that Schröder

“gave a contract to a company as chancellor … and then took up a job with that same company just weeks after leaving office”.

Hmm. What is actually wrong with that statement? As the International Herald Tribune put it yesterday:

“Schröder in December accepted a position as the head of the supervisory
committee of the consortium building the North European Gas Pipeline linking Russia and Germany, less than one month after Angela Merkel succeeded him as chancellor.

The €4 billion pipeline agreement was signed just 10 days before the German general election in September, at a ceremony attended by Schröder and the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.

Gazprom controls 51 percent of the venture while E.ON, the leading German energy group, and BASF, the world's biggest chemicals maker, hold 24.5 percent each.”

Herr Westerwelle’s summary sounds accurate. The trouble is that

“[a] poll in the news magazine Der Spiegel this week showed that 62 percent of respondents believed that Schröder "should have shown more reserve" in his business activities after leaving office.

Thirty-one percent found his behavior acceptable.”

Don’t know what the man is worried about. He is still managing to fool thirty-one per cent of those asked.

COMMENT THREAD

Well we are still here

What is more to the point, our posting on the Shabina Begum case is still up and our “friend” Dr Imran Waheed has not responded to our second posting. We are waiting to hear from him and his organization and, in the meantime, my colleague and I remain careful about any parcel we might receive unexpectedly.

As we expected, we have had a great deal of support from our readers and readers of other blogs, like the Daily Ablution. Anything else would have surprised both of us.

I regret to report that there is some uncertainty about Free-Market News Network, which republished the piece, then received an e-mail from Dr Waheed and promptly removed the posting. Unimpressive, to put it mildly, but I believe the problem may sort itself out.

In the meantime, I am glad to say that we have had a great deal of information about Hizb ut-Tahrir and its various involvements in events far and wide.

The history of the organization is detailed well with many references in this FrontPage article by Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen. The article traces the development of the organization and its banning by numerous Middle Eastern governments as well as Russia and, more to the point, Sweden and Germany. The authors argue for its ban in the United States and that may yet happen, though it is more widely spread in Europe.

Indirectly we have found more information about Hizb ut-Tahrir on GlobalSecurity.org.

We have also had some excellent advice from all our readers and we are thinking of printing out all those web pages, though getting them signed by solicitors or commissioners of oath might cost money. (I have never discussed anything except the purchase of my house with my solicitor or temporary problems with neighbours over trees. He would be somewhat surprised to be asked for advice on matters of this kind.)

Then there are all the links we have received to strengthen our case. There is the Swedish blog Jihad I Malmö, which tells us that Hizb ut-Tahrir is to be prosecuted again in Denmark for disseminating leaflets that threaten Jews and Danish politicians (and, above all, one must assume, Danish politicians who happen to be Jewish). The blog is in Swedish but can be deciphered. Anyway, the information is there.

On the Ummah Forum we can see a press release (scroll down to the third piece) put out by Hizb ut-Tahrir about the Shabina Begum, which would indicate a certain connection there. And, of course, there was that interview in the Guardian with Ms Begum conducted by their own little jihadist, Dilpazier Aslam, who later left the newspaper rather than sever his links with HT (as that organization is affectionately known).

The Guardian’s interesting role in the whole saga is detailed by Scott Burgess on the Daily Ablution blog.

One of our readers sent us a link to a Muslim website dedicated to exposing HT as a wrong-headed organization that misleads the youth of Islam. It is not, indeed, an easy read and, probably, would not be much use in a court of law, should it ever come to that, which we hope it will not, but extremely interesting.

Finally, there is the link to the career of Cherie Booth QC in Wikipedia, that refers to the case and the controversy it has caused because of the Hizb ut-Tahrir involvement. And that takes us back to the Times article we linked to in our previous posting.

We think there is enough there, together with Hizb ut-Tahrir’s own website to prove our case, should it come to that. And we do not like people who try to bully us.

A policy without substance

"EU agrees common energy policy" trumpets The Times. That is supposedly one of the outcomes of the European Council which drew to a conclusion yesterday

Thus, the Times reports the EU has agreed to devise a shared energy policy for the first time, better to withstand a future of rising oil prices, climate change and strong-arm tactics by Russia and the oil producers of the Middle East.

However, the detail is somewhat thin. The strategy involves EU talks with Russia aimed at avoiding a repeat of Russia's dispute in January over its gas supplies to Ukraine and a "biomass action plan", aimed at increasing the use of natural fuels in buses and cars. Also, when future energy crises loom, the policy calls for the EU to respond "in a spirit of solidarity".

The game is given away though by the German news agency ddp (no link) which reports that German chancellor Angela Merkel rejected the demand by Barroso for the right to have a greater say in energy policy, refusing to allow the commission more powers.

In order better to co-ordinate and ensure energy supply, Javier Solana was asked by EU leaders to prepare and hold talks with the supplying countries outside the EU, but key issues like nuclear power were not broached. Merkel, it seems, simply insisted that the national states themselves must decide on the energy mix.

From this, very little seems to have been agreed, beyond vague expressions of intended "solidarity", and a few administrative programmes which were on the stocks anyway.

Looking at the Council communiqué, that impression is very much reinforced. There is very little beyond the fine words which simply mask the fact that this is a policy without substance.

COMMENT THREAD

The problem remains

Six European Union member states, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland have met at the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm to come up with some solution to the problems of mass immigration and assimilation. Why Poland was involved is a mystery. It is hardly a great magnet for immigrants except from countries to the east of it and those people share Polish values by and large.

On the agenda was a French proposal

“… that prospective immigrants should learn the local language, be familiar with their new host country's institutions and have the financial means to support themselves.”

France, of course, had a few problems last year with its immigrant communities but I wouldn’t say those were rooted in a misunderstanding of the host country’s culture. Actually, they understood it all too well, as similar scenes, perpetrated by the more affluent students from the Sorbonne in the last couple of days, have shown.

Then there is the problem of learning the local language. Is there any need for that to become compulsory? After all, if people do not want to learn the language, well, so be it.

The problem is surely the billions of taxpayers’ money spent on providing official information in many different languages and not insisting that English be the first language in schools and other official institutions. Take all that away, reform the tax and welfare system so it encourages people to get jobs and the incentive to learn the language will be there.

Of course, none of it will happen but then neither will the compulsory testing of language. And if the latter is introduced there will be many ways of getting round the problem.

Several countries, Britain included, are introducing tests on the host country’s culture for those applying for citizenship or, even, asylum. All fine and dandy but how do you define culture?

The British test, I believe, includes questions about soap operas and one about the Queen spending her holiday in one of her castles. I would certainly fail all those. But ask me anything about Queen Elizabeth and her pesky sea-dogs and there will be no stopping me. As for the Sherlock Holmes canon – well, don’t start me on it.

Other countries, like the Netherlands, and some German länder are trying to gauge the immigrants’ and potential new citizens’ reaction to various rather thorny subjects, like homosexuality and women’s freedom. So far there have been an outcry from some of the left-wing parties and threats to go to the European Court of Human Rights by the Muslim organizations. Who says they do not understand our culture?

I find it a little surprising that there is no talk of punishing people who break the law of the country they live in. Surely, the answer is not to make immigrants sign integration contracts that enumerate

“[t]he values of our societies - democracy, respect for other faiths, free speech, the rule of law, free media and so on - are values we would expect everybody wanting to settle in these countries to respect.”,

but which cannot be enforced. Instead, let us make it clear that people are free within the bounds of the law. And that, as we now know, includes schools deciding on their own uniform. It also includes an acknowledgement that honour killing is murder and is to be punished as such. It includes a ban on incitement to violence and a firm assertion that there is only one Parliament (well, give or take those Assemblies in Cardiff and Edinburgh).

In other words, the greatest and most important value that all immigrants must accept is the rule of law with freedom for all guaranteed within it. But then, the rule of law is not something the EU can fully comprehend itself. Nor is it entirely clear on the subject of democracy or, for that matter, freedom. The blind leading the blind.

COMMENT THREAD

The EU remains strangely silent

The EU and its various bodies, such as the Toy Parliament, are fond of expressing their views on all subjects around the world. Well, here is one for them: the fate of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan Christian, who is being tried for apostasy in Afghanistan and for whose blood (quite literally) the clerics are baying.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has expressed the desire that constitutional legality will prevail. Unfortunately as with all constitutional legalities, it depends on what you mean.

On the one hand, the Afghan constitution guarantees freedom of religion; on the other hand it does not allow for anything that breaks the essential tenets of Islam. Unfortunately, the essential tenets of Islam includes death to all apostates. So, Karzai is stuck.

Equally stuck are President Bush and Secretary of State Rice, both of whom expressed shock and horror at the idea of a man being put to death for being a Christian and a hope that the Afghan courts would not behave that way. They and John Howard of Australia have said that people of all faiths have fought and died to make the country free, which should not abuse that freedom to restore injustice and moral slavery.

That’s fine and dandy but having given Afghanistan freedom the West cannot be seen to be interfering overtly in its judicial affairs. Should President Bush order the Afghani courts to release Abdul Rahman we shall hear a great deal about evil American imperialism from people who have remained strangely silent about the man who is on trial.

For instance, though Ruth Gledhill mentions that the Bishop of Rochester expressed what can only be described as mild indignation to her, I cannot recall the Archbishop of Canterbury, the man who thought that Guantánamo was the most relevant topic in Sudan and who voted for Church of England disinvestment from a firm that deals with Israel, saying a single word about the fate of a fellow Christian. (Then again, I do not recall him saying anything about the persecution of Palestinian Christians by Hamas and Fatah as well as other local groupings.)

What of the Christian Peace Campaigners, that organization so full of Christian feelings of gratitude towards the men who had risked their lives to rescue their moonbat members from rather unpleasant criminal gangs in Iraq? Abdul Rahman, who had wanted to live in peace and practise his religion? Nothing, rien, nada.

Above all, where is the European Union? Apart from the United States, three countries, according to CNSNews.com, Canada, Italy and Germany have voiced concern. (This does not allow for John Howard’s statement but, perhaps, there had been no official Australian reaction.)

And the EU? Has Javier Solana made any comments? Has the benighted European Parliament passed any resolutions? Not that I know of. The Italian Foreign Ministry, having chastised the Afghan ambassador is threatening to take the matter further:

“If this news is confirmed, Italy will move at the highest level, referring the issue to the E.U. in Brussels, to prevent a development that would be incompatible with the defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

That should make those cleric shiver with fright.

COMMENT THREAD

Beyond parody

While the "colleagues" disport themselves in Brussels, with the added entertainment of L'escroc walking out in a hissy fit at the sound of English, the great empire is seeking to make its presence felt in deepest, darkest Africa.

This is the "EU military mission" to the Congo, which started out with a proposal for 2000 troops, got whittled down to about 1200 and now, according to Reuters has emerged as a "battalion-size force", i.e., around 800 troops.

Not that the EU has actually approved the troop movement yet – the Council has simply approved the "concept" of EU troops supporting the UN Mission during the presidential and legislative elections process this year. Furthermore, if the troops are ever despatched, they will not actually be sent to the Congo – goodness me, no! The EU is planning to make the troops available as an "on-call" unit. The battalion would be "over the horizon outside the country".

Through our diligent and extensive researches, we have managed to track down a photograph of the EU base camp, somewhere in Antarctica where, according to the Council statement, "it will have a major impact for peace and development in the region of the Great Lakes and Africa as a whole."

COMMENT THREAD

A message from Dr Imran Waheed

We have received the following e-mail from Dr Imran Waheed, representative of the Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Organisation. He writes:

Dear Ms. Szamuely,

Your article concerning Shabina Begum alleges that she, her brother and her cousin are members of our organisation. This is untrue and there is no evidence to substantiate this. Even the law lords in their verdict do not suggest that she or any members of her family are members of our organisation. They are not, and have never been, members of our organisation.

In addition, you allege that our organisation is linked to Al-Qaeda in some shape or form. This is an outlandish allegation that again has no evidence to substantiate it. Hizb ut-Tahrir rejects violence as a methodology for change, as is clearly pointed out in our publications and press statements. Even those, who have studied the party in depth do not make such outrageous allegations.

After seeking legal advice, we ask that these allegations are removed immediately from your website. We also ask that you correct the above mistakes. Other sites that had carried your article have already removed the article, once this matter was brought to their attention.

If you are not prepared to remove the aforesaid article, we would be grateful if you could provide us with a postal address at which we can serve documents in relation to the publication of these allegations.

This correspondence will be placed before a judge in any forthcoming legal action that we decide to take against you, the owners of the website and its host.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Imran Waheed

Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
Suite 301, 28 Old Brompton Rd, London, SW7 3SS
press@hizb.org.uk

www.hizb.org.uk/pressnew

+44(0)7074-192400

We wonder if Dr Waheed has read this and this, as well as this little gem, this one and, of course, this, this and this.

We, on the other hand, have read this. The post stands.

COMMENT THREAD

Important dates

Many things happened on March 23 over the centuries but two of them seem of particular note:

In 1775 Patrick Henry made his famous speech to the Virginia Provincial Convention calling on it to join the movement for independence from British rule. It can be argued that the American War of Independence was the second Civil War as Briton fought Briton for various principles in North America.

Patrick Henry was successful. The Virginia Provincial Convention voted for his proposal and one sentence from his speech has gone into every dictionary of quotations:

“Give me liberty, or give me death!”

Fast-forwarding to the twentieth century, on March 23 in 1983 President Reagan first proposed developing technology to intercept enemy missiles --- a proposal that came to be known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, as well as "Star Wars".

Instead of death, that brought liberty to millions of people who had been living under Communism.

COMMENT THREAD

What fun!

Today's the day, but not for teddy bears – unless you count Berlusconi. From the twenty-five corners of the vast Brussels empire, heads of state and governments are winging their way to the Capital, all under the gallant leadership of Herr Schuessel, chancellor of a country which once laid claim to a vast empire of its own.

Speaking of Berlusconi, Reuters tells us that the man has his own agenda – shock! Embroiled in an increasingly bitter general election battle with Romano Prodi, former presidente of the Brussels empire, he is hoping to use the occasion to revitalise his flagging prospects of regaining power.

Trailing in the opinion polls, Berlusconi, it seems, may well decide he has nothing to lose in Brussels and try to settle old scores, particularly with the French who have repeatedly crossed him. "I think it is almost certain that he will use the summit to launch an attack against French protectionism and reaffirm his liberal values," says Gianni Bonvicini, director of the Italian Institute of International Affairs. "He is clearly using every occasion available to him to send very strong messages to his electorate."

Meanwhile, according to that trusted and dispassionate source, The Guardian, Tony Blair's “intellectual guru”, the noble Lord Anthony Giddens - former director of the London School of Economics - has firmly put the boot into the whole sheebang, declaring that France, Germany and Italy are facing an economic crisis with worrying levels of unemployment, unless they reform.

This is supposed to be "a rare insight into the prime minister's private thoughts", although we are not told whether the rarity arises from the paucity of thought, or simply from the novelty of having them expressed.

This notwithstanding, Giddens runinates on whether there is "enough shock" in France and Germany and Italy to produce changes. "There manifestly is a kind of crisis in France, Germany and Italy," he says, to absolutely no one’s surprise.

Whether that sense of crisis will pervade the halls of the Justus Lipsus, however, is anyone's guess. Not least as Britain is playing the field, holding off from backing Berlusconi, on the basis that he might be out of office in a few weeks. Then, once again, Blair will be dealing with our Romano, this time ensconced as Italian prime minister.

Giddens is telling the Guardian that the Blairites regard Berlusconi as a failure. "Italy's got virtually zero growth rate," he says. It, as well as France and Germany should follow the example of Britain, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries”.

Peter Mandelson, however, seems less than optimistic that this will happen. "Sometimes you listen to people and wonder if they just imagine that if they bring a comfort blanket over their heads far enough and firmly enough, all that is happening in the world will pass them by and they can re-emerge and carry on business as usual as if nothing has changed," he says.

And no, he was not talking about Tony Blair.

COMMENT THREAD

When is a rescue not a rescue?

When British, American and other coalition soldiers risk their lives to save one British and three Canadian peace campaigners from terrorists who had kidnapped them. Then it becomes “release”. Or so it seems from the various comments on the BBC Website.

The Kember family, for instance, released the following statement:

“We are very pleased that Norman and his friends are safe.

We are grateful for all the support we have had from so many people since Norman was taken hostage.

We also thank everyone who has worked so hard for him to be set free.”

Well, how nice. Who worked so hard? And who actually set him free? Common decency requires gratitude to the soldiers who had gone in there not knowing whether they would come out alive and unharmed. But common decency seems to be in short supply among Christian peace campaigners.

Presumably, by all those who “worked so hard for him to be set free” they mean people like Moazam Begg, former Guantánamo detainee who had, one assumes, been taking a walking holiday in Afghanistan, carrying arms and ammunition when those perfidious Americans picked him up. He, too, is quoted by our own BBC:

“I am extremely pleased. I am very, very happy and hope to meet him soon after he gets back here.

I am a little concerned about the military operation and hope that nobody was hurt during that. It is the best news to come out of Iraq in a long time.

I just know the experience of being kept away from your home for such a long time. He needs time to recover and I hope that everybody gives him that.”

Gosh, how caring.

In fact, in the long list of people quoted by the Beeb, only the Prime Minister’s spokesman used the word “rescue”. Even that statement was mealy-mouthed but better than the Foreign Secretary’s who appeared to think that all these people had somehow been freed in some unexplained fashion.

Michelle Malkin (who else?) prints some letters of outraged Christians to the Christian Peacemakers Teams, who are rejoicing on their website at the “release” of their friends and comrades.

I can’t resist quoting from one letter:

“Congratulations on the safe return of your activists. I'm sorry they did not all make it home safely. I read your press release relating the "release" of the activists; please note that they were not released, they were rescued. The term release implies that their captors let them go. You know that is not true, they were rescued by a team of American and British soldiers who risked their lives to free people whom apparently have no gratitude for their actions. It is one thing to be against war and the actions of our military (I'm not justifying that position, just acknowledging your right to it), but another to deny when they SAVED YOUR ASS!!!!”

Couldn’t have put it better myself. (Well, I could, actually, by using the correct nominative case instead of the accusative in the third sentence.)

I am overcome by a strange and, no doubt, unworthy wish that the soldiers had left this bunch of ungrateful brats where they were.

COMMENT THREAD

Britain deserves better

One can sympathise with Liam Fox, shadow secretary of state for defence. Speaking to the think-tank First Defence on Tuesday night in what was billed a keynote speech on defence overstretch, he complained that keeping defence issues in the forefront has not been an easy task in a political environment increasingly obsessed with personality and trivia.

He could have been making a prediction as the only newspaper to cover his speech in any depth at all was The Scotsman.

Even the threat of global terrorism does not seem to have shaken some out of their complacency about our future security, he adds, declaring that it was essential "that we keep defence and security issues up the political agenda". That, he said, "is my task in the coming months".

He illustrated the nature of the problem "with a few facts and a quote". For the facts, this year we will spend only 2.2 percent of our GDP on defence. This is the smallest proportion of our national wealth that we have spent on defending our country since 1930.

By the time we finish the new Wembley Stadium, we will be able to seat the ranks of the whole of the British army inside it. The Royal Navy will be smaller than the French navy. And the RAF Museum at Hendon will have more attack aircraft than the RAF does now.

Then the quote:

A strong defence capability is an essential part of Britain’s foreign policy … By 1999 defence spending will have fallen to 2.6 percent of GDP … The people who have had to bear the burden of these cuts are our servicemen and women, overstretched and under strength as never before. The strain on our Armed Forces is huge. We have a continuing commitment in Northern Ireland. Our forces operate in the Gulf, the Balkans, Africa, the Falklands, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Germany and other parts of the world all at once.

This was Tony Blair in February ’97, in full pre-election flow.

From the same Tony Blair in government, Fox noted, we have had further commitments overseas in Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan with cuts in our armed forces of almost 40,000; the Army down 9,000, the Royal Navy down 10,000 and the RAF down 16,000.

In common with this blog, Fox then observed that there is little focus on Labour’s neglect of our defence forces. "The lack of general debate about defence and security policy – rather than domestic affairs – is doubly strange", he says, "given the varied locations in which British troops are currently serving."

Therefore, Fox argues, there is an urgent debate for this country to have: "Do we reduce our commitments to match the size of our defence budget or do we increase our defence budget to match our commitments?"

Part of the problem, he adds, "is that there is little strategic thinking about our foreign policy and so our defence policy has constantly to play catch up to overseas commitments that respond to the latest summit. An ad hoc foreign policy based on the latest summit communiqué is no basis for a sound defence policy for the United Kingdom." He then tells us:

Under David Cameron’s leadership William Hague and I are determined that the Conservatives will have a properly integrated foreign and defence review so that the size and shape of our armed forces will properly reflect the strategic interests and defence requirements of this country. That is what our policy group on national and international security, and the work we will do once it reports, is designed to do.

He concludes that:

…we are weakened by the fact that the current Labour Government does not have a coherent foreign and defence strategy. With an increasingly threatening international environment the response of Blair and Brown has been to spend the smallest share of GDP on defence since 1930, cut the size of the army, navy and airforce while overstretching our service men and women, their families and their equipment. And if Blair and New Labour have failed our service personnel so they have failed this country. As Tony Blair himself once said "Britain deserves better". At least he got something right.

Clearly, Britain does deserve better and, equally – as we have observed before - we really do need that debate.

COMMENT THREAD

Oh joy, oh joy! (Not)

While the Chancellor tries to stupefy us with the various micromanagement proposals in his budget (just exactly how or, for that matter, why is he going to hire all those science teachers?), the Adam Smith Institute has calculated that Tax Freedom Day this year will be June 3, the latest since 1988. Last year it was May 31.

Mind you, on other matters the Adam Smith Institute seems rather off the mark. It has published a new paper, which we shall be reviewing and, indeed, fisking in the coming days. The paper, by Keith Boyfield and Tim Ambler, is called Eutopia (original!) and is a call for Britain to stop being the grumpy old man of the European Union.

“Instead, Britain should be combining with other countries, particularly the new East European members, to advance its own vision of a common market, open trade, cost-consciousness, better decision-making, and deregulation. EU countries often try to protect their own interests against those of others, but these goals would be as good for the whole of Europe as they would be for Britain, say the authors. Instead of a fruitless debate about pulling out of the EU, we should instead be striving to end protectionism and make the Union a paragon of open markets, free trade, and efficient administration.”

I can’t wait to read what those policy wonks suggest by way of methodology. Precisely how do we “make the Union a paragon of open markets, free trade, and efficient administration”, even if we knew what it meant?

Link with which countries? Eastern Europe a paragon of efficient administration? And how do we put the reforms through? The IGC, the European Council, the Council of Ministers? Well, I have no doubt, it will all be revealed.

COMMENT THREAD

The Law Lords do the right thing

In an important decision, the Law Lords, led by Lord Bingham, have upheld the right of Denbigh High School in Luton to devise its own uniform – in this case a version of the shalwar kameez – and to exclude anyone who refuses to adhere to it.

The case of Shabina Begum (who is usually flanked by her brother and cousin, both members of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization that openly supports Al-Qaeda and one that has been banned in a number of countries, though not, naturally, in Britain) has been going on for some time but has, now, reached the end. Unless, of course, she and her brother and cousin do go to the ECHR.

Ms Begum’s argument, conveyed by her counsel, Cherie Booth QC, was that the shalwar kameez was not modest enough for her and she had to have the right to wear a full hiljab, an outfit that is completely unsuitable to a school.

Denbigh High School pointed out that the shalwar kameez is worn across the Indian sub-continent (whence Ms Begum’s family originates) and was considered to be perfectly suitable by the many Muslims who attend the school, teach in it and sit on its parent teacher association and the governing body.

There was some debate as to why Ms Begum thought that a shalwar kameez was unsuitable. The school’s lawyers quoted her as opining that it was worn by “unbelieving women” and, therefore, she could not sully herself with it. I expect the hiljab is worn by unbelieving women, too, on occasion, particularly when they have to hide cuts and bruises inflicted on them by their loving families.

Ms Booth QC insisted that the lawyers were not accurate. Apparently Ms Begum did not consider the shalwar kameez suitable for a pubescent and post-pubescent girls. Which opinion, M’lud, is obvious nonsense, as many women of varying ages wear it.

At this point, rather uncharacteristically, I should like to ward off the personal attacks on Ms Booth. She is a barrister and, therefore, takes cases as they come up. I have no idea whether Matrix Chambers has a cab rank system or whether she took this one because it was likely to be high-profile. But if we start saying that barristers must not take on certain cases because they are clearly wrong we undermine the basic notion of both the English and the Scottish legal systems, that everyone has the right to defence.

It is, of course, true that Ms Booth set up the Matrix Chambers, to specialize in Human Rights cases immediately after that particularly contentious piece of legislation had been pushed through Parliament by her husband, the Prime Minister.

While this may not qualify as sleaze, many of us held our noses as we read about it.

Another question is who paid for the Ms Begum and her family through the various appeals (the one to the Law Lords was brought by the school). Not, I trust, the taxpayer.

Having defended, however lukewarmly, Ms Booth QC, I must add that it would be ever so nice to see her in court defending a girl who had managed to escape her family’s imprisonment, having refused to go along with a forced marriage. What price human rights in those cases?

COMMENT THREAD

Eurofederalism begins at home

Two letters appear in The Daily Telegraph today, in response to the Hannan piece two days ago.

The first, from UKIP member Alan Smith, need not detain us long. His main theme, under the heading, "province of Europe", is that Parliament, since its inception, has been the manifestation of the power of the people. "The institutions of the EU, which is a foreign power," writes Smith, "have superseded it and the people, as typified by Mr Hannan, are gradually waking up to that fact."

Clearly, Smith – and many of his colleagues – still see the EU as an imposition on us by a "foreign power", failing to realise that our membership continues only with the assent of Parliament, and that our own government is one of the main cheerleaders in the process of integration. The EU is, therefore, imposed upon us by our own government, with the support of our own Parliament.

The same lack of understanding pervades the next letter, from Brian Denny, representing the Trade Unionists against the EU Constitution. He writes that "Daniel Hannan is quite right to point out that the EU constitution, rejected by the French and Dutch electorates, is being imposed on us anyway," putting it down to "eurofederalist intrigue".

That may or may not be the case, but the question is: imposed by whom? In the intergovernmental context of the latest developments, it is member state governments – and the UK in particular – which are making the running so, again, we have our own government to blame.

Denny's substantive point, however, is that Hannan is wrong to claim that Open Europe is "waging a lonely campaign" to alert people to the danger of the continuing implementation of the constitution. He adds the Trade Unionists against the EU Constitution, the Campaign against Euro Federalism, the Centre for a Social Europe and the Democracy Movement (which has just published a review of The Great Deception – thank you). To that list, we could also add UKIP and the Bruges Group. This blog has also been known to publish the occasional critical piece about the EU.

Concludes Denny, "Democrats are in danger of talking ourselves into a self-fulfilling prophecy of dominance from Brussels unless we highlight the vast breadth of growing opposition that exists against such a state of affairs."

We, of course, have pointed out the other danger – the failure to recognise who the actual enemy is – our own government. It is very much part of the "little Englander" tendency to position the issue as a take over by a "foreign power" but that, in many ways, suits those who are responsible for our continued membership.

I have lost count of the number of times I have spoken to ministers and MPs who claim that there is nothing they can do when confronted with EU legislation. They project a sense of fatalism, absolving themselves from responsibility for the mess, transferring the blame to that same "foreign power" against which the "little Englanders" rail.

This is where Eurosceptics need to wake up and get their act together. The blame lies not in Brussels but in Westminster, and that is where the enemy lies. They need to realise that "eurofederalism" begins at home.

COMMENT THREAD

It has gone

After many protests round the world, not least by the Lego company (though not a whole lot from the MSM outside Denmark) the UN has removed its rather unpleasant poster. Hasn't been able to put anything in its place, either. Its Orwellian abilities are not yet fully developed.

As Michelle Malkin points out, there have been some specious attempts to explain away and, indeed, whitewash the UN's little charade. We agree with Michelle: the poster spoke for itself, and, just in case, we are leaving it on our blog.

But the bigger problem remains: how long are we going to tolerate and finance that noisome organization, the UN?

COMMENT THREAD

Summit blues

For some reason, I got the impression that the Spring European Council, traditionally reserved for economic matters, was set for last week. In fact, it starts this Thursday, one day after Gordon Brown delivers his budget to the nation.

Anyhow, despite Schuessel's desperate hopes that something constructive is going to emerge from the "summit" and that any rancour is avoided, the Financial Times is telling us that Britain, Italy and the Netherlands are preparing a wrecking action which should set the whole scene ablaze.

This is to be a joint denunciation of protectionism in the European Union, drafted by the excitable Giulio Tremonti - Italy's finance minister, couched so as to criticise "economic nationalism". The trio then plan to assemble a coalition of "liberal-minded colleagues" to add their signatures to the document prior to the Council, thus ensyring a right royal dust-up with France, Spain and Poland in the hot seat.

The FT suggests that there is a strong element of national politics in this – ironic when it is denouncing "economic nationalism". It appears that Berlusconi intends to use the issue to try to revive its flagging campaign ahead of next month’s general election.

At least, this time, Italy – and its fellow travellers – will be on-side with José Manuel Barroso, who is also telling member state leaders to drop their “absurd” talk of economic nationalism, declaring that, "by definition we cannot accept nationalisms. We cannot build barriers against each other in a single market – that would be absurd."

Charlie McCreevy, the internal market commissioner, is adding to fray, having told French bankers in Paris it was useless building "political Maginot lines" around a national economy – a direct dig at the embattled Chirac and his less than merry men.

Schuessel, meanwhile, is still bleating about a new energy strategy for Europe, as well as wanting member states to commit themselves to "concrete" commitments to boost the economy. He has a better chance of swimming the Channel in concrete boots.

COMMENT THREAD

The Nescafe solution

Culminating as it did in a huge climbdown over the EU budget, few will forget Britain's last term in the EU presidency. But, just short of mid-term, the Austrian presidency seems to have disappeared without trace.

That perception shines through in an interview published yesterday on the website of the German news magazine Der Spiegel, where Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel seeks to defend his country's record. In the interview, Schuessel is challenged over his ambition "to give new momentum to the EU". These were big words, he is told: "where are the actions?"

Apart from crisis management, however, all Schuessel seems to be able to offer is "the discussion about the identity of the citizen of Europe with the 'Sound of Europe' event...", which Der Spiegel airily dismisses. "No doubt 99 percent of EU citizens have never heard of it," says the interviewer.

But it enables us to "track the discontent", says Scheussel, "what do the citizens not like about Europe, about the institutions?" He adds:

If you do not see that as momentum, I cannot help that. The fact that we do not immediately have the right answers to every individual question is, in my opinion, even a positive sign. We must reflect a little before we can give the right answers. Where should the journey take us? Who is assuming responsibility?

Schuessel then burbles on about projecting the "European Way of Life" more self-confidently to the outside world, to which Der Spiegel responds, "This idea does not seem to have had much success… for the majority of the citizens, Europe is very far away."

The answer is predictable: "We need more Europe… foreign policy, the coordination of a European energy strategy… we need less small-mindedness… the regions must be strengthened… the nation-state is often too small for the big problems and too big for the small, everyday concerns." Despite all that, he goes on, "the successes are absolutely there: If we look back to 15 years ago, the reality of European unity has surpassed even the boldest fantasies of that time."

On how to deal with the constitution, Der Spiegel suggests it "has missed the mark" and "discussion is at an impasse". "There will be something new," responds Schuessel. "We must look into the unease that caused the constitution to fail in two referendums… At the summit in June, we will offer some proposals of our own in this regard."

He would not, however, be drawn on this. "You cannot expect me simply to pull out the answer like a packet of Nescafe - according to the slogan: Here is the instant solution," he declares.

Interestingly, Nescafe is running a "makeover" competition at the moment, offering a £10,000 prize so that the winner can "wake up to a new you". Perhaps the answer is on a Nescafe packet after all.

COMMENT THREAD

Different reactions

The War of the Danish Cartoons goes on and on, though the main battles are over. The Islamic Faith Community, an umbrella organisation of 27 radical Muslim organisations in Denmark is lodging a complaint with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR), who, presumably has no other problems in the in-tray at the moment.

Meanwhile, through the Little Green Footballs site one finds a story on the BBC website that tells us that the Archbishop of Wales has ordered the recall of 500 copies of the Church of Wales magazine, whose editor has resigned, because it had the temerity to publish a cartoon that included the Prophet Mohammed.

This was not one of the Danish cartoons, let alone one of the three pictures, forged by the Danish imams or their sidekicks, but

“The drawing - which was from the French magazine France Soir - shows the Prophet Muhammad sitting on a heavenly cloud with Buddha, and Christian and Jewish deities.

He is being told "don't complain... we've all been caricatured here".”

The Archbishop saw fit to grovel, though not to the Jews or Buddhists or, for that matter, the Christians of Wales.

“The article was perfectly OK, but for some reason, the editor decided to print one of these cartoons which was a gross error of judgement.

"It no way reflects the policy of the church in Wales and when I saw it I was totally horrified.

"We recalled all the papers, I personally picked up some from some churches and they have all been pulped.

"I've unreservedly apologised to my Muslim colleagues and they've been very gracious and I've said to them this in no way reflects the policy or attitude in the Church in Wales.”

How nice to know that they were gracious. Did the Archbishop apologize to the editor of the magazine?

As Little Green Footballs says:

“It’s not the policy of the Church in Wales to advocate tolerance of all religions, by all religions?

Pitiful.”

Meanwhile Aftenposten reports that the Swedish Foreign Minister, Laila Freivald, has resigned with immediate effect. There appear to be several reasons for this “entirely personal” decision but the most proximate cause was the shutting down of a website that had published those cartoons. It seems Ms Freivald acted unconstitutionally.

Win some, lose some.

COMMENT THREAD

Now we know what the UN thinks (as if we didn't before)

Today is not just the first day of spring (something of a joke in these latitudes this year) and, incidentally, the anniversary of the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 (lasted 133 days), it is also the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. And what a success that has been.

The reason this day has been picked is because

“Forty-six years have passed since the Sharpeville massacre, where 69 demonstrators were shot and killed during a non-violent protest against apartheid on 21 March.”

Fair enough but, alas, we have had many more massacres, some based on race, some on tribe, some on religion and many in Africa since then. Rwanda anyone? Darfur? Eritrea? Southern Sudan? Nigeria? I could go on.

But have a look at the poster the UN has chosen for this year. What do they present as a symbol of racial discrimination? That’s right, a piece of Lego. And who produces Lego, one of the greatest inventions as far as toys go? Well, well, well, if it is not Denmark, the country that is insisting on her right to have a free press.

Our taxes are keeping that noisome organization, the UN, alive.

COMMENT THREAD

Our unaccountable masters

No sooner did I finish reading Philip Johnston’s article in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, entitled Benighted laws that oppress us all than I heard news that proved his central argument to the hilt.

Mr Johnston starts with the new piece of legislation that creates “light pollution” a statutory offence and goes on to muse:

“No doubt for people irritated beyond measure by the incessant glare of a neighbour's lights, this law may prove a blessed relief, though they might be better advised to invest in a set of thick curtains first before starting proceedings that could prove costly and time-consuming.

But the reason why this law just does not feel right is that it represents yet another incursion into our daily lives. You just know that, for all the talk of turning the cities into a star-gazer's paradise, it will inevitably be used to stop people having too many Christmas tree lights, or to intercede in a row between neighbours over excessive security lighting, or to put an end to late-night floodlit tennis.

And the reason you know it is because many of the worst light pollutants are exempt from the law: airports, bus stations, road and rail transport facilities and (sensible one this) lighthouses are not covered by the new proscription.

Apparently, some campaigners' first target is not the new Heathrow Terminal Five, which lights up the horizon for about 20 miles around, but the floodlamps used to illuminate Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square.”

Those who refuse to dim their lights can be punished by a fine of up to £50,000. I need not even go into the probably numbers of people who will be hired by local councils to deal with complaints, investigations, fines and so on.

All the while, it will clash with an EU proposal (considerably dafter) that it should become mandatory for car drivers to keep their lights on all the time, even when the sun shines brightly on pain of severe fine.

And so it goes. If it is not mercury in thermomenters, it is lead in the pipes. If it is not water it is waste disposal. I would disagree with Mr Johnston’s contention that

“Since 1997, our lives have become increasingly circumscribed by laws that are essentially about how we should live, rather than a curb on behaviour that would normally be regarded as criminal.”

The process has been going on for considerably longer than that. Where was Mr Johnston when we were fighting the Meat Hygiene Service, for instance? Or the many other regulations that were destroying small businesses, particularly food producers?

Yet one cannot argue with the central point of his article:

“Why are so many laws introduced that merely inconvenience the respectable and law-abiding majority, while almost daily, it seems, there is a horror story telling the dreadful consequences that have arisen because someone in authority has failed to keep real criminals in jail for the duration of their sentence?”

And what was the news I saw as soon as I finished reading the article? That four out of the six brutal and vicious hoodlums who have just been found guilty of kidnapping, raping and torturing two girls, then mudering one and leaving the other one for dead, had been out on probation. Not nearly as important as whether you keep your lights on in your porch or not.

COMMENT THREAD

Chris Tame RIP

Some of our readers would have known that Chris Tame, the founder and first President of the British Libertarian Alliance and a stalwart supporter of the eurosceptic cause has been very ill.

For some months he has been battling a rare and fast-spreading bone cancer. A few days ago we were all told that there was very little time left and today the news came that Chris died this afternoon in a London clinic.

I understand that the end was peaceful (if anything about Chris can be said to be peaceful). He was surrounded by friends, one only a few months old, the daughter of his great friends who looked after him all this time.

Those of us who knew Chris will miss him enormously – his pugnaciousness, his strength of opinion, his tremendous joie de vie. Others would have heard him speak or read his essays. Much of his work will still be with us and he was very glad to know that this was so. (I know people always say this but it happens to be true.)

There is nothing else I can say: Chris Tame 20.12.1949 - 20.03.2006. He will live in the memory of his many friends.

COMMENT THREAD

And he's got it wrong

"So, you thought the European constitution was dead, did you?” That is the heading of the op-ed in today's Daily Telegraph by Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP and darling of the Eurosceptic movement.

"Two years from now," he writes, "the European constitution will be in force - certainly de facto and probably de jure, too. Never mind that 15 million Frenchmen and five million swag-bellied Hollanders voted against it. The Eurocrats have worked out a deft way of getting around them."

We then get another thousand words on Hannan’s considered view, a view that is hopelessly superficial and wrong.

In his writing, Hannan argues that the process of integration is carrying on uninterrupted, seeing the EU in the one-dimensional way that so may people do – those who understand a little of it but who have never bothered to get to grips with its subtleties and complexities – or its history.

Thus he writes in his ignorance that the EU was "born out of a reaction against the Second World War, and the plebiscitary democracy that had preceded it", thus claiming that “the EU is based on the notion that "populism" (or "democracy", as you and I call it) is a dangerous thing."

In so doing, he ignores the fact that the concept was born in the aftermath not of the Second, but the First World War and was a reaction to the failures of the League of Nations and its rule by unanimity, which prevented any robust action on contentious issues.

In the 1920s, therefore, Monnet and Salter both sought a construction that would by-pass the unanimity rule, introducing the concept of "qualified majority voting". This would not only enable decisions to be made, but would safeguard the rights of the smaller nations as the weighting in the "qualified" structure would prevent the big nations ganging up on the "dwarfs" and imposing their demands on them.

Thus was born the core philosophy of the "Monnet method", which sought to replace the evil – as Monnet thought – of intergovernmentalism with the more benign doctrine of supranationalism.

Where Hannan gets his analysis wrong is that he fails to recognise that, although the "European Union" as an entity is powering ahead with issues which were introduced in the EU constitution, they are being implemented on an entirely different basis.

The aim of the constitution was to add to the commission's powers, collapsing the so-called "pillar" structure and bringing much of the intergovernmental nature of pillars two and three (Foreign and Security Policy & Justice and Home Affairs) into the maw of the supranational acquis.

But, with the rejection of the constitution by the Dutch and the French, the "pillars" stand intact. While policies named in the constitution are being added to the Union’s brief, the power is not going to the commission, but the European Council, with the council of ministers increasingly acting as subordinate structures to the Council.

In other words, there has been a fundamental shift in the nature of the EU, with member state governments re-asserting their authority, giving the Council more power. On the other hand, the political power and the authority of the commission is ebbing away. What we are seeing, therefore, is the antithesis of Monnet's supranational integration and a reversion to intergovernmentalism.

This has profound implications. Not least, although the supranational model has massive structural imperfections, in its way it has a systematic element to it. Its proposals are published and their is a structure to their approval, not least through public discussions in the European Parliament. Thus, while we can rarely prevent new measures coming through, at least we know of them and know they are coming.

Not so with the Council route. The Council, of all the EU institutions, is least transparent. There are no structures for its decision-making and there are neither EU nor national mechanisms for scrutiny of its actions. Much of what goes on in Council is neither recorded, witnessed nor understood, letting member states stitch up deals between them, with minimal interference or democratic input.

The upside is that, in it is own way, this structure bears within it the seeds of its own destruction. As Monnet observed, the rule of unanimity does not work on the serious decisions, when national priorities reassert themselves. Already, we have seen this with the Lisbon process - and much else besides - so that little constructive can be expected from the new intergovernmentalism. More likely, the friction engendered by high expectations combined with the inability to deliver, will hasten the demise of the Union.

Not that this needs to trouble the likes of Hannan and his cohort of worshipers. He can continue with his highly-paid drivel and be adored by the many, while the tide of history will find its own level without his help or understanding.

COMMENT THREAD

They got it wrong

It is ten years to the day, at 3.30 in the afternoon, that Stephen Dorrell, then Secretary of State for Health, stood up in a packed Commons to read a statement prepared by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). He told MPs that the CJD surveillance unit's work relating to ten cases of CJD identified in people under 42 had "led the committee to conclude that the unit has identified a previously unrecognised and consistent disease pattern".

He went on, reading from the statement: "A review of patients' medical histories, genetic analysis and consideration of other possible causes have failed to explain those cases adequately". Then came the punchline: "There remains no scientific proof that bovine spongiform encephalopathy can be transmitted to man by beef, but the committee concluded that the most likely explanation at present is that those cases are linked to exposure to BSE before the introduction of the specified offal ban in 1989".

The statement caused pandemonium, triggering one of the largest and most costly food scares in the history of mankind. With the final bill not yet in, direct government costs have exceeded £4 billion and the cost to the industry is incalculable.

Furthermore, the scare brought the Major government into direct conflict with the European Union when it banned the export of British beef to anywhere in the world. This precipitated the "beef war", as Major attempted to get the ban lifted, leading to a humiliating climb-down in Florence in June 1996, when he conceded the EU's right to set conditions for the return of the beef to the market.

Before leaving for Florence, Major had faced a hostile Commons, saying that a start on lifting the ban could be made in the early autumn, but had refused to indicate when it would be completed. In response, Blair – in what was to prove one of his best Commons performances - declared he it was likely to be "years not months". To loud Labour cheers, he had added: "Mr Major is now so desperate to extricate himself from this mess that he will settle for anything. There is humiliation in this deal. There is ignominy in this deal. In fact it is no deal at all - it is a rout".

Blair, of course, was right. It was only last month that the EU finally lifted the ban, and then with a huge tranche of conditions remaining, that add further to the burden already on the industry.

Back in March 1996, it as well to remind ourselves of what the media were saying. On Sunday 24 March 1996, day five of the scare, The Observer gave most of its space to the issue.

Its feature coverage was headed: "A conspiracy to make us all mad". The strap read: "For ten years the Tories hid the emerging truth about BSE. The more damning the evidence, the more Ministers gambled with the health of the nation. And in protecting their friends the farmers they sacrificed the population at large". Its piece opened:

It is 20 March 2016, precisely 20 years on from that wet Wednesday when loyal backbenchers bounced to their feet in Westminster and began to bray, yet again, at the Opposition for scaremongering. Now, Britain's National Euthanasia Clinics churn on overtime, struggling to help 500 people a week to a dignified death before brain disease robs them of reason and self-control.

This nation, whose leaders spent a decade in denial, is now in quarantine, the world long since having shunned contact with a population in which half a million people a year succumb to CJD spread in the late twentieth century through eating beef products. The Channel Tunnel is blocked with five miles of French concrete. The health service is crippled; blood transfusions are impossible because undetectable prions infect most donors, and the strain of caring for more than two million CJD victims has overwhelmed support staff. The fabric of the nation is being torn apart.

As at 3 March this year, the Department of Health Summary gave the total number of definite or probable vCJD (dead and alive) as 160 – in ten years (actually 13, as the records started three years before 1996).

The Observer was by no means on its own, with the whole media, broadcast as well as printed, indulging in an orgy of scaremongering and recriminations. Small wonder, therefore, that ten years later - on a date that coincides with the anniversary of the Iraqi invasion, to which copious coverage is given – not a single media source, usually besotted with anniversaries, has chosen to mark the events of ten years ago.

This is hardly surprising. The MSM, together with the phalanx of politicians, scientists, experts and commentators, got it hopelessly, completely and utterly wrong. It is a measure of them all that, ten years on, they do not have the grace to admit it.

COMMENT THREAD

The UN feels left out

In August 2003 the UN refused American protection for its compound in Baghdad, not wishing to be seen as supportive of the war waged on the Ba’athist regime by the coalition. We can remember the outcome: a huge bomb detonated by a suicide bomber that killed 21 people, including the head of the mission, Sergio Vieira de Mello of Brazil.

Since then most of us have assumed that the UN has packed its bags and left Iraq. Not so, apparently. There is a 90-member U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, or UNAMI, safely ensconced in the highly secure Green Zone. And, at least, one person thinks that it is time to come out of there.

He is SecGen Kofi Annan’s Special Representative in Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, who is spending some days in Washington to discuss matters with the Pentagon, State Department and the National Security Council.

The UN, he assures us, is involved in many projects and the Americans would like them to be involved in more. But most people have no idea that this is so.

“It is a fact that the United States strongly encourages us to play a more proactive role in a whole range of activities to make an impact on Iraqi lives.

A lot of people are not aware of our contributions. … People ask 'where are you?' because they don't always notice us.

We need to do a better job in terms of enlarging the scale of our activities, being seen and being safe at the same time.”

Interestingly, Mr Qazi is not impressed by the doom-mongers.

“"What is civil war? I wouldn't say it is even a prospect right now, but there is no reason to be complacent," he said, acknowledging serious human rights violations, sectarian violence, little protection for civil servants and an absence of civil services that would make daily life easier for average Iraqis.”

Could it be that at the third anniversary of the start of the war, the UN’s representative feels that Iraq, despite its difficulties, is more likely to be a long-term success story than many other projects it is involved in?

COMMENT THREAD

Obscurity compounded by confusion

Tomorrow, as today's newspapers have been quick to remind us, is the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the so called "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Whatever the issues, and we will explore some of them in the coming days, the participation of British troops alongside the Americans has given the appearance of a strengthened Atlantic alliance. It has also given rise to many accusations that Tony Blair is but a poodle of the United States, and Mr Bush in particular.

Looking back over the years, however, one can argue that our current involvement in Iraq is driven by political motives other than support of the United States.

In the first instance, the 2003 invasion can be regarded as unfinished business, left over from Desert Storm in 1991, the liberation of Kuwait. But, politically, the genesis possibly lies in the Falklands War of 1982, which is largely credited with winning Margaret Thatcher her second term, with a massive majority, in the June 1983 general election.

We tend to forget now, well before 2003, Blair had been was lining up alongside the US for another military adventure. But his war-like poses were primarily aimed at securing for New Labour a second term of office. Noting how the "Falklands effect" had come to the aid of Thatcher, it was widely rehearsed at the time that Blair was looking to replicate that effect. And, although the war has backfired on him, nothing has transpired to refute those suggestions.

Another motivation, again much rehearsed at the time, was Blair's desire to prove his potency as a bridge between the United States and Europe, demonstrating that, by positive engagement with the Americans, he could influence US policy – not only on his behalf but as an emissary for the European Union.

To that extent, therefore, Blair's apparently "pro-American" policy of 1993 was not that, but an attempt to increase his own influence in the European Union, by demonstrating that he had the ear of president Bush.

As the Iraqi war has dragged on into a bloody insurgency, however, it has become fashionable – in the superficial way that so attracts the "chattering classes" – to brand Blair as an Atlanticist and Bush supporter, when the truth is far more complex and the facts may point to other conclusions.

Either way, the Iraqi involvement has obscured an opposing trend within the defence and political establishments, that of the progressive European military integration. This was happening under successive Conservative administrations and continued when Blair took over, given fresh impetus by the St. Malo agreement of 1998 and the commitment, the following year, to form European Rapid Reaction Force.

Also, because the Iraqi War is the dominant defence issue, on which the media has largely concentrated, this is also the issue on which the Conservatives have concentrated, a process made easier by the fact that they are untainted by the decision to go to war – which was undertaken entirely on Blair’s watch

When it comes to European defence integration, however, the Conservatives are heavily compromised, not least by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty, which conferred on the EU powers to take action in respect of the newly created "second pillar" of the Foreign and Security Policy.

In effect, therefore, the Iraqi War has obscured the ongoing process of European defence integration and focused attention elsewhere. It has also given a false impression of US-UK solidarity, which has provided a "cover" for the process of defence integration and it has diverted attention from it.

With the Conservatives so heavily compromised on that issue, they themselves have not been keen to bring it up , so there has been very little light shone on the very significant developments which have occurred since Blair’s agreement with Chirac at St. Malo, back in 1998.

Thus it is that defence policy is more a matter of obscurity compounded by confusion, which makes Booker’s column today, on the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraqi invasion, especially relevant.

Headed, "When it comes to defence, there is no Opposition", Booker notes that:

That new double-act of British politics, our Labour Government and the Not-the-Conservative Party, was to the fore in Washington last week when Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, addressed the Senate Armed Services Committee, supported by Tory defence spokesman Liam Fox. They "warned" senators that, unless the US lifted its embargo on the electronic "source codes" necessary to operate the Joint Strike Fighter, the British would pull out of this last major Anglo-US military project, the aircraft intended for the Royal Navy's two planned "super-carriers".

This picks up on our analyses on this blog, the latest here, where Booker records that from the way the JSF issue was presented, it seemed that this problem was all the fault of the Americans. No one bothered to explain the background - the reason our US allies have become so wary about giving us military secrets is our increasing defence entanglement with our EU "partners", particularly France. Booker continues:

Since 2000 we have been treaty-bound to hand on our military secrets to the French, who in turn have become ever closer to the Chinese, America's greatest potential enemy. So the senators that Lord Drayson was addressing fear that any secrets shared with the British may end up in Beijing.

For some time now, it has been evident that the Ministry of Defence was anticipating an end to the Joint Strike Fighter project and its replacement by the French-made Rafale, which the French plan to use on their own "super-carrier", as part of our joint contribution to the European Rapid Reaction Force. The only significance of Drayson's visit to Washington was that at last he openly admitted this.

Thus does the MoD's stealthy campaign to end our "special relationship" with the US in favour of European integration continue. Because the Tories fail to grasp what is happening, Government spin is again allowed to prevail. The media just echo the spin.

However, to be fair to the Tories, the new shadow defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox did speak to the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC on 16 Feburary, when he told his audience that there were issues which put co-operation between the UK and America at risk. Tony Blair, he said, wanted to duck the decision about where Britain's defence and security interests should gravitate towards - Washington or Brussels, continuing:

In 1998 at the French port of St. Malo Tony Blair reversed Britain's earlier Atlanticist defence strategy. He did so not, of course, because he was anti-American. He did it simply because he wanted to prove his European credentials in a way that he thought would have only a small political cost. In cooperation with France, Europe's only other nuclear power, he pledged the integration of Britain's defence effort with that of Europe. The implications of that decision have only gradually become apparent.

He went on to single out defence procurement, adding:

Defence procurement is a powerful instrument for integration, because individual decisions often receive little public attention. Which satellite system the military uses to navigate by may not sound like a matter of geopolitical importance. But we are in an age where such decisions may well end up influencing military alliances. For those who would seek to see a European army replace NATO, defence procurement offers the perfect means of undermining the Special Relationship by stealth.

There is, therefore, some indication that Fox is getting the message, although he has not conveyed his understanding of it over the JSF issue. However, he is to speak again on 21 March, billed as "one of his first major policy speeches since becoming Shadow Secretary of State for Defence".

We will await with interest to hear what he has to say.

COMMENT THREAD

A nation doomed

Reuters gives the first hand account of yesterday's French student demonstrations, under the headline, "Huge protests against French job law, some violence".

In what has become almost symbolic of France, we have again the sight of cars burning in the street – the infamous car-b-q – as hundreds of thousands of students, workers and left-wing politicians took to the streets. Organisers estimated the turnout nationwide at 1.3 to 1.4 million, with up to 400,000 of them in Paris.

And all because Chirac and de Villepin have attempted to bring in a tiny change to the labour laws, to allow employees to fire workers under 26 without explanation in their first two years on the job.

According to Reuters, the marches were mostly festive and peaceful, but dozens of youths pelted police with missiles, overturning and setting fire to a car at the end of the main protest in Paris. Police fired many rounds of tear gas to clear them from Nation square. Scattered violence was also reported in Marseille, Rennes and Lille, where police also charged and teargassed crowds.

But, as my colleague remarked the current situation is clearly unsustainable. But, if that number turns out for such a minor change, there is no hope of any more fundamental changes to the French labour laws.

This is a nation doomed.

COMMENT THREAD

An accidental ban?

If you search for "EU" on Google "news", you will be offered 54,400 entries (currently), ostensibly a cornucopia of information about our government. But what is striking about the list of stories – or, at least the first hundred or so – is the utter banality, the subjects invoking tedium even in those amongst us who are interested in following the machinations of the "Brussels empire".

This is reflected in the daily newspapers. Never packed with information on the EU, even in quiet periods one would normally expect one or two EU-related stories in a day. Now, days on end go by with no mention. For the average reader, it must be almost as if "Brussels" has ceased to exist.

One exception today is a story in The Times, to which we had been alerted earlier by readers and from other sources, not least from the organ-builders' website, but had decided to hold off until Booker had done it in his column, after gathering more information.

This is the quite bizarre predicament in which the organ-builders of Europe find themselves unintended victims of EU Directives 2002/95/EC (Restrictions on hazardous substances) and 2002/96/EC (Waste electronic and electrical equipment).

You have to struggle through The Times's story to get to the crux of the issue but the essence is that under these joint directives, the use of lead is prohibited in any kind of electrical appliance. Those organs which are fitted with electric blowers fall under the definition of "electrical appliances" and, as organ pipes are, necessarily, a tin-lead alloy (with 50 percent of lead or more), the building or refurbishment of the same becomes illegal.

Predictably, in the shallow way that typifies the contemporary media, The Times concentrates on the consequences of this law, focusing on church instruments, noting that the organs "at Salisbury Cathedral, St Paul's in London, Worcester Cathedral, St Albans Abbey and Birmingham Town Hall" are among the first that may be silenced. They are due to be refurbished or rebuilt and will fall foul of the directives.

The substantive issue, however, is ignored – and it is this that we are researching. Essentially, the point is that both directives, in their inception, never set out to ban organs, in which sense the effect was originally unintended.

Nevertheless, the process of drafting EU law is long drawn-out and the organ-makers were quick to notify the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the commission of the effects of their legislation, if it went through unaltered. Yet, despite this, the drafts were not changed and went through the whole process with the inevitable result.

Somewhere, therefore, the system failed. Quite where, why and how, we have yet to establish, but this is surely an important part of the story, which we intend to explore. After all, apart from the cultural consequences of this ban, in Britain there are about 70 companies employing about 800 people on organ-building and repairs, and all their jobs are at risk.

That we seem to be in a position where our governments, by accident, almost, can ban an important feature of "England's cultural and liturgical life", as even Europhile Tony Baldry MP put it, and completely wipe out a whole industry. This is something of considerable concern to all of us.

COMMENT THREAD

The students are revolting (again)

You’d think they would have other things to worry about, what with exams due in a couple of months. But no, the Paris students are out there again, demonstrating, even rioting.

This is not quite a repetition of 1968 but a bit unpleasant for Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin all the same.

As these demos are in the pretty Quartier Latin, where there are lots of attractive bars, cafes and restaurants and not in some ghastly banlieu, the journalists have been reporting them in full (more or less).

The gist of the matter is very simple. It is not about changing the world. If the Sorbonne students had wanted to do that they would have supported Villepin’s proposals. No, they would like the world to stay the same with lots of goodies for them in it and they do not realize that the world as it is, cannot afford those goodies.

French unemployment has hovered between 9 and 10 per cent for a decade now. Unemployment among young people is 23 per cent. All of that would be even higher if a large number of well educated, well qualified young French had not left the country to go and work mostly among the terrible Anglo-Saxes. Around half a million of them are in Britain and very welcome they are, too.

The situation is clearly unsustainable as even the soi-disant poet and philosopher Villepin has realized. Last year he proposed certain changes to employment rules that would make it easier to hire and fire young people for the first two years of their employment with a firm.

Up with this they will not put! As Jeff Randall put it in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph:

“Of all the subjects being taught in the country's 84 state universities, basic economics appears not to be among them. Before any more French students riot over proposed changes to employment laws, they would do well to put down Sartre for five minutes and pick up a copy of Positive Economics by Richard G Lipsey, for many years the standard A-level text book in Britain.”

The need for this sort of elementary text book is quite clear:

“Unlike some of Sartre's more testing ideas, Lipsey is simple to follow. You don't need a bottle of Calvados and a packet of Gitanes to get past the first chapter.

A quick flick through and you'll learn that the real cost of jobs comprises not just wages. Regulations that force businesses to retain staff whom they no longer need are a financial drain and lead to companies thinking twice before recruiting new workers.”

You don’t really need that bottle of Calvados for Sartre either but he and others, even more opaque, certainly seem to have befuddled those young French brains.

La jeunesse priviligée is out there demonstrating against what they see as the undermining of certainty of employment. The trouble is that a very large and growing proportion of young people is facing no certainty but that of prolonged unemployment.

COMMENT THREAD

Busy as a bee

The Chinese "shoe war" is grumbling on but, as we predicted, the MSM – lacking the sexy headlines that "bra-wars" gave them - are treating the issue somewhat superficially.

What is interesting, though, is how little support there is for Peter Mandelson - a meeting of the EU's anti-dumping committee meeting on Thursday last, only three member states voted in favour of the commission plan, nine to ten voted against it while eleven abstained.

But, if the MSM can't get particularly interested in shoes, what price Chinese chamois-leathers, which yesterday fell victim to the latest round of EU protectionism, the commission slapping a hefty 62 percent tariff on imports from China.

Once again, the justification is "dumping", with the commission claiming that the Chinese had nearly tripled their European market share to 32 percent by selling below prices in China or less than the cost of production.

Somehow, I guess, this one is not going to dominate the headlines though. “Chamy wars” has a distinctly unsexy feel to it, and no one is going to write reams about our disadvantaged window cleaners and car washers.

No content with that, the comission is also planning a new round of tariffs on US goods, covering farm goods, steel, nuclear-power equipment and other goods worth $2.4 billion, after the WTO this week upheld a ruling that found the US had not complied fully with an order immediately to end its system of tax credits for its own exporters.

But the pièce de resistance of a busy week must surely be the ban – with effect from yesterday, of Brazilian honey. This is not an insignificant trade as, last year, Brazil exported 14.4 thousand tons of honey to the European Union, earning it a cool US$18.9 million.

The commission claims that Brazil needs to perform further quality control analysis on the product and that the country's processes need to be similar to those performed in Europe. However, the Brazilian Director of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Issues of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply – there's glory for you – says Brazil already has its own control procedures, even if the EU does not recognise them.

Nevertheless, if it wants to continue exporting, Brazil now has to restructure its "National Programme of Residue Control" in order "to adapt to the EU export norms." It must demonstrate absence of elements that may affect its quality, for example antibiotics and heavy metals. The funny thing is, though, even the EU is admitting that it has never found any problems with Brazilian honey.

Perhaps reflecting a certain exasperation with the EU, the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture now intends to look for new markets besides Europe.

Why should we worry? Who needs Brazilian honey, or Chinese shoes, or even their chamois leathers? Such deprivation is of nothing compared to warm glow we experience as we marvel at the productivity of the commission. We might even say it's been as busy as a (Brazilian) bee.

COMMENT THREAD

Blog standard

The Times today takes a tilt at bloggers in its Thunderer column:

What blogs do effectively is provide a vehicle for instant comment and opinion. Some newspapers have established blogs for their journalists or other commentators. But the overwhelming majority of blogs — no one knows how many there are — are set up by amateurs using software that is easily available and almost free.

These are not a new form of journalism, but new packaging for a venerable part of a newspaper. Even the best blogs are parasitic on what their practitioners contemptuously call the "mainstream media". Without a story to comment on or an editorial to rubbish, they would have nothing to say.

Most blogs have nothing to say even then. Without editorial control, they are unconstrained by sense, proportion or grammar. Almost by definition, they are the preserve of those with time on their hands. Blogs have a few successes in harrying miscreant politicians or newspapers, but they are a vehicle for perpetuating myths as much as correcting them.

Right. That's why you can read things like this and this in The Times.

COMMENT THREAD

Mon Dieu, les Biftecks rule OK!

France’s rival to CNN and BBC World is scheduled to go on air in mid-December, aiming to broadcast initially to Africa, the Middle East and Europe. The idea, as we have mentioned a few times in the past, is to give a French interpretation of news, events and developments.

Problems have already arisen because of the lack of funding. Its annual budget, met by the French taxpayer, will be $88 million, about an eighth of CNN's.

Now one hears that there is another difficulty. The broadcasts will be aimed at “opinion formers, journalists and people who travel a lot”, as a spokesman for the new channel explained. And what is the language people like that use? Ahem, English.

Thus the new all-singing, all-dancing (well, almost) French international broadcasting channel will have a Francophile but Anglophone slant. In other words, it will broadcast mostly in English, some in Arabic and around three or four hours a day in French.

“Marc Favre d'Echallens of the Association for the Defense of the French Language expressed outrage that a station designed to give a "French vision" of world affairs would contain so little in French.

"After celebrating Trafalgar with the English and making light of our own great victory of Austerlitz, it probably follows that a publicly funded French television channel should end up broadcasting in English," he said.

"If all we get is a poor man's version of what is already available, what is the point of doing it at all?"”

C’est vrai. Sans doute, c’est vrai.

COMMENT THREAD

Lessons from the masters

Today, through the letter box, plonked a thick envelope, addressed jointly to Mrs EU Referendum and myself, her name prominently above mine. This, of course, was the dreaded Council Tax and, for the first time ever, it has broken the £1,000 barrier.

Part of the stuffing was thick wodges of corporate propaganda, with a pamphlet headlining how Bradford Council is "always improving our services for you".

And, from the £368.5 million to be spent on providing "services" on 2006-7, I note that £1.2 million is to be spent "improving waste management". Yet this is the week when, for the first time in living memory, I transferred large quantities of discarded newspapers from the recycling bin to the dustbin after the Council had, yet again, failed to collect the paper.

The Council Tax also includes the police precept and, for sheer Chutzpah, it would be hard to beat the message from Chief Constable "Plod" Cramphorn who proudly proclaims that, "Over the least three years the number of police officers and police staff have risen, thanks to the willingness of residents to pay more for policing."

As I recall, last time I refused to pay the police precept, as a protest at the utter uselessness of West Yorkshire’s finest, I had two plods through the kitchen window at 11.30pm on a Friday night, arresting me and locking me up in the cells until the Monday morning, until the long-suffering Mrs EU Referendum could come up with the readies (in cash) to spring me.

And the reason Mrs EU Referendum's name is on top of the bill now is that, as the first name, it is she that gets the arrest warrant for non-payment. It is thus she that is now locked up if I refuse to pay. Unlike any other bill, failure to pay means prison and the Council is quite prepared to lock up innocent women in order to get their money.

Elsewhere, my colleague writes that the EU is losing the propaganda battle. From the example of what dropped through my letter-box today, if they want to improve their performance, I can only suggest the "colleagues" come to Bradford to take some lessons from the masters.

Mr Goebbels would have been proud of them.

COMMENT THREAD

You will go on holiday…

Ever had one of those years when things have been so hectic that you just have not had time to take your holiday entitlement? Or needed the money more than the break? Well, tough! By order of our masters in Brussels, you will take the time off, or else.

This is the thrust of an ECJ judgement yesterday, brought to us courtesy of the Guardian. The court, we are told, court ruled that workers will no longer be able to be paid for unused holiday entitlement. The judges' view was that the so-called "rolled-up holiday pay" system breached the EU's working time directive, which requires employers to give employees a minimum four weeks' holiday a year.

The case was brought by a group of British shift workers demanding the right to payment during their holidays instead of notional extra hourly pay instead but, under the working time directive, the minimum period of paid annual leave cannot be replaced by an allowance, except where employment is terminated.

The judges said that payment for annual holidays included in hourly or daily pay rates - "rolled-up holiday pay" - was contrary to the working time directive. This was because the system could lead to situations where minimum holiday was replaced just by an allowance - and annual paid leave was a key entitlement under the rules.

Said the judgement, "The entitlement of every worker to paid annual leave is an important principle of community social law from which there can be no derogation … Holiday pay is intended to enable the worker actually to take the leave to which he is entitled."

So, there you are – yet another benefit of our membership of the beneficent EU. You shall have your holidays - even if you don't want them. There is, as yet, no directive that says you must enjoy them but, no doubt, they are working on that.

COMMENT THREAD

Good enough is good enough for the UN

In one of the least surprising developments the UN has voted for a new Human Rights Council to replace the somewhat discredited Human Rights Commission (the one that had members like Sudan, China, Zimbabwe and Cuba and was, at one point, chaired by Libya). This is, according to all sorts of pundits like former President Jimmy Carter and alas still functioning Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is a GOOD THING.

Not, you understand, because this Council will actually be of any use, but because it is clearly an improvement on the Commission. Well, not clearly, perhaps but probably. Oh surely, it will be an improvement.

It will, for example, have fewer members, 47 instead of 53. You can see immediately what an improvement that is going to be. Also, it is going to meet three times a year for a total of ten weeks. The Commission used to meet once a year for six weeks. It seems churlish not to accept how much better the new regime is going to be.

And the members? Ah yes, the members. Well, that is a bit of a problem, there not really being enough UN members with what one might call a decent record in human rights.

In future these members will not be elected by their own regions but by the Assembly as a whole, though the original plan of a two-thirds majority to vote a country onto the Council was dropped in favour of a simple majority, that is 96 votes. Off-hand I can’t think of a single country except Israel and the United States that would not be able to muster those votes. And, of course, the regional representation will have to remain.

As the Wall Street Journal Europe pointed out in an editorial yesterday (subscription only):

“Worse, seats are distributed by a formula that guarantees Africa, Asia and the Middle East – the world’s least democratic areas – 26 Council seats, an absolute majority.

By contrast, the U.S. and the 27 other members of the so-called West European and Others Group [i.e. those that recognize human rights as a genuine issue] would have the right to no more than seven seats.”

Uplifting, isn’t it. No wonder Foreign Secretary Straw came out with a statement that was fatuous even by his standards:

“The U.N. must remain at the forefront in setting standards in the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide and examining progress in the implementation of these standards.”

When he says “remain” he must be thinking of Darfur, DR Congo, the Balkans and such notable events as the election of Sudan and Cuba onto the previous Commission.

Four countries voted against this idiotic proposal: the United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. (No, I don’t know either. Sorry.) Three countries abstained, for reasons that are unclear: Iran, Belarus and Venezuela, all of whom had been seriously criticized for their human rights record though not always by the UN.

Other countries with a bad record, like China, Cuba and Zimbabwe, voted in favour, though China did say that when potential Council members’ records are examined

“decisions on human rights must be evaluated in the context of the history of individual countries”.

Quite so. You cannot expect China to stop torturing members of the Falun Gong or Cuba to stop imprisoning librarians for displaying copies of the UN Charter of Human Rights. It all depends on the historical context.

And what of Europe, the epitome, supposedly, of all that is free, democratic and full of human rights? Every single country, including Britain voted in favour, on the grounds that by doing so they were giving the Council the chance to improve.

We can all expect interesting developments on May 9 (Soviet Victory Day) when the first members are elected.

Can anyone seriously doubt that there is only one answer to the UN and all its shenanigans?

COMMENT THREAD

Are we winning? Are we losing?

It’s not the economy, stupid. That is what all eurosceptics, euro-realists and, indeed, people who just think we can reform the EU (or any other tranzi organization, for that matter) must learn.

We can come up with the best economic arguments and get absolutely nowhere in the face of entrenched ideological certainty. Until we can come up with arguments to deal with that we are not going to win. But it has become fairly obvious that the other side is losing.

I wrote a piece for TechCentral Station on the EU losing the propaganda war, which points out:

“The problem is not the way the EU is communicating but what it is communicating. The idea of European integration was never that popular in strictly democratic terms but could, at one point, inspire people. It was the bright future that would shake off and overcome the horrors of the past. Its proponents managed to convince themselves that it was European integration that preserved peace in Western Europe. Sometimes, in a mood of exultation, they even affirmed that it preserved the peace in the whole of Europe, maybe the world. None of it was true and the bloody collapse of Yugoslavia, with the EU's sordid part in it, proved that beyond any doubt.”

If you really want to, read the whole piece here.

COMMENT THREAD

Once more, the Danes show the way

Publishing cartoons is not against Danish law and that is that.

“Director of Public Prosecutions Henning Fode upheld the decision of a regional prosecutor who ruled the drawings published in Jyllands-Posten Sept. 30 did not violate Danish law. Fode's decision cannot be appealed.”

The Danish Foreign Ministry warned that Danes might be put at risk by that decision but so far as one can tell, most Danes (not directors of large international companies whose bonuses might go down, of course) are supporting their government and judicial system.

COMMENT THREAD

Another potpourris

Last week, as an experiment, we picked up some of our loose ends in a single posting with no common theme, to make a compendium piece. This seems to have been well received (thank you to all those who responded), so we're repeating the exercise today.

First off the blocks is a piece that is actually right up-to-date – a complaint from French MEP Adeline Hazan that EU arrest warrants are not being honoured.

Never mind the thieves – it seems there is little honour amongst European law-enforcers. The warrants are not being used because of disagreements among countries and red tape. Most of all, though, there is a growing distrust among EU member states with national courts unsure that suspects named in warrants will get adequate treatment in the arresting nations. And, surprise, surprise, language barriers are also a problem.

Also hot off the presses, so to speak – even if we're not into dead trees – readers no doubt are aware that local government officers are not happy bunnies, over attempts to reduce their gold-plated pension rights, and in particular there privilege of being able to retire early on full pension.

This is due to the so-called "85 rule" where, if your calendar age plus years of service add up to 85, you can pack up your rule books and live the life of luxury. So incensed after the officers at the though of having to work until they are 65 that they are now planning a major strike in 28 March, slated as the largest since the general strike of 1926.

But what gives this an EU dimension is that the government is claiming that it is forced to make the change in part to implement the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC which "establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation".

The unions deny that this is the case, claiming that it is solely a cost-cutting exercise and so, oddly enough, does the EU commission. This came up in January in Scotland, but the government still has not changed its tune.

Here we have a wonderful example of the government using the EU as an alibi when it wants to implement an unpopular policy. No wonder the commission is hacked off. But, perhaps they should claim credit. The rest of us are highly delighted at the idea of our oppressors suffering.

Something not strictly EU-related, but still to do with local government, is the tale of former independent councillor Rose Thompson, erstwhile Mayoress of Keighley, who has been stripped of her title for the heinous sin of joining the British National Party.

In a small way, though, this has echoes of the year 2000, when Jorg Haider's Austrian Freedom Party and the People's Party joined to form a coalition government, whence the heads of government of the other fourteen EU members decided to cease co-operation with the Austrian government, Such is the paranoia about "right-wing" parties that the rights of perfectly legal political parties are discarded with a will in a society that calls itself "democratic" and espouses free speech.

Taking of free speech, the Paktribune on Sunday recounted how the Pakistan federal minister for religious affairs, Ijaz-ul-Haq, had concluded a "highly successful" visit to Brussels and has held out assurances that Pakistan, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and European Union will jointly table a resolution in the United Nations "in a bid to stonewall recurrence of tragic incidents like publication of sacrilegious caricatures."

"Freedom of expression has some limitations and we will take action against Denmark's dailies in line with Copenhagen established rules and regulations," says Ijaz-ul-Haq, signalling that the issue of cartoons publication would be taken to the Denmark courts with the co-operation of Copenhagen Muslim community.

You will be pleased to know, however, that he regretted that torching of some western embassies in Islamic countries in this connection "had affected the image of Muslims". So now you know.

The Muslim "free speech" theme was also taken up by Reuters which retailed how Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said the European Union risked damaging its image worldwide if it did not do more to protect Islam against insults. "The laws are already there but they should cover all religions," Gul said, referring to existing European laws to protect religions from insult.

"People should not think that respect of religions, respect for others' identities, is not part of the European values," Gul said. "If they think like that, the image of Europe is damaged." He added that he would regret any negative impact on the EU's standing as it would affect Europe's "soft power".

Still on free speech, in the UK, entirely unreported, apart from the BNP website is the news that the Muslim Action Committee (MAC) is to meet here in the UK to decide whether to take the BNP to court for distributing half a million pre-election campaign leaflets depicting one of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. The MAC is asking for government assistance in taking the case to court.

Only yesterday, however, did we finally learn that the Metropolitan Plod Service, six weeks after the event, has finally arrested five of the estimated 450 demonstrators who, on 3 February paraded outside the Danish embassy with a variety of offensive placards. Goody! That only leaves 445 to go.

However, we can be assured now that the plods have our safety uppermost in their minds, pace a recent Sunday Times article that tells us that the Mets are to buy three high-speed helicopters to transport rapid reaction teams "to the heart of terrorist emergencies". Elite firearms officers from the Metropolitan police will be transported to incidents at speeds of up to 150mph before they abseil into crowded city areas - ready to shoot the occasional electrician. Next on the agenda, one supposes, will be helicopter gunships - or even missile-armed drones - just in case some concerned citizen reports a shop selling golliwogs.

For something completely different, which I meant to do at the time but never got round to it, early this month, Reuters and others reported that China was to accelerate defence spending in 2006, increasing it by 14.7 percent to $35.3 billion. This is something to which, no doubt, we will return, now that the EU is China’s “strategic partner”.

Finally, a subject to which I will return in more detail but will refer to it here, as this story has been hanging around in my "to use" file for three weeks now. The EU is suggesting that car registration tax should be phased out "in a bid to ensure a true EU single market for vehicles". This is from taxation commissioner Laszlo Kovacs, who wants it replaced by an "annual circulation tax."

But the real agenda is a Europe-wide road charging system based on the EU's Galileo GPS satellite. Since 2005, the Germans have a system up and running for lorries and it is apparently working well. It is only a matter of time before we will all have to have black boxes fitted to our cars, telling the authorities exactly where we are at all times. Big Brother is on his way.

COMMENT THREAD

An odd nation

There is a theory that Hungarians did not come from the depths of Asia during the great migrations of the ninth century but from Mars. That seems to me a little far-fetched even though they have a way with revolving doors.

They did, however, manage to start two revolutions with the recital of a poem. The same poem, recited on March 15, 1848 by the author, the great Hungarian poet Sándor Petőfi and on October 23, 1956 by the no less great actor Imre Sinkovits. The poet was killed in the subsequent revolution and war; the actor fought but survived and was imprisoned for a while.

What goes around comes around. Yesterday in the Statuary Hall of the Capitol, President Bush attended a celebration of Hungary’s national day (March 15) and spoke of the Hungarian contribution to democracy.

(I must admit that I have always considered democracy to be one of the few aspects of life to which Hungarian contribution has been limited unlike, say, the atom bomb, cinema, biros and the rubik cube but, clearly, my views are out of date.)

President Bush, who may have decided that he is secretly Hungarian, said among other things:

“The Hungarian example is an example of patience. And an example of the fact that freedom exists in everybody's soul. It is an example that tyranny can never stamp out the desire to be free.

I believe the example of Hungary proves that freedom is universal. I believe everybody desires to live in freedom. I believe there is an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty God's gift to each person in this world is liberty. And I believe the United States, and I believe Hungary, and I believe other free nations have the responsibility to help other people realise their freedom, as well.”

I wonder what Petőfi would have said. I think he would have been reasonably pleased. After all, liberty was the theme of many of his poems and the national anthem does start with the words: "God Bless the Magyar".

COMMENT THREAD

Get on your (Euro) bike!

The EU commission is to expand its fleet of "service bicycles" for its employees at its Brussels headquarters, bringing the number to 190. This is to enable them to travel between meetings at different EU offices or to get around town.

The scheme is all part of a wider plan to reduce pollution, which includes paying up to half its employees' public transport costs if they give up their free parking spots at their offices. The aim is to reduce the proportion of the commission's 22,000-member staff that drive to work to 35 percent by 2009 from the current 44 percent.

That, of course, is for the plebs but readers will be pleased to learn that the commissioners themselves are also being asked to make sacrifices. Their fleet of 25 luxury limousines will be replaced with "more environmentally friendly" luxury limousines so that they create less pollution.

I am sure their staff, struggling though the insane Brussels traffic on their Euro-bikes, will be mightily impressed as their masters sweep past them in the lap of luxury.

COMMENT THREAD

Last exit to Lisbon

The Financial Times is offering a short article proclaiming: "EU's growth strategy 'heading for failure'".

This chronicles the publication of a report by two leading economists, Jean Pisani-Ferry and André Sapir, the latter having produced the eponymous Sapir Report in 2003, which delivered a savage attack on the Lisbon process.

This time, teamed up with Jean Pisani-Ferry - Director of Brussels-based Bruegel think-tank – he has done it again. The short-form report, with the title "Last exit to Lisbon", runs to eight pages, but the message is unmistakable – and damning. This is what the pair say:

There were two problems with Lisbon 1: ineffective coordination and lack of political ownership. Lisbon 2 could have attempted to remedy the two dimensions of the problem, seeking to improve both the effectiveness of coiordination and the degree of political ownership as suggested in the Kok report. Instead, it chose to focus on the ownership problem. If implementation of the Lisbon strategy actually requires both problems to be addressed, then the new approach was always unlikely to succeed where Lisbon 1 failed. In the event, Lisbon 2 does not even seem to have succeeded in the goal of increasing political ownership by national authorities.

As good Europhiles, they nevertheless make a pitch for continuing the process, declaring:

These serious shortcomings might call into question the whole Lisbon process. However, we strongly believe that Lisbon remains crucial for the future of Europe. The Lisbon goals continue to reflect the major challenges that European economies are confronted with in this age of accelerated globalisation and technological change. What is more, these goals and the recognition of interdependence that they embody still command wide consensus.

But then comes the dagger to the heart:

Unfortunately, we do not consider that Lisbon 2 is on track to succeed. On the contrary, our assessment is that it will fail unless its current shortcomings are addressed as a matter of urgency.

Unwittingly, they then identify the reason why this is not going to happen: "The very nature of the Lisbon process," they say, "implies EU involvement in policy domains that primarily belong to the responsibility of member states."

There you have it. Under the current – or any – there is no way member states are going to surrender any more policy domains to the EU – as indeed we have saw yesterday with the proposal for an EU energy policy.

And all this, according to the FT, has been presented as a wake-up call to finance ministers by the Austrian EU presidency, Wolfgang Schüssel, ready for the Economic Council later this week. He need not have bothered.

COMMENT THREAD

Penguins for European integration

There is no end to European ambition. Even penguins are to be signed up as part of the great march forward towards integration and cultural domination.

Well, OK, not any old penguins but the stars of the French documentary “March of the Penguins”, highly successful in the United States, and winner of the Oscar for Best Documentary.

It seems that the film

“by Gallic filmmakers Luc Jacquet and Yves Darondeau … received 1.13 million euros in funding from the EU's MEDIA programme.”

(Question: what is a Gallic filmmaker? One of Asterix’s mates, Filmotronix?)

The money went towards marketing the film in other countries but, somehow, one does not feel that the assumption that any film that will receive EU funding will be successful, is in any way justified.

The irony of the situation is that “March of the Penguins” was not all that successful in France, possibly because of the less than intellectual, cutesy-pie, anthropomorphic dialogue imposed on it. When it first went to America with the dialogue it was disliked.

The American distributors substituted a voice-over and the film took off, though still not in Europe. Even in Britain it has had so-so reception. Perhaps, the Oscar will improve matters.

In the meantime, Commissar Vivianr Reding is making grandiose plans:

“European films succeed not only on their own national cinema markets, but also and increasingly in other European countries and other continents. At the same time ... European films still miss huge opportunities because of the fragmented audiovisual market in Europe and of the lack of a more proactive approach on new markets worldwide.”

Make up your mind, dear. Either they succeed or they need lots of EU dosh poured in. The truth is that they succeed if they are good, as “March of the Penguins” is, and do not most of the time, because they are not.

COMMENT THREAD

Biff, bam…!!

At last, the Joint Strike Fighter "row" has been promoted to the main pages of several newspapers. Moreover, Google offers over ninety stories on the latest developments of the saga we reported yesterday and in more detail on Sunday.

Without the background, however, the reportage is pretty one-dimensional, coming over as a "biff-bam" row between the UK and the United States, The Times leading the fray with the headline: "Britain in clash over US fighter secrets".

This leads a report written by Tom Baldwin in Washington who tells us that Britain – in the person of Lord Drayson - yesterday "threatened to scrap a planned £10 billion purchase of the new Joint Strike Fighter if the United States refuses it access to American military secrets."

Nevertheless, media reports give a confusing account, conveying the impression that this particular message was delivered to "members of Congress" – i.e., the Senate Armed Services Committee – but careful reading of several reports – especially that in the Telegraph indicates that Drayson also spoke to reporters "before the showdown with Senators", when he told them, "We should be absolutely clear about what our bottom line is on this matter ... we will not be able to purchase the aircraft."

In his statements to reporters, we are told Drayson was reluctant to discuss what he called "plan B" but, says The Times, "it is understood that the government is considering alternatives…" which "include prolonging the life of RAF Harriers or buying French Rafale aircraft."

However, The Times does report that Drayson told the Senators, "We are approaching important decisions that will impact on both UK and US military capability for a generation." He said that the US needed to understand that a mutual commitment to the JSF was dependant on Britain having "the operational sovereignty that we require".

The Financial Times adds to this, stating that Drayson did tell the Senate committee that, "Without the technology transfer to give us the confidence to deliver an aircraft fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy these aircraft … I am spelling this out because it is so important to make our intentions clear. I know the British can be accused of understatement."

All this notwithstanding, this is, of course, the latest development in the vexed question of giving Britain access to the source codes, an issue that has been almost completely ignored by the media to date.

Yet it was rehearsed on this blog on 29 June 2004, almost two years ago, and even reported by The Financial Times in January 2005.

That rather makes a mockery of The Times report that "Drayson's comments …represent a significant escalation in a diplomatic row that has rumbled on, largely in private, for several months." That's the MSM for you – on the ball as always.

Throughout all the reports – with even the BBC website offering its own account, under the predictable headline, "US and UK clash over fighter jet" – what you do not see is any discussion of why the Americans are so reluctant to release technology to the British.

They may be right in so doing, and we believe they are, as we have discussed many times, for instance here and here, or they may be wrong. There may even be a case to argue that the US has handled the affair clumsily, especially over the unilateral proposal to cancel the second engine – which was the main reason Drayson was in Washington.

But, to the newspaper reader, nothing is offered by way of a view or background information that would enable the broader issues to be understood, which have massive implications for Anglo-US relations. This is the MSM at its worst.

But this also represents a massive failure by the Conservative Party, led on this issue by shadow defence procurement minister, Gerald Howarth. He has clearly infected shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, with his view that the US – for reasons unspecified - are driving the British into the arms for the French, by their refusal to hand over their secrets, without in any way acknowledging that US fears of technology leakage may be well founded. Thus, The Times tells us that Drayson was "strongly backed by Liam Fox" who yesterday made his own submission to the committee.

In due course, as we have consistently predicted, we expect the UK to pull out of the JSF programme and buy the Rafale for its new carriers - a decision, we believe, has already been made. On present form, the Conservatives will then wring their hands and blame the Americans for their "clumsiness". Thus will the central issue of our drift towards European defence integration go unremarked, through want of political engagement.

But, since the process was actually kicked off by the Conservatives in the first place, we can hardly be surprised. They are hopelessly compromised on this issue and would not be keen to have their role dissected. And, as long as the MSM is happy with a diet of "biff-bam" stories, they will get away with it.

COMMENT THREAD

At last they can agree

Having savaged the Services and the Ports Directive, the EU parliament has finally found something on which it can agree with the commission. After the commission proposed it in February, the parliament too wants to ban mercury in new thermometers

This is according to Reuters, which reports that MEP Marios Matsakis has drafted a resolution which echoes a the similar call from the commission.

Matsakis said he hoped the ban would be implemented within two or three years. The commission has still to publish its draft law.

This sort of sums up both institutions though – both are useless on the big issues but they are never so happy when they are contemplating banning something. Then, the fertility of their imagination seems to know no bounds as they work on expanding the list of items that can no longer be sold in the EU.

But what really makes the story is Reuter's picture (above). Although the issue is mercury thermometers, it actually shows an alcohol-in-glass thermometer (incidentally, registering a sweltering 41 degrees). Let's hope the commission and the parliament can tell the difference.

COMMENT THREAD

Business as usual

Never again, we keep saying. Never again Srebrenice, never again Rwanda, we repeat as another film is about to open about the latter massacre (“Shooting Dogs”). We have stopped saying never again about DR Congo. Well, what about Darfur? In fact, what about Sudan, in general, as the eastern region is about to go the way of the south (temporarily pacified as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s visit proved) and the west (Darfur)?

Well it seems the never again is happening and will go on happening. In ten years’ time there will be films about Darfur. What part will the UN, the EU's Human Rights Commissar or the Archbishop of Canterbury play?

In the meantime the African Union has decided to extend its stay in what the ISN Security Watch describes quaintly as “Sudan’s troubled Darfur region”. Troubled is one way of putting it.

The Sudan government, that has been arming and training the murderous janweed militias (though, as we know, the Archbishop managed not to notice anything untoward) has laid down a condition for the AU’s handing over to UN forces, and that is the surrender of the rebels beforehand. While this may not sound unreasonable, the government’s definition of rebels tends to be somewhat broad and seems to include tens of thousands of women and children.

ISN estimates that around 180,000 people have died from violence, disease and starvation. Other estimates put the casualty rate as high as 300,000. Around 2 million people have been displaced. Most of them are in terrible refugee camps that provide minimal safety if that.

The UN refugee agency is now cutting its budget on the grounds that the security situation has made it impossible for them to carry their work out adequately. That’s one way of putting it. (That phrase seems to crop up all the time.) In fact, they have not been able to provide security at all.

In the meantime, one would like to know what happened to the many millions of euros, the EU’s ECHO has handed over to Sudan. Has anybody outside the government and their friends and relations benefited from the money?

Never again, indeed.

COMMENT THREAD

Sinking fast

A mere six days after the publication by the commission of its energy "green paper", the commission’s ambitions for taking a leading role in controlling energy policy have run into trouble. This is despite the lurid headlines in the MSM, forecasting an EU power-grab on energy policy and an entirely predictable outcome, as predicted by this blog.

Confirmation comes via Bloomberg which reports that the energy ministers of the EU member states have rejected the idea of a single regulator for electricity and natural-gas markets – one of the commission's core proposals.

Apparently, the rejection was unanimous – by all 25 member states, with our own Malcolm Wicks telling reporters that "It's very important that the independent nations - UK, France, Germany - maintain their own energy policies."

This was after the meeting with his EU counterparts today in Brussels, and his stance was endorsed by French industry minister Francois Loos, who declared "it's premature" to create a European regulator.

Barroso, it appears, was counting on support from Blair, who has expressed interest in more European energy-policy co-operation. But any idea that even our Tone was going to roll over was dispelled today by Wicks, who spelled out the death of Barroso's ambitions, saying: "This is not about the European Union suddenly running the whole of the energy sector, certainly not… The regulations probably have to come from the nation states."

Nevertheless, Wicks did offer a small consolation prize to Barroso, adding that he was prepared to see the development of a European strategy in relation to "big partners such as Russia". “We face some common issues. The crucial one is energy security," he added.

That apart, it is now very clear that member states will not countenance any major shift in power to the commission, effectively signalling that the plans for a common energy policy are sinking fast.

COMMENT THREAD

Blood on the floor

DefenseNews sheds a little light on Lord Drayson's visit to Washington today, where he is due to address the Senate Armed Services Committee on the matter of the proposed cancellation of the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Something which the MSM did not bother to tell us was that Drayson is also meeting with Pentagon acquisition chief Kenneth Krieg, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, with whom he will discuss the question of technology transfer. Upon the outcome may depend the decision as to whether the UK presses ahead with the JSF project.

However, we also learn from DefenseNews that this is not the only item on the agenda. Also being discussed is the fate of the MoD’s plans for a new air tanker fleet. At the moment, this is to be provided by the AirTanker consortium under a Private Finance Initiative, at a cost of £13 billion. The plan is to lease the aircraft to the RAF, with an option to charter the aircraft as civilian freighters when not required for military use.

Although the aircraft will be based on the Airbus A330, the addition of US-made refuelling gear and defensive systems classifies them as military aircraft, even when the equipment is not fitted. This brings them within the ambit of US export regulations, allowing the US government to impose restrictions on who is allowed to operate and maintain the aircraft.

Currently the US government is reserving the right to bar any workers from "access to US defence articles", the sole exceptions being British nationals who hold no dual citizenship. Hilariously, this brings the UK slap up against its EU treaty obligations for, while US restrictions prohibit anyone other than a British pilot flying the aircraft, EU rules prohibit employment discrimination amongst member state nationals on the grounds of nationality.

If Washington does not budge, says DefenseNews, Britain might have to strip U.S.-made equipment from the planes, which would likely raise costs and lower performance. This may also complicate Air Tanker's plans to raise billions of pounds to fund the programme, which it won after beating out a Boeing-led group two years ago.

Airbus parent EADS are looking for options in case Washington refuses to relent and recently offered MoD an option to build a version of the A330 without US equipment. MoD officials rejected this offer, saying that the new version would offer less military capability and would also be less interoperable with American planes if the US Air Force decides to buy A330 tankers as well.

Whether Drayson manages to come home with the bacon remains to be seen and we will be watching for developments. That also applies to the JSF deal, with Keith Hayward, head of research at the Royal Aeronautical Society, expressing some pessimism. "We have been banging on the door so long over this issue; I would be surprised if it now fell open to the extent we want it to," he says. "It's only 50/50 we will get the items on our shopping list that we need."

Elsewhere, though, there are other straws in the wind, which may hint at developments to come. Not least of these is more information on the French decision to co-operate with the UK on building its new aircraft carrier.

As we reported earlier, Paris has agreed to pay Britain more than £100 million to gain access to design work on Britain’s CVF. But the plot thickens with the French business paper Les Echos, quoting unnamed officials, saying that under the co-operative deal, France would be getting a "larger, heavier and therefore costlier" ship.

France is being presented with a 70,000-metric-ton ship costing €3 billion under the British plan, while a 60,000-metric-ton design, codenamed Juliette, from the French shipbuilder DCN would cost €2.3 billion, while France has budgeted only €1.9 billion. On its own, this simply does not stack up. France is not only paying over the odds for the British design information, it is ending up with a significantly more expensive ship as a result - further indications that a side-deal on Rafale purchase has been agreed.

On top of this is a decision announced yesterday by Saudi Arabia to acquire French-built Rafael fighters, the speculation being that 48 have been ordered, with an option for 48 more, in a deal valued at €6 billion.

This is the first time in living memory that the Saudis have agreed to buy French aircraft and, coming on top of the recent Eurofighter order, raises questions as to why they should want to operate a mixed fleet, where the Eurofighter is capable of performing all the missions for which the Rafale might be tasked.

Leaving that question hanging, Turkey is also moving into the Eurofighter sphere, having issued a request for information (RfI), the formal launching of what could potentially be a multibillion-dollar contract for the aircraft. The RfI also was sent to Lockheed Martin, maker of the future F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and to Boeing. By the end of 2006, Turkey will decide whether to join the production phase of the JSF programme or go for the Eurofighter.

Turkey has invested $175 million for the development phase of the JSF, but procurement officials are cited as being "unnerved by increasing uncertainties over the eventual cost of the programme." Ankara is also complaining of too little work share for Turkey's local industry under the programme. And, across the border, Greece also is in the throes of selecting a new aircraft after a five-year defence review and delays due to financial problems. Eurofighter is one option here.

Gradually, therefore, we are seeing the war between rival aircraft-makers hotting up, along strictly transatlantic lines, with the Eurofighter and Rafale being pitched against the F-35 as battle lines are drawn.

Britain, as always, is piggy-in-the-middle. But the situation that we have long forecast is coming to a head, with the British government having to decide on which side of the pond its interests lie. So far, Drayson is making pro-US noises in public but, behind the scenes, other forces are at work. All too soon, there is going to be blood on the floor.

COMMENT THREAD

Sweetness and light (not)

The finance ministers of the EU member states were in session yesterday, and continue today, with something more interesting to argue about than VAT on hairdressers.

The casus belli in this case is the Services Directive. Ignoring Wolfgang Schüssel's weekend plea to be done with the "nightmare", Poland – as ever – is digging in its heels and opposing the redraft.

Poland's economy minister, Piotr Wozniak, is claiming the support of fifteen other member states in wanting to strengthen the Directive, scrapping many of the amendments introduced by the EU parliament.

Neither was there any sweetness and light over the “take-over wars” with France and Italy still at loggerheads over the Gaz de France – Suez merger. After a confrontation between respective ministers, including the excitable Giulio Tremonti, Italian officials said the meeting had resolved nothing and that the talks had been "frank". That is seriously bad.

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, also in trouble on this front, tried to play for time, arguing the EU should reach a "broad agreement" on a common energy policy before trying to sort out cross-border takeovers. No response to that "some time never" ploy has been recorded and hostilities – sorry, cordial discussions – continue today.

COMMENT THREAD

Understating the problem

"It is, I suspect, no accident that it is in Europe that climate change absolutism has found the most fertile soil," writes Nigel Lawson in this week’s Spectator:

For it is Europe that has become the most secular society in the world, where the traditional religions have the weakest popular hold. Yet people still feel the need for the comfort and higher values that religion can provide; and it is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and what has been termed global salvationism — of which the climate change issue is the most striking example, but by no means the only one — which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.

So ends a long piece, based in part on the report by a House of Lords committee on climate change, which the noble Lord himself chaired.

Lawson opens his piece with a quotation from Schopenhauer, the 19th Century German philosopher, who declares: "There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted."

So it is with global warming, and Lawson goes on to demolish the arguments put up by the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), knocks the thinking behind Kyoto into a top hat and then, in passing, takes a swipe at the Boy King, who, Lawson writes, "is in danger, over this issue, of making commitments which, in government, he would find it extremely damaging to honour."

But the most valuable contribution of the piece is to re-emphasise the hardly new, but much ignored thesis that the best way to deal with the threat of climate change is "to identify the most harmful consequences that may flow from global warming and, if they start to occur, to take action to counter them." There are, Lawson states, three reasons that this approach is the most cost-effective:

The first is that most of the likely harmful consequences of climate change are not new problems but simply the exacerbation of existing ones, so that addressing these will bring benefits even if there is no further global warming at all. The second reason is that, unlike tackling emissions, this approach will bring benefits whatever the cause of the warming, whether natural or man-made. And the third reason that this would be the most cost-effective way to proceed is that there are benefits as well as costs from global warming. Globally, the costs may well exceed the benefits — although here in northern Europe it is quite possible that, over the next 100 years, the benefits will exceed the costs — but it is clear that a policy of addressing directly the adverse effects enables us all to pocket the benefits while diminishing the costs.

The principal adverse consequences of global warming he identifies are coastal flooding as sea levels rise, damage to agriculture and food production and water shortage:

Addressing these specific consequences is not only far and away the most cost-effective approach to global warming: it also buys time. Time to learn to understand better the highly uncertain science of climate change; and time to allow technology to develop more economic sources of low-carbon energy than we have now. And on precautionary grounds it may be sensible for governments to use this time to encourage both low-carbon technological development and its diffusion.

But then, concludes the noble Lord, "it has to be said that this is not an easy message to get across, not least because climate change is so often discussed in terms of belief rather than reason." It is then that he points out the quasi-religious nature of green alarmism, and suggests that this “can be no basis for rational policy-making.”

The only criticism one can have of this argument is that it does not go far enough. The EU itself, as we have pointed out, is a quasi-religious entity and, therefore, it is not given to rational policy making, driven by its own set of mantras which have little to do with the real world.

Central to that is an inherent socialism, maintained even after the term "Socialism" has gone out of fashion, to the extent that it has become a dogma that dare not speak its name. But a more than adequate substitute is Lawson's "green alarmism".

That provides the rationale and the excuse for implementing the interventionalist doctrines of socialism, without have to admit that that is what they are, and enables even so-called conservatives like the Boy King to embrace the faith.

Thus, while we agree that "green alarmism" can be no basis for rational policy-making, we are in the land of the irrational, where dogma is the driving force of policy. Thus, although Lawson speaks great sense, he understates the problem. In order to deal with the real issues, you first have to get past the high priests. As long as the dogma is so assiduously guarded by the EU, the message is not so much difficult to get across as impossible.

By contrast, dealing with climate change is relatively easy.

COMMENT THREAD

Trimming round the edges

A recurring theme on this blog is that our membership of the European Union is not the cause of the increasing regulatory malaise in our society, but a symptom of it. Our own government, as events have more than adequately demonstrated, is quite capable of generating its own mass of laws and restrictions without any assistance from the EU. To that extent, even if we left the EU tomorrow, it is doubtful whether we would notice any difference.

The problem, as we see it, is the "regulatory mindset", a belief that infects not only our legislators but society at large that the answer to all our problems is yet another law, government action or government control. That malaise is summed up in the oft-heard phrase: "they (meaning the government, the council, or whatever) should do something about it".

On that basis, simply addressing the quantity of legislation and seeking to reduce the number of regulations which apply to us, is not the answer. We have to deal with the mindset which gives forth the regulations in the first place.

Nevertheless, that has not stopped the Telegraph today falling into the trap of calling for less regulation, its leader today declaring: "Labour should axe laws, not pass more of them".

To do it justice, it does point out that the law-making process itself has become a travesty with, as it writes, decisions being taken "by a handful of appointed advisers in Tony Blair's Downing Street 'den', then passed to Cabinet ministers for information only, before being promulgated publicly not through Parliament but through the media." It goes on to say that:

The House of Commons increasingly resembles the worst sort of county council, where bemused councillors sit in thrall to the unelected officers who have assumed their powers. The House of Lords has become an expensive public house, open to anyone who can afford it. … Cabinet, the Commons, the Lords - the three Parliamentary checks on the Prime Minister's executive power - have been eviscerated since 1997.

Therein lies the Eurosceptic dilemma. We rail at the legislative process in Brussels, the lack of control, the lack of transparency and the inherent anti-democratic nature of it all yet, on our very doorstep, we have a regulatory machine which is just as mad, lacking control and transparency, to the extent that it too is anti-democratic.

But, having identified this as a serious issue, the Telegraph leader tells us that it looks forward to some future British government cutting back on regulations but, in the meantime, it says, all laws should have an automatic "sunset clause", whereby they lapse after a number of years unless they are specifically renewed. New Labour should stop passing laws, and start repealing some.

In parallel with the leader, Philip Johnston writes the "Home Front" op-ed, headed "A Doomsday Machine for Parliament", in which he takes a tilt at the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill completed its committee stages in the Commons last Thursday.

"You have to admire the brass neck of this government," writes Johnston, describing the Bill. "After introducing more laws and regulations than you could shake a stick at, it is now trying to undo all the damage it has caused by foisting the legal equivalent of the Doomsday Machine upon Parliament and the country." It is, he decalres, "one of the most pernicious measures to have come before a British parliament."

He then tells us:

The Bill would empower any minister by order to make provisions amending, repealing or replacing any legislation, primary or secondary, for any purpose, and to reform the common law to implement Law Commission recommendations.

This does not mean by a stroke of the pen; there would still need to be a debate or a vote in the Commons or the Lords, although only if MPs or peers object within a specified time frame.

But if a government has a big enough majority, such procedural niceties are largely irrelevant. Furthermore, there would be no requirement for full scrutiny on the floor of either House, but only for a somewhat perfunctory debate in a committee.

The then adds:

Indeed, the continued promulgation of Bills such as these will irrevocably change the sort of country we are because we have been defined over the centuries by the possession of parliaments that would never have countenanced such a grotesque proposal.

On this basis, he argues for the "sunset clause" under which the Bill would lapse after five years and need to be renewed. This would, he said, give Parliament a rare opportunity to consider whether the measure had fulfilled its purpose or not, the sort of post-legislative scrutiny that is almost non-existent at Westminster.

Only then, towards the end of his piece, does Johnston get to the nub of the issue, arguing that, instead of bringing forward the Bill, ministers could simply abandon their fetish for making laws on everything under the sun. The government should commit itself unequivocally to less legislation, he adds.

Here, of course, we have to interject our common complain about the "elephant in the room", in that Johnston fails to point out that the bulk of the regulation affecting businesses comes not from London but from our superior government in Brussels.

Further, while he rails at the lack of scrutiny by Parliament of laws generated by Whitehall, is he not aware that Regulations (as opposed to Directives) promulgated by Brussels have direct effect – that is they come into law the moment they are "done" in Brussels, without even being considered by Westminster?

The fact is, though, that successive British governments actually like Brussels making laws for them. It saves them the trouble and time in framing their own laws, and the inconvenience of taking them through Parliament. It also gives them an alibi and a convenient lightning conductor, allowing them to wash their hands of unpopular legislation by letting Brussels take the blame.

On the other hand, a government that was inherently opposed to over-regulation could not countenance membership of the EU and would doubtless seek our withdrawal, simply because it would be unable to tolerate the blizzard of regulation coming from that source.

Thus, "sunset clauses" are not the answer. Returning to the central issue, over-regulation stems primarily from that all-important "regulatory mindset", which affects not only legislators but society as well. That is where the battle should lie, and needs to lie. Until we address that crucial issue, everything else is trimming round the edges.

COMMENT THREAD

Are they even on the same planet?

In preparation for the European Council meeting next week, Wolfgang Schüssel, Austrian chancellor and currently Council president, this weekend chaired a meeting of "mainly centre-right" European leaders, held at the exclusive winter sports resort of Lech.

The main strand to come from this meeting was a plea that the Council should accept the revised and very much watered-down version of the Services Directive, or risk losing the legislation altogether. Back the compromise text and put the "nightmare" of the services directive behind them, Schüssel told the leaders.

Seeing as next week's meeting is the annual "economic council", the Austrian chancellor wants it to focus on economic reform and is determined the event should not conclude with the usual bland communiqué setting out soon-to-be-forgotten promises.

He thus wants each country to highlight "one or two" key reform plans for the coming twelve months, which would be subject to monitoring and comment by other EU members the following year. "We really want to bring substance to these commitments," he said. "We can ... learn from each other."

Cue Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister. His suggested "key reform" is to create one-stop-shops to cut the red tape associated with starting a new business. Right.

COMMENT THREAD

Do they need to be controlled?

As the Tessa Jowell/David Mills saga unfolds (like an Advent Calendar - something new every day) and the death of John Profumo is reported as that of the Minister in the sex scandal, one cannot help musing on the differences.

Profumo behaved foolishly and irresponsibly. Mind you, the fact that he lied to Parliament hardly put him into a special category of politicians but there were all sorts of aspects to the case that made it impossible for him to carry on as Secretary of State for War or, surprisingly to us, as an MP. His subsequent career is well known.

He volunteered at Toynbee Hall, first as a dish-washer, then as administrator and worked tirelessly as fund raiser and campaigner. As his late wife, Valerie Hobson, was, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful and intelligent British actresses of the 1940s and early 1950s, I’d like to think that her influence played a large part.

Several things struck me as I re-read various details of the story (more to come, I expect). Setting aside the differences in behaviour, there is something odd that we should still consider that tale of

“… sex, spying, suicide, gunplay and money, as well as walk-on parts for assorted members of the aristocracy, West Indian petty criminals and society fixers…”

as being the most exciting of the last fifty or so years. The Evening Standard, whose summary of the case I quote, then goes on:

“[I]n Profumo it had a central character whose downfall was as precipitous as it was sudden. An Italian baron, war hero and the husband of a famous actress, he had been a rising star.”

We have had plenty of scandals since then but none, I suppose, with quite that heady mixture, made that much more exciting by revealing glimpses of a world that most people knew little about. Notting Hill, in those days, meant something very different from what it does now.

Then there are the various comments (more to come, I expect). While I appreciate Lord Deedes pointing out that Profumo’s tale is one of redemption and goodness as well as folly and betrayal (in the widest sense of the word, as no secrets seem to have been lost), I do wonder what possessed Lord Goodman to describe the osteopath Stephen Ward as the

“historic victim of a historic injustice”?

The story of Ward and his suicide is appalling but he did pimp for both Keeler and Rice-Davies. The question was, presumably, whether he received money for it. Not much of a “historic injustice”.

It is, however, a small detail in Lord Deedes’s account that struck me as being very typical of the age. It seems that as the Labour allegations mounted, Profumo was summoned at 2am to the Chief Whip’s office. He was drowsy not, as anyone would be, because of the hour but because he had taken a sleeping pill. That was, of course, the era of pills when every woman had aspirins in her handbag and sleeping pills were the norm even for completely healthy people.

Let us fast forward to the present with yet another political scandal unfolding before our eyes. It has been astonishing to watch one Minister after another being caught out in all sorts of shenanigans, all considerably more sordid than the Profumo case, lying to Parliament, then admitting, then lying some more, then admitting some more and finally resigning.

Their fingers have had to be prised off the ministerial portfolio one by one. And while it took Jack Profumo at least ten years of hard work to make his way back to respectability (though not a political position), a number of people at the centre of recent scandals took weeks. Mind you, they then found themselves embroiled in another row.

On Friday when Profumo’s death was announced to give us all the chance to wallow in nostalgia, a news item and an editorial in the Daily Telegraph dealt with the attack on the Prime Minister by Sir Alistair Graham, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (set up, I believe, by the Labour Government in its squeaky clean, whiter than white days – there’s nostalgia for you).

“In 2003, Sir Alistair told Mr Blair that accusations of ministerial wrongdoing should be investigated independently, not by the Cabinet Secretary or the Prime Minister himself, but by someone from outside the Whitehall village. Mr Blair has failed to implement this recommendation.”

In fact, the Prime Minister is still refusing to implement the recommendation, which makes one wonder what it is he fears. What more can come out about his hapless ministers?

Sir Alistair does not recommend that the outside committee should have the right to suspend or dismiss ministers, merely to investigate them, after which the Prime Minister can act as he sees fit but on the basis of reliable information. The situation now is that the investigation, assessment and judgement are all made by the same people.

The problem around the suggestion is one that has come up recently with the Standards Board for England that has taken upon itself to sit in judgement on various elected public officers, including Hizonner the Mayor of LondON and, as reported in the Booker column, numerous councillors.

Hizonner certainly has been riding the democratic horse. How dare these unelected officials suspend the chosen one of the people of London? (Strangely enough, his democratic feelings go into abeyance when the people of Chelsea, Kensington and Fulham express an uncompromising view against the extension of the congestions charge.)

Apparently, he is paying for his representation in the High Court. Other local councillors may not have quite such extensive personal funds.

The first question is whether it is reasonable to have specific standards for elected public officials that should be investigated at the very least by unelected boards between the various times when the electorate can, in theory, cast its opinion. In practice, as we know, a politician’s private sins rarely catch up with him or her at election time.

Moving on from there is the question of whether these boards or commissions are to have the power to punish any of the elected officials or merely pronounce on the behaviour and leave the punishment to the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Council. That, of course, would leave the question of Hizonner the Mayor, who has no immediate superiors and no control on his action at all, the London Assembly being little more than a charade.

It seems to me that there is nothing particularly wrong in an independent committee investigating the behaviour of an elected official, particularly as none of them seem to have the decency to resign even when they are found out. The fact that the Code of Conduct can be used by political opponents for their own purposes would not be a problem if the elected commission (like a court of law) were filled with people who could use their intelligence and common sense.

The alternative to that is to affirm a belief in an elected tyranny. Once a certain number of votes had been cast for a person, no other rules need apply until the next time those votes are cast. Being elected gives you the right to behave as badly as you see fit.

But, as the Booker column has been reporting steadily, there is a much more worrying trend and that is the Code of Conduct being used to prevent local councillors from doing the job they were elected to do, that is to represent the people who cast their votes for them.

Nobody elected Hizonner to make obnoxious and insulting comments when under the influence of whatever libation (cheap plonk) had been available at the party. Nobody elected Tessa Jowell to sign mortgage documents that involve questionable sources of money.

Councillors, on the other hand, have been elected specifically to speak for the people in matters of planning, building and so on, and to prevent them from doing so is the very negation of accountable democracy.

It is, in fact, a further development of a trend we have seen with the European Union and, consequently, aspects of British legislation. Most clearly it is seen in the London Assembly, which, as we have pointed out before, has no duty or purpose whatsoever. Clearly, local councils are being forced down the same path.

It is, to put it simply, governance by management and not by politics. Elected political bodies are seen as being similar to management boards. Being part of one means that your loyalty must be to it, not to the people who elect you. They become little more than staff, customers or some other, special, group of outsiders, whose particular view must not be taken into account during deliberations.

This has nothing to do with conduct becoming or unbecoming in elected representatives but much more to do with the notion that the people, whether as individual voters, villages or towns, or the electorate of the country cannot and should not be involved in the legislative or regulatory process.

COMMENT THREAD

And the spin goes on…

In what has become almost a traditional Sunday posting, we find ourselves again updating on the vexed Joint Strike Fighter project, which has made the pages of both the Observer and The Sunday Telegraph business sections today. Interestingly, both reports are very similar, undoubtedly reflecting MoD spin.

The Telegraph sets the tone with the headline, "Britain to fight for US jet technology" with Sylvia Pfeifer claiming that:

Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, will this week warn officials in Washington that Britain requires access to vital technology on the Joint Strike Fighter programme if it is to be able to fulfil its role as a leading partner in joint operations with the US.

Drayson, Pfeifer writes, is due to testify at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, when he is "expected to use the opportunity to press home how committed the UK is to maintaining its special relationship with America and how important the JSF is to Britain's armed forces."

The Observer's line is a variation on the theme, with a stronger headline, declaring: "MoD sets out ultimatum to US over joint strike fighter". Drayson, we are told, will tell the Committee that the UK must receive critical technical data about the F-35 joint strike fighter if it is to proceed with the project.

The Observer has it that the MoD is locked in a struggle with the Pentagon to secure an agreement on technology transfer that would allow UK contractors to carry out upgrades and servicing on the planes. This would mean the US revealing details of software used in the aircraft's design that it has hitherto refused to divulge. The MoD has submitted a list of requirements to the US Department of Defence and requires an answer before 6 December, when it aims to sign a memorandum of understanding to move from the development phase to the manufacturing phase of the project.

But the Observer tells us that Drayson has said the MoD is also developing a "Plan B" option that would involve prolonging the life of RAF Harriers, eventually replacing them with either Eurofighter Typhoons or French Rafale aircraft. Thus it is that the Rafale is now ledge as a serious option.

Anyhow, so much for the spin. The Washington-based UPI reporter tells it differently. His source is the beltway magazine Congress Daily which effectively confirms the story tun in The Business last week – that the Committee is holding an inquiry into the proposal to scrap the second engine. Technology transfer is not on the agenda.

Furthermore, representatives from eight countries will testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the hearing of which will be held on Tuesday. The main complaint is about the amount and quality of work the partner nation companies have received.

But, if Drayson does intend to make an issue of technology transfer, he could be in for a rough time. One thing that has lodged with Congress is Britain’s part in the EU's Galileo GPS project, and the fact that China has been invited on-board as a full development partner.

Almost as if it is intentionally seeking to undermine Drayson and the UK, the EU has now added a further twist to this tale, signing last Friday a co-operation agreement with Russia on space activites, Included in this is an agreement on Global Navigation, implementing joint development of user applications jointly with between the EU's Galileo and the Russian GLONASS systems.

Further co-operation includes joint work on "earth observation" (spy satellites) and satellite communications. Since the French are already closely co-operating with the Russians on several military aviation projects, through EADS, with which BAE Systems has close ties – this cannot help reassure Congress than any technology passed to the British will go no further. Drayson may yet get his excuse to abandon the JSF.

COMMENT THREAD

Meanwhile behind the scenes

While the Polish President has been making vaguely eurosceptic noises, his ministers have been busy building an unlikely alliance, as the International Herald Tribune reported on Friday.

“In the third meeting of the countries in little more than two years, Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain and the new prime minister of Poland, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, said that their common interests as large frontier states on the eastern and western edges of the European Union presented numerous opportunities for cooperation.”

Their common interests are not that great actually, though the Poles have worked out very quickly the advantage of working with a. n. other member state in order to get a bigger slice of the pie. Even the Spaniards seem a little surprised at the speed with which this has happened.

“The aide to Zapatero also echoed critics of the new Polish government who say its approach to EU politics is dominated by a desire to maximize the benefits for Poland rather than for the union as a whole.”

It would never occur to, say, the Spanish government to maximize the benefits for Spain rather than for the union as a whole.

One of the problems is what we can define as the Polish Plumber Question. This is being solved. Spain has agreed to lift the restrictions on workers from the new member states. This may not be entirely popular, as unemployment in Spain remains stubbornly high while the various social legislation makes it impossible to reduce it.

Then there is the question of Germany. Rightly, the Poles are looking for allies that will remove them from the German sphere of influence. At the same time, Angela Merkel’s election has removed Prime Minister Zapatero’s strongest ally from the picture. The possibilities of an anti-German alliance (possibly though not necessarily with French support) are clearly there.

The two countries see themselves as the borderlands, once again fighting Europe’s battles against the outsiders. Well, that is the romantic version. This is the true one:

“The two countries also vowed to work together on developing a coordinated EU policy for controlling flows of illegal migrants into Spain from North Africa and into Poland from Ukraine and Belarus.”

In fact, the problems the two countries face are so different that a “co-ordinated policy”, which, most of us thought, already existed, is unlikely to do any good at all.

Spain’s border is a long coastline; Poland’s is exclusively on land. Spain is dealing with immigrants from a different continent, who may well exacerbate existing social and political difficulties; on the Polish border there are Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians on all sides (that this would be a difficulty was clear during the negotiations but was carefully swept under the carpet).
Poland is also eager to learn from Spain about a very important matter:

“One area of particular interest is Spain's handling of subsidies from the European Union, which Spain is widely credited with investing effectively to help modernize its economy. Starting in 2007, Poland is scheduled to receive billions of euros in aid. "We are willing to put all of our experience at the disposal of Poland," Zapatero said.”

I expect they are at that. What they are not willing to do is give up any of their own bounty and the Spanish government, rightly, sees Poland less of an ally and more of a competitor for the ever dwindling funds that are handed out.

Incidentally, while it is undoubtedly true that Spain has been modernized since the demise of Franco (whether as a result of EU membership or not), the success of its economy is doubtful. It may have been modernized but it is still, twenty years on, reliant on a large hand-out in the shape of various structural and other funds, while unemployment remains, as I said above, stubbornly high. May not be the way for Poland to go.

The real problem is the position of the Polish and other East European governments. They (or their predecessors, though the differences are not that great) campaigned for EU membership on three basic issues.

One was a negative one: in most places the opponents were either unreconstructed Communists or rather unpleasant nationalists and the majority of the population wanted to support neither.

The second one was emotionally powerful but practically vague: this appeared to be the way back to Europe. Of course, by the time of the referendums most East European countries had made their way back to Europe but the fear of dropping out again was there.

Finally, and most practically, there was the promise of financial help in spades. That is proving to be the most difficult part. As some of us pointed out at the time (from 1998 onwards in my case) the cost of implementing the acquis and the economic turmoil that might bring about will not be balanced by the amount of money handed over, particularly as the present recipients are unlikely to give up a single euro.

In the end, those referendums were won on very small turn-outs indicating something less than total support for the project.

The Polish government is not the only one that fears potential trouble if the economic promises are not fulfilled while the economic problems multiply. A combination of possibly astute political deals and vaguely phrased but menacing eurosceptic statements might well appear to be the best way of getting more out of the EU. It’s just that the well is drying out.

COMMENT THREAD

A muddled picture

Him up there has obviously got his dates mixed up – or so it seems as we awoke to a swirling blizzard and snow drifting on the road outside. Winter has come with a vengeance. It fell to me, therefore, to despatch Mrs EU Referendum to get the newspapers and, with no prospect of anything more entertaining than a re-run of old documentaries on the television, they are able to claim our undivided attention.

The thing that strikes one, from the perspective of this blog, however, is how completely the media seems to have given up reporting on the EU. Even the Booker column is an EU-free zone this week. The organisation is hardly less relevant to our lives so it is perhaps a reflection of the drift in Brussels and its lack of any activity that could be regarded a newsworthy that accounts for the paucity of comment.

It is left to The Business, therefore, to take up the slack, which it does with an op-ed by John Blundell, director-general of the IEA, who takes a tilt at the EU under the heading, "Conspiracy at the heart of the European Union".

What is remarkable about this piece is that it is so unremittingly anti-EU it could easily have formed the heart of a UKIP leaflet – about ten years ago. Blundell, head of the organisation which paved the way to Thatcherism, has finally decided that EU is up to no good, and climbed down off the fence.

Like many converts to the cause, he has suddenly woken up to the fact that our ministers have steadily ceded their powers to what he calls "the Belgian Empire", to the extent that they are powerless in vast areas of public policy. Hence does Blundell write:

Chancellor Gordon Brown told the Labour Party conference last September:“If we are to make poverty history we must make the scandal and waste of agricultural protectionism history.” Yet what can the British Chancellor of the Exchequer actually do? He has no powers to relax the organised corruption that is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). If, or when, he became our Prime Minister he could still do nothing. He can mutter. He can exhort. He has no executive authority. He has no levers. The CAP cannot be dented by words. It is the creation of the Commission. It is cocooned.

He then goes on in UKIP-like fashion to add:

The conspiracy at the heart of the EU, and I'm sure that is the correct word, is to create a United States of Europe in emulation of the United States of America. This was exposed when the Dutch and French electorate rejected the idea. Yet these mishaps have not deflected the Commission from its anti-capitalist hostility to free-market spontaneity. My reservations would be diminished if the leading exponents of the EU "project" were ever frank about their grand plan.

He then admits that he scoffed at the time of the 1975 European Referendum. He regarded those who said there would be an EU currency, industrial policy and defence and foreign policy as fanciful but now suggests that the "Common Market" is a policy cul de sac from which we will eventually withdraw.

Welcome as such an utterance is, adding to a succession of bien pensants who are now expressing openly their doubts about the EU, Blundell – like others – does not appear to be in tune with current realities.

We, ourselves, are struggling. Having noted on this blog signs of a real decline in the prestige and influence of a weak commission, under the leadership of its nondescript president, we also note that there are other areas - not least defence - where integration, after a fashion, continues unabated.

What seems to be happening in the wake of the French and Duch "no" votes is a shift from the commission-orientated Monnet model of integration, to a more intergovernmentalist approach, with bi- and multi-lateral deals being made between groups of member states, the shape and structures of which are forever shifting. This is reinforced by elements of economic integration which are occurring not though government structures, but in the business conglomerates which have their own vision of a united Europe.

If anything, this makes analysis harder and clarity more difficult to achieve as tectonic plates below the surface begin to move. One thing does seem certain though – there is no likelihood in the foreseeable future that Britain will withdraw from the European Union. Privately, we joke that a more likely scenario is that every other member state will withdraw, leaving the EU with one member – Britain.

At least then we will know who to blame.

COMMENT THREAD

We cannot afford to be so generous

One of those alarming statistics which bodes ill for the future of this country is that stark fact that manufacturing job losses since 1997, the start of the Blair reign, have now passed the one million-mark.

Few, however, would make the connection between this dramatic decline and a piece of news drifted out by the MoD at the end of last month, a self-congratulatory release which announced that the Royal Navy had taken delivery of a new naval sonar system five months ahead of schedule.

This - for the techies – is the Sonar 2087, a towed array Low Frequency Active Variable Depth Sonar which is capable of detecting a new generation of increasingly stealthy submarines which often operate close to shore - making them very hard to detect. It is rated as "one of the most advanced and capable sonars in the world" and is to be fitted to six of the Royal Navy's fleet of Duke Class Type 23 frigates.

So much for the techie stuff but it is the story behind the development of this equipment that makes for a puzzling – if not disturbing – example of how British expertise is being sold out, at taxpayers' expense, costing jobs and valuable income, from which the only beneficiaries seem to be our European "partners" – in this case, the French.

The project itself, according to official sources, stems from a defence staff target approved in April 1994 with development and manufacture contracts, worth £340 million, awarded in April 2001 to Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd (TMSL).

At this time, the ownership of TMLS was shared between French-owned Thales UK (formerly Thomson-CSF UK Ltd) and BAE Systems (with 49.9 percent) and the equipment was set to be built in Britain, exclusively for the Royal Navy. International collaboration was ruled out because of the unique UK requirements and the constraints of the Type 23 Frigates, to which the sonar was to be fitted.

Yet, despite the award of this lucrative contract three months earlier, in July 2001 BAE Systems, through an options agreement, forced Thales to take up its 49.9 percent share in TMSL - apparently with government approval. This is the time when BAE Systems was completing its arrangements with EADS to form Airbus, and one can only assume that the company was seeking to increase its liquidity in order to fund its share.

As a result, Thomson Marconi Sonar Limited became a wholly French-owned company and was renamed Thales Underwater Systems, answerable to Thales Underwater Systems SAS, based in Sophia Antipolis, France.

Nevertheless, the development of the sonar proceeded apace and, in fact, was delivered and completed its trials early. It has now just entered service – hence the MoD announcement. So far so good. UK taxpayers have funded the development of a world-class sonar system – at some considerable expense - and, as far as we can judge, have got a reasonable return for their money.

But, its seems, Thales gets even better deal. Entirely separately, the French and Italians are building 27 frigates under the so-called FREMM project. Needless to say, the anti-submarine versions need a world-class sonar which, surprise, surprise, is to be supplied by Thales.

And says the company, a variant of the 2087 sonar will equip these ships, "a fine example of cross-programme synergy".

Thus we have a situation redolent of the Watchkeeper UAV programme, on which we reported last month - also awarded to Thales – where the British taxpayer is funding the development, only for the company to offer it to the French government.

This once again demonstrates the leakage of technology from the UK to France but, just as bad, it means that instead of an export opportunity for British industry, a potentially valuable contract is being fulfilled in France, by French workers – using British know-how funded by the British taxpayer.

One hesitates to make the obvious political point – like, such are the advantages of the Single Market – as there are clearly more complex issues involved. But the situation rather reinforces the question we posed at the end of last month: Where did we go wrong?

Whatever else, we cannot afford to be so generous.

COMMENT THREAD

Tough choices… deferred

If politics is about making tough choices - as one Tony Blair, Esq keeps telling us – then there are few tougher than the issue of approving genetically modified crops. Despite people being generally content to allow GM medicines, the moment food – even animal feed – is mentioned, the greenies seem to go berserk and all sense flies out of the window.

However, much to its own regret, the approval of GM foods in EU member states is now a commission competence, which means that decisions on whether or not to authorise a particular product rests now with the EU.

This, as we have reported earlier, has led to the bizarre situation where countries which have banned the products are being dragged into the ECJ, whereupon the unelected commission is forcing their elected representatives decide to over-rule their own domestic laws, which they passed in the first place and do not wish to see overturned.

But, so heated is this issue that the commission is having second thoughts about further regulatory involvement in this field, as member states ministers begin to resist its further encroachment.

Thus, we get a report from Market Watch telling us that ministers last week "failed to agree on how to ensure the safety and authorisation of new genetically modified seeds."

Such is the unreality of the situation though that, despite the debate having gone on for decades, Austrian agriculture minister Josef Proll was able to say at the conclusion of the EU Council of Ministers meeting on Thursday that: "We are in the beginning of an interesting debate… We will continue with discussions" at other meetings. Then, exhibiting a degree of understatement normally reserved for the British, he added: "There is no straight yes or no to such a sensitive topic."

Daniel Kapp, spokesman for the Austrian Agriculture Ministry, adds to this new-found penchant for understatement by expanding on his boss’s words, saying that, "There seems to be growing discontent amongst member states over the procedures and handling of GMO approval."

Pity the poor commission which is now firmly wedged between a rock and a hard place. Its own members are resisting further regulation, while the WTO is pressing for further "liberalisation" of international trade, having ruled last month that the EU had violated trade agreements for years by making it too difficult for new types to be approved.

But, rather than taking the (GM) bull by the horns, on Friday the commission produced a report signalling that it was pulling back from proposing to draft "complex EU-wide safety guidelines on growing genetically modified crops". Its excuse was that "such a move was not needed as there remains only limited cultivation of such crops alongside conventional or organic crops" in the EU. Only three countries, Spain, France and Germany, grow an approved genetically-modified form of maize.

This reticence to legislate is by no means typical of the EU, but commission spokesman Philip Tod elaborated on the report, declaring that there appeared to be "no justification at this time for EU-wide legislation." The situation would continue with member states drafting their own laws and present them to the commission for approval.

Amazingly, for an organisation which has been around nearly fifty years in one form or other, environment commissioner Stavros Dimas then excused his lack of resolve by pleading that, "as with any large organisation, we are still finding our feet."

Give it another fifty years, perhaps?

COMMENT THREAD

Europe isn't there

From Reuters, via DefenseNews (no link), we learn that, yet again, EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini is calling for an EU coastguard service in the Mediterranean, "to fight human trafficking and rising numbers of illegal migrants".

"My idea is that Europe should have a zero tolerance on trafficking, the idea is that of a European coast guard," Frattini told reporters during a visit to Athens. "One step, and it is a possible step so far, is to have joint training for national coast guards. They will then participate jointly in operations."

A joint coast guard could also include expert teams such as interpreters and medics who could be dispatched in case of a major emergency, Frattini said. "It will improve the capacities of rapid reaction of joint expert teams if there is an emergency," he said.

At first sight, this looks like yet another march towards integration, but things are never as simple as they seem. As we pointed out earlier, Italy is spending €115 million a year on fighting illegal immigration which, in view of Italy's yawning budget deficit, is unsustainable.

Frattini, therefore, wants EU money to pay for the policing of Italy's maritime borders and he thinks that the way to get this is to encourage the formation of an EU coastguard service – the Community in the service of national interest.

Judging from the frequent calls from Frattini on this issue, and the lack of any real action so far, one suspects that there is no great enthusiasm in Brussels for the venture.

Possibly, the commission is reluctant to take the responsibility for something that requires huge resources and can only bring it public relations grief, with blame for dead bodies of immigrants being washed up on the shore of Europe being laid at the door of Brussels rather than directed at the local governments.

Such an idea is an anathema to a commission which has long sought power without responsibility. Taking this to its most basic level, it is quite happy to dictate increasingly detailed laws on how we deal with our waste, but the last thing in the world it wants is to be responsible for collecting the dustbins.

In mass immigration, however, theory is meeting practice and coming down to earth with a bump. Unable to cope with its problems, Italy (and, indeed Malta) is calling for EU action. And when it calls, "Europe" isn't there.

COMMENT THREAD

The drift continues

In August last and then again in September, we noted how Australia was moving further and further away from her historic ties with the United Kingdom and Europe in general. Gradually, Australia is getting ever closer, militarily and in other ways, to the United States – part of an informal alliance which my colleague terms the Anglosphere.

Further evidence of this gradual re-alignment is conveyed by DefenseNews which this week reports that the Australian Department of Defence is to spend $2 billion Australian to buy up to four Boeing C-17 Globemaster III military transports.

What is especially significant about this is that the C-17 was chosen instead of the Airbus A400M, which is to be adopted by the UK as its primary airlifter. Airbus Military had, in fact, pitched a package of industry involvement measures to Australia, but this was not enough to win the sale.

In addition to their C-17 purchase, the RAAF is also to by Lockheed Martin's AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM). The new weapon will arm its F/A-18 Hornet fighters by December 2009, and eventually its F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, another indication of a closer alliance between the US and Australia.

The Australians had originally evaluated a range missiles in 1999, including the Scalp EG/Storm Shadow, but the project was shelved in 2000 due to budget problems. Second time round, the marketing company, EADS-LFK, was not even in the bidding.

Returning to the C-17 contract, one of the reasons given for their purchase is that these aircraft are able to transport the US-built M-1 Abrams tanks that the Australian Army has bought – yet more evidence of an alignment away from Europe, as they replace German-built Leopards.

In a statement justifying that purchase - the datail of which puts our own MoD to shame – the government noted that the tanks would be very similar to the remainder of the large user community. It is part, it said, of a large fleet with stable, known operating costs, which will be in service beyond 2020. The tanks would be configured as part of a fleet of 3,500 similar vehicles across the world and be very similar to over 2,500 vehicles operated by the US to at least 2020.

These are precisely the reasons why the UK should be buying some if its equipment from the US – where it is unable to build its own – rather than buying unproven weapons produced in far smaller quantities from our European "partners".

One other thing we could perhaps learn from the Australians was a scheme recorded by Defense Industry Daily to address the problem of parliamentary ignorance of matters military.

About 30 years ago, approximately 40 percent of federal parliamentarians had served in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF), but in 2001 that figure was no more than five percent. Thus was created the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program (ADFPP) which gives Senators and Members of Parliament a taste of what it is like to serve in the ADF, as well as providing an exchange program for the attachment of ADF members to Members' and Senators' offices.

The programme offers Parliamentarians a number of ADF attachment options each year, programmed during the Autumn and Winter recesses. Eighteen different attachment options are programmed for 2006, including deployments on board Navy ships both around Australia and overseas, fast jet aircrew training, patrol and training activities and joining Security Detachment troops for their preparations before they deploy to Baghdad.

"In gaining this type of experience, parliamentarians will be able to contribute to debate on Defence and National Security issues in a more informed manner," one Senator said. Could this happen with Westminster MPs?

I wish.

COMMENT THREAD

Whistling in the wind

In writing The Great Deception, Booker and I had recourse to a little-known but extremely helpful book on the early days of the EEC, "Twentieth-Century Europe", written by Richard Vaughan, a respected medieval historian.

Booker asked him about writing about these two vastly different periods, and whether it was not easier doing the research when there were eye-witnesses who could give a first-hand account of events.

Vaughan's response was quite illuminating. He preferred his own analysis of the written records and felt that witnesses and participants actually clouded the research. They all had their personal "takes" on contemporary issues and their own agendas, which tended to obscure rather than clarify.

I must say that I agree with him. Researching the events around the Maastricht debates in the House of Commons, I relied greatly on the written records but also interviewed a number of politicians who were directly involved. Of the various sources, I found them least reliable and some of their accounts were not supported by the indisputable facts.

Thus it is that we read the few newspaper accounts of the launch of the EU commission's energy "green paper" two days ago and, taking these as direct eye-witness accounts of the events, some paint a lurid picture of another power-grab by the EU.

Anthony Browne for The Times, for instance, under the headline "Fearful EU aims to take energy policy from governments", wrote: "Alarmed by a surge in energy costs and the threat of an acute gas shortage, the European Commission has made an attempt to seize control of energy policy from national governments."

In The Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard took a remarkably similar line, this time under the headline: "Brussels wants central control of North Sea oil and EU energy policy". His opening was: "The European Commission called for a common EU-wide fuel and power strategy directed from Brussels and a regulator as it tried to break the grip of national governments over energy policy."

If The Independent published a story at all, I was unable to find it. The Europhile Guardian offered a different "take" with the headline, "EC warns of €1,000bn power challenge," but still resorted to a strap-line: "Commission threatens to act on climate change and rising prices".

Its opening text, however, was couched in considerably different terms, stating: "The European commission yesterday warned EU countries that radical changes in energy policy were essential if the 25-nation bloc was to meet the challenges of climate change, security of supply and rising prices." The report continues:

It said the European Union needed to develop a common energy policy and an effective single market, increase diversity of supply, cut consumption, bolster pan-European networks for gas and electricity transmission, raise storage capacity to cope with crises and create a pan-European market regulator.

In two versions of the same event, therefore, we have "an attempt to seize control" and a claim that Brussels is attempting "to break the grip of national governments" while the third tells us that the EU commission merely "warned" EU countries. With such widely varying "takes", who are we to believe, and what are we to take as the actual situation?

Well, in the style of Richard Vaughan, we can go back to the source documentation and, thanks to the wonders of the internet, we can consult the commission's own press release, which is likely to be a reasonably accurate reflection of the state of mind in Brussels.

Here, the alarmist tone fails to gel. The commission talks about "its vision" for an energy strategy in Europe and the first lines of the press release set out the tenor of the green paper. This, says the commission, "invites comments on six specific priority areas, containing over 20 concrete suggestions for possible new action."

The release cites El presidente Barroso declaring: "The energy challenges of the 21st century require a common EU response. The EU is an essential element in delivering sustainable, competitive and secure energy for European citizens. A common approach, articulated with a common voice, will enable Europe to lead the search for energy solutions".

What immediately comes over is the diffident, almost hesitant approach. The EU is an "essential element" says Barroso – a far cry from an overt declaration that the EU should run the show.

If we then resort to the real thing, the actual green paper, "A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy", we find that the diffidence continues.

Rather than open with a series of strident declaration, the paper "puts forward suggestions and options that could form the basis for a new comprehensive European energy policy." Note the use of the word "could". The text then continues: "The Spring European Council and the European Parliament are invited to react to this Paper, which should also spark a wide-ranging public debate." Only then do we read, "The Commission will then table concrete proposals for action."

By any measure, this is not a self-confident, assertive, dominant commission laying down the law. Compared with many other commission documents we have seen, the tone is deferential and tentative, putting the European Council – i.e., the member states - and the parliament in the driving seat.

To us, this is not surprising. For sure, the gathering problems with energy supply are the ideal beneficial crisis, to which the never-ending pursuit of political integration can be harnessed. But, given the recent turmoil over the take-over wars and the resurgence of economic nationalism, one can understand why the commission is being very cautious.

Furthermore, we have been there before, and I am sure there are people in the commission with long memories and a better understanding of Community history than contemporary reporters.

That history includes the first attempt to forge a common energy policy, in the wake of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The attempt failed, for exactly the same reasons that the commission is currently having difficulty – economic nationalism – and the over-reach nearly destroyed the Community.

In tackling energy again, therefore, the commission is treading a dangerous path. And, if it could not even get its Ports Directive through the system, I suspect it is going to have little better success with this initiative. The indications are that the commission is whistling in the wind – and knows it.

COMMENT THREAD

Competition rules OK!

Well, not as long as we have the licence fee, now reclassified correctly as a tax. But the justification for it is fading.

According to this morning’s Guardian the BBC is losing viewers extremely fast.

“Buffeted by greater competition from digital rivals, BBC1 sunk to its lowest ever peak-time ratings on Wednesday night as a combination of Davina McCall and Panorama failed to woo viewers. On average just one in six of those watching television at the time were tuned in to BBC1 between 6pm and 10.30pm, the channel's worst evening ratings.

Between 7pm and 10.30pm BBC1 had an audience share of just 11.9%.”

The Beeb instantly went into public service mode, saying rather huffily that it had to schedule its Panorama programme about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at peak time when it was not likely to attract a high proportion of viewers. That’s as may be. Without being unberably old (don’t snigger, please) I can recall a time when Panorama was the must-see programme for all those interested in current affairs.

Partly Panorama’s quality has gone down but, also, people are more aware that they do not have to swallow the BBC’s pap unquestioningly. And, in any case, Davina McCall? How do you justify that as public service?

ITV1 is also losing viewers and advertisers, though they are making up on the income through various spin-offs.

“To offset audience fragmentation the BBC has already invested hundreds of millions in BBC3 and BBC4. Later this month ITV will launch a children's channel, while the interactive quiz channel ITV Play will join ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4 later this year.”

All of which may or may not work. As Tessa Jowell (no, not her husband this time) has said this week, seven out ten homes in Britain has at least one digital TV set. And as yet, there is no calculation of how many people download programmes through their computer.

There is one problem. ITV lives off advertising and it can launch whatever it likes. If the channels and programmes do not take off, the advertisers will go somewhere else. But on what grounds is the BBC investing hundreds of millions in channels that may or may not work?

The problem remains the same: even if you never watch BBC or tune in very rarely, you still have to pay what amounts to a tax on TV ownership. As far as British broadcasting is concerned, competition remains a dirty word, no matter what the viewers might think. Then again, they could stop paying the licence fee.

COMMENT THREAD

The dream fades

"An artificial creation." That is Polish president Lech Kaczynski's view of the European Union, an "artificial creation" which ploughs on aimlessly and has no solid budgetary foundations. It is, he added, a superstate which polarises countries' areas of competence but which at the same time is rather helpless because it only has a symbolic budget.

These remarks were addressed to the German daily Die Welt and conveyed by the English language Deutsche Welle which then went on to report Kaczynski's speech at Berlin's Humboldt University at the end of his two-day visit to Germany.

At the Humboldt, we are told, proceedings were disrupted by protestors described as "gay rights activists", expressing their disapproval at Kaczynski's "homophobic policies."

Nevertheless, he repeated his forthright views on the EU - albeit toned down somewhat – declaring that it was a myth to think that all Europeans had a shared outlook. "There is no European public opinion, rather national public opinions," he said.

As for the EU constitution, Kaczynski described it as "very open to interpretation", a comment amplified by the Polish news agency PAP, which reported the president criticising the constitution for not being a "collection of legal norms, but a collection of directives".

He was "against the EU Constitutional Treaty in its current shape," saying that the document included solutions which could turn Europe into a quasi-state, adding that "it is too early for such a solution." The EU should be heading for a strong union of national states. Poland is ready to participate in it, he declared.

By far the greater amount of coverage, however, has been devoted to the "gay rights" demonstration, but historians will note the special significance Kaczynski’s speech being delivered at Humboldt University. This, after all, was the same venue where, on 12 May 2000, then German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer delivered his famous "Thoughts on the finality of Europe" speech, calling for an EU constitution and for Europe to become a full federation.

It was that speech which set off the process which was to lead to the Laken declaration in the December of the following year, from which emerged the constitutional convention and the now failed treaty.

It is a measure of how far the dream has faded that when, six years after Fischer gave his ground-breaking speech, a senior EU politician in the same university hall should so easily dismiss what was, all those years ago, the pinnacle of aspiration – and a "gay activist" demonstration should get more headlines.

COMMENT THREAD

Anyone seen the elephant?

Mr Nick Herbert, formerly Director of Reform, an extremely useful think-tank that has not yet managed to get the Conservative Party pay any attention to its free-market ideas, now Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs, presented a Private Member’s Bill on Tuesday under the Ten Minute Rule.

Now, let us be reasonable. This Bill is going nowhere. Mr Herbert will be lucky to secure a Second Reading on some poorly attended Friday session. It is merely a way of putting down a marker – a slightly more effective one than an Early Day Motion. At least, there will be a Bill published.

The theme is that old chestnut, the exemption of small (in this case micro) businesses from regulation.

Mr Herbert’s argument is perfectly sound.

Small business makes an immense contribution to the economy. Small enterprises—those with fewer than 50 employees—make up over 99 per cent. of all businesses and half all employment. As the economy moves toward higher, value-added activity, the share of it taken by small firms will only grow, so the weight of regulation now pressing on small businesses and hindering their wealth creation is an issue for us all.

The Better Regulation Commission has estimated that the total cost of regulation facing the economy is now some £150 billion. The Hampton review found that national regulators alone send out 2.6 million forms a year.

Inevitably, this burden falls disproportionately on small businesses. Large companies are able to employ people to deal with regulation; small businesses simply do not have that option.

Academics from the London School of Economics have found that regulatory costs per employee are five times higher for small firms than for larger ones, that small employers spend five times as many hours per employee dealing with regulation, and that they spend almost 5 per cent. of their annual turnover on compliance.

Equally, the Federation of Small Businesses has shown that the administration of pay-as-you-earn costs a business with fewer than five employees £288 per employee per year, yet for a firm with 5,000 employees, the cost is just £5 per employee.”

Actually, I am not sure that last calculation is the most useful one. Perhaps a percentage of annual turn-over might have been more telling, but the figures are scary.

The trouble is how to deal with the problem. As Mr Herbert acknowledges, all past efforts, to create less regulation, better regulation, even better regulation have failed. The red tape is binding businesses ever more tightly.

My Bill would confront the problem of regulation in three ways. First, it would give Ministers a duty to consider alternatives to, and exemptions from, existing regulations affecting small and medium-sized firms, and a power to create those exemptions.

Secondly, because the impact of regulation on microbusinesses—those with nine employees or fewer and an average annual turnover of just £130,000—is particularly disproportionate, the Bill would create a presumption that microbusinesses are exempted from any future regulation. That would protect over 4 million businesses from future regulation.

Thirdly, in respect of all future regulations the Bill would impose a statutory requirement to carry out a regulatory impact assessment—surprisingly, that is not a current requirement—and to consider alternatives to regulation in doing so.

There are a few problems with those solutions. The biggest of them, as ever, and a little surprisingly in this case, as Mr Herbert has also been Director of Business for Sterling, there is the obvious lack of reference to the elephant in the room.

Just precisely, how does Mr Herbert think many of those regulations that are, incidentally, killing the small businesses on the Continent as well, going to be by-passed if they originate from the European Union? We are legally bound to implement those.

There are other problems. Although later in his speech Mr Herbert makes clear that his Bill allows parliamentary scrutiny of the minister’s decision, one suspects that the “proper parliamentary procedure” would be the odd negative SI that would lie before both Houses for 40 working days and that would be the end of the matter.

Mr Herbert is doing exactly what the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is doing – proposing to give ministers more power in the name of easing the burden of red tape. Not a happy idea.

Finally, the idea of exempting certain businesses from regulations instead of reforming the whole structure (something, to be fair, Mr Herbert says he would like to see) will merely impose more burdens and act as a disincentive to growth.

And we shall still be left with the elephant in the room.

COMMENT THREAD

Not drowning, but drowning

To fuel this blog, each morning and many times through the day, we look through endless numbers of websites and news reports, plus an increasing number of e-mails sent by readers, either enclosing information of interest, or links to sites of interest.

Stuff of special interest I download and paste onto a single Word file, which I then use as the immediate source material, selecting from it the specific topics that get turned into postings.

Invariably, for a variety of reasons – not least, infuriatingly, there are only 24 hours in the day - much material is unused. Eventually, the file accumulates so much material that its is no longer workable and feel I am drowning. Only then do I save it, as "spare material" and start a fresh file. So far, I have 42 such files saved.

This current file, running to 82 pages on screen and soon to become number 43 in my "spare material collection" contains so much of interest that I am reluctant to consign it to the dustbin of my hard drive, so I am going to attempt an experiment, composing a compendium posting that picks up all sorts of bits and pieces, without a common theme.

The first is an unreported adjournment debate yesterday in the House of Commons, secured by Ian Liddle-Grainger, Conservative MP for Bridgewater. He, like this Blog, is concerned at the closure of the former Royal Ordnance factory at Bridgewater in Somerset, the last remaining military explosives manufacturers in the UK, leaving our armed forces, in our view, dangerously reliant on offshore suppliers.

From the record, it looks like there were only three MPs in the chamber, including Liddle-Grainger, one other being the minister who had to be there to respond. He was Adam Ingram, minister of state for defence, who dismissed concerns about off-shoring, saying that this was purely a commercial decision by BAE Systems, whom the government had consulted and been told that there was no problem about supplies.

Ingram concluded, "I do not think for a moment that the defence of the realm is threatened by what we are seeking to do." So that's all right then – we can go back to sleep on that one. Our wise and benevolent government is on the case, looking after out interests.

Next on the list, coincidentally about defence, is a story I picked up from Flight International, reporting on a French government recommendation that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles should be brought into mainstream defence budgets.

This is one of those stories that actually is important, even though I can't quite put a handle on the exact significance at the moment, but there is a strong reference to the Neuron programme.

I have my strong suspicions that this is the next major area of UK involvement in a European defence co-operation and the particular point of interest is that the French government is calling for current European UAV projects to be run by the European Defence Agency and focusing on command, control and communications systems. As there is strong British interest in this issue, this is definitely one to watch.

The full French government report is in French, for those that can be bothered to wade through it.

Flight International, in a separate piece, also informs us that an early candidate for European Defence Agency funds could be a study into the needs of a new common attack helicopter for Europe, which could lead eventually to production. This, I have seen reported nowhere else, but it suggests that there is a lot going on behind the scenes which is not being followed by the MSM – quelle surprise.

On a completely different tack, the Latvians seem to be wingeing about the effects of their membership of the EU. The country is still the poorest country in the EU, with the lowest average wage and that is the reason tens of thousands of its citizens have left to work abroad - mostly going to Ireland and the UK, where they can earn as much in a week as they earn in a month back home.

It is estimated that 50,000 Latvians, out of a population of 2.3 million, have left in search of work. Now, Latvian employers say they are already having trouble filling jobs, and they are worried that as more EU countries open up to Latvian workers, the country will lose its most valuable asset, - its low-cost workforce. Some of them now say they have started to wish something they have never wished for before: that the EU would close its doors to Latvian workers.

Amusingly – or not – the Irish might agree. Not only does Latvia, with 44,451 road traffic accidents in 2004, lead the EU table for deaths per head of population but, according to the Irish Examiner, Latvians are exporting their bad habits to Ireland.

A disproportionate number in Ireland have been implicated in crime ranging from murders to extortion and gang warfare among Latvian workers, while the Gardaí say about a fifth of road deaths in the last year on Irish roads were Eastern Europeans and a large number of these were from Latvia.

The problem has also been noted in the UK and more generally in Europe, hence M. Jacques "Wheel" Barrot's desire to extend the grip of the EU commission's road safety policies, giving a cross-border tinge to speed enforcement.

Thus it was at the end of February that Reuters reported that people driving while abroad accounted for an average of 35 percent of the speeding tickets issued in 2004. "As it stands," moans Barrot, "there is no real legislation in this area and many drivers when they are abroad drive in the belief that they will not face prosecution."

When it comes to moaning, it seems that the Austrian are also joining in – or some of them - with the English language online journal
Hurriyet telling us that Austria's right-wing Freedom Party has launched a petition aimed, among other things, at vetoing Turkey's entry into the EU.

The party's goal is to collect a minimum of 100,000 signatures which then would oblige the country's parliament to debate the issue. During a week of campaigning under the slogan "Osterrich bleib frei" [Keep Austria free], the Freedom Party, led by Hans-Christian Strache, will call on Austria's six million voters to sign the appeal.

It reminds us that popular support for the EU is the lowest in Austria among the 25 member states. In a December poll, only a quarter of the respondents described membership of the EU as a good thing for the country.

Back to defence for a brief moment, I did consider doing a long post about the Tory claims that the Falklands was at risk from another Argentinean invasion, a prospect that was immediately shot down by Mike Summers, from the Falklands Island Council, who said the possibility was "almost laughable". One really does wonder about the Tories sometimes. This is their way of tackling "defence cuts", but they will not engage on the European defence agenda, and the fact that our armed forces are not so much being cut as re-shaped to conform with the plans for a European Rapid Reaction Force.

That brings us to another completely different story, this time the Greeks are having a moan… everybody is moaning it seems. But I enjoyed this story, recorded in Ekathimerini, with the headline, "It is time to look carefully at how EU money is spent".

"It seems", writes the journal, "that it is our fate to ignore the substance of an issue and waste our energy on secondary matters." Amen to that, and Amen again. That seems to describe our more general predicament, although this particular complaint is about the EU-sponsored Community Support Framework over the past 20 years is no exception to the rule. Greece is the only country that has constantly failed to draft any comprehensive review of projects built with EU funds — let alone a comparison of implemented projects against budgeted ones.

Talking of spending EU money, the Belgian government is to spend $240 million on a new "glowing" headquarters for EU. This we learn courtesy of Business Week, which tells us that "European leaders will now have meetings in a lantern-like building that uses both translucent and transparent glass".

A design has been selected for a new meeting space for the European Union in Brussels. The building will supplement the adjacent 1927 Palace Complex, designed by architect Michel Polak, which now serves as EU Council headquarters. The 645,000-square-foot building will include a press briefing room, a conference room for 250 people, 28 translation booths, and a dining room for 50 guests. Samyn and Partners principal Phillippe Samyn describes the box-like building as a "lantern," due to its glowing, glass-box appearance, created by façade layers of both translucent and transparent glass.

The programmatic area – whatever that is - will occupy a bulbous, multi-storied cylinder in the center of the box, and a dynamic lighting scheme will change the color of the glowing lantern at night. The structure will be steel-and-concrete composite construction. Sunlight will enter the private main meeting hall through skylights in the centre of its ceiling. This hall will be enclosed by a double-skinned facade, of which the outer skin will include a number of oak-frame windows, which will come from the 25 countries in the union. This, we are told, will gesture toward the "incredible cultural patchwork" of Europe.

What more does one say? You can't actually beat that for a pay-off but, if you have a moment, have a look here at one seriously brave lady. Worth watching.

Let me know if you like this compendium piece and, if you do, I'll think about doing them fairly regularly.

COMMENT THREAD

A certain lack of credibility

The news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur has come up an intriguing story, headlined: "EU slammed for not releasing funds to fight bird flu".

The substance is that, for all its pretensions of being a global power, the EU is under attack for failing to release any of the money it promised to help in the global fight against bird 'flu.

The complaint comes from the head of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Bernard Vallat, who was having a general moan about donors not putting their money where their mouths are. Some $1.9 billion had been pledged at the International Pledging Conference on Avian and Human Pandemic Influenza held in the Beijing on 17-18, but the organisation had so far received only $16 million.

Of the defaulters, Vallat singled out the EU as "the worst case". Having made its promises, it had "not even decided how to allocate the amount", he said.

Vallat was responding to questions by a French parliamentary commission on bird 'flu. This had recently returned from Senegal and Mali and was demanding to know why these two countries had not received any aid to fight the H5N1 virus.

Afterwards, it was the head of the commission, Jean-Marie Le Guen, we delivered the killer line. In a press conference, he told journalists that the matter involved "a very serious governmental error by Europe," which was risking its "political credibility".

We are somewhat surprised that anyone believes that the EU still has any "political credibility", but there you go.

COMMENT THREAD

Saving the world and other tales

In a futile attempt to acquire this thing called life, I have been re-reading the essays of one of the greatest British experts on Russian and the Soviet Union, the late Professor Leonard Schapiro. In an account of his own intellectual development, My fifty years of social science, he describes his disgust with the UN from the very beginning, calling it “a fraudulent mess from the start”, “founded on a lie”.

There is a more detailed explanation:

“For the most blatant exercise in international cynicism it is unnecessary to go further than the Charter of the United Nations itself: “We, the Peoples of the United Nations, … determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human right, in the dignity and worth of the human person …” signed by the USSR, Belorussia and the Ukraine.”

Well, no, since you ask, the last two were not independent countries. They merely had seats in the United Nations General Assembly and, amazingly enough, always voted with the USSR. I may add that as these words were penned and signed, a ferocious second purge was unfolding itself in all the Soviet republics and a murderous civil war was being waged in the Ukraine and the Baltic States.

Anyway, that’s enough history. Let us fast forward to the present day. SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) has unveiled another plan for the reform of the United Nations, one that has been given a cautious welcome by the United States, though administration officials have “reacted coolly”, according to the Washington Post to the price tag of $500 million that it will all cost. I bet they did. After all, who is going to be asked for the money?

“Annan said the U.N. Secretariat, created 60 years ago to run meetings and conferences for member governments, has never been adequately retooled to oversee an organization that now includes a far-flung network of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations and tens of thousands of troops and civilians stationed around the world. He characterized his initiative - titled "Investing in the United Nations: For a Stronger Organization Worldwide" - as a "radical overhaul" that would enhance its efficiency and ultimately save money.”

The SecGen came up with quite a flight of fancy:

“Just as this building, after 56 years of ad hoc repair and maintenance, now needs to be fully refurbished from top to bottom, so our organization, after decades of piecemeal reform, now needs a thorough strategic refit.”

And it shall all be paid for by the taxpayer of the rich democracies who will then be vilified by the organization. Oh no, hang on, he didn’t actually say that. Of course, according to Professor Schapiro, the building is in need of complete restructuring as it was constructed atop rotten foundations.

According to Reuters:

“Under the proposals, administrative services such as as translation and publishing will be moved out of the New York headquarters to cut costs.

Senior management will be restructured to give the secretary-general more authority, staff recruitment will be overhauled and budget processes will be simplified.”

This appears not to have met with universal approval.

“UN diplomats have been cautious in their first response but staff met in a raucous session with Mr Annan, asking for accountability for previous failed reforms.

UN staff committee head Rosemary Waters says 700 employees will campaign "to halt the constant effort of the management to erode the rights and benefits of staff" and management's attempts to eradicate jobs.”

Once you start moving out of your cosy little billet in Manhattan, who knows where you might end up. That is not why they went to work for the UN.

To be fair, it is reasonable to ask the SecGen to give some account of previous “reforms” and what they had achieved before handing yet more power over to him and his office. Oh and while we are on the subject, perhaps he would like to clear up the many outstanding problems to do with the oil-for-food scam, the procurement scam, the various appointment scams as well as bring some people to justice for their abuse of power and of human beings in their capacity as “peace keepers”.

In the meantime, not only the SecGen wants more power to appoint, unappoint and send people round the world, but

“Mr Annan's proposed shake-up would create a mobile civil service and convert 2500 short-term peacekeeping positions into a new flexible team whose members could be deployed quickly in urgent peacekeeping and political missions.”

What 2,500 people can possibly do, even if they were not wearing blue helmets, that have become rather problematic in certain parts of Africa, but it is a nice way for the SecGen to exercise his power and make statements.

In the end we come back to the same problem. The UN is unaccountable to the people who finance it and supply it with staff and troops. It is unaccountable to the people in whose lives it interferes. Handing more power to the SecGen at the expense of the General Assembly will not make it worse, considering the make-up of that Assembly, but it is not exactly going to solve the conundrum.

COMMENT THREAD

Après moi la deluge?

When we wrote in January about the limits of integration, we cited the ports directive which was then due to go before the EU parliament.

Violent mobs of dockers opposing the directive had gathered outside the parliament in Strasbourg and, sure enough, the MEPs caved into the pressure and voted against the directive by a massive margin of 532 to 120.

Today, we now learn that the commission has given up any hopes of reintroducing the directive and has formally issued a statement declaring that national governments had "expressed their reluctance" on part of the draft law - which the European Parliament also rejected in January.

The commission is now to "look at alternatives at the end of April" to help Europe's ports expand to cope with a boom in shipping.

This is an unprecedented situation. It is very rare that the parliament ever opposes the commission – more usually it supports everything that comes its way and very often asks for more. This, the rejection in itself is unusual and so is member states opposing further attempt by the commission to reintroduce the law.

In the past, however, the commission has always sought to broker a deal, even if it waters down its original proposal – as it has done with the services directive – but I cannot recall a single instance where it has given up completely and walked away from one of its own directive.

In a small way, therefore, history has been made today. There is a trickle of water escaping from the dam. How long before it becomes a flood?

COMMENT THREAD

The Boy King speaks on Europe

The Boy King says he would not attempt to pull Britain out of the European Union.

I think we all knew that but it is nice to have it confirmed, with him saying: "I want to be part of the European Union (but) I want that European Union to change, I think it's clear that it needs to change, just look at the referendum vote on the constitution."

This was yesterday, curiously unreported by the MSM and, even more curiously, omitted from the Conservative Party website, when the Boy King gave what might otherwise have been billed as a major speech, outlining his "European vision".

The omissions get all the more curious when one learns that the venue was the Foreign Press Association in London, a choice normally made in order maximise publicity, yet the only UPI and Reuters seem to have offered substantive reports.

Under the headline "UK's Cameron sets out European vision", UPI tells us that "a future Conservative government would set Britain on a path away from ever-closer union with Europe and reclaim powers back from Brussels". Cameron then supposedly set out his "vision of Europe" as little more than a free-trade zone. Most regional co-operation, he argued, should take place on an intergovernmental level rather than through the centralised mechanism of the Union.

Echoing a wearily familiar mantra, the report then cites the Boy King saying: "My party and I believe in an open-trading, flexible Europe, it's about cooperation, not about a superstate," adding, "It's not about becoming a country called Europe."

Evidently, he talked about stemming the tide of powers being transferred from London to Brussels, and said that a Conservative government would work to reclaim some powers, particularly control over social and employment legislation:

In an age where we need this dynamic economy - we've got to compete with India and China - it makes no sense to have our social and employment legislation determined centrally by Brussels. I think this is something which should be done at the national level.

Cameron also said he believed it had been a "damaging" mistake for Britain to relinquish its opt out on the European Social Chapter, for which it had clearly got "nothing in return." He would fight for the opt-out to be reinstated, he said. "That's not to say we're against employment protection but it's something that should be decided in Westminster with reference to our own traditions and culture," he added.

He said he was seeing "positive change" in Europe, with more leaders, for example German Chancellor Angela Merkel, coming around to a similar position on the sovereignty of nation states on such regulatory issues. Free trade, a single market and opening national markets to other member states were "hugely important in a globalised world."

Cameron also felt that there was also room for co-operation on crime, terrorism, the environment and where possible, foreign policy, but he wanted this done at an intergovernmental level rather than through "some treaty architecture."

Neither, it seems, would he try to bring back responsibility for trade to London. "Trade policy is decided in Europe,” he says, “and I don't propose to change that. But I want a Conservative government, the British government to be a force that argues for liberalisation and open markets."

What then leaps off the screen is his declaration that the role for the British government is "to argue in Brussels that we should be promoting free trade and open markets, and making the best of globalisation rather than believing it's going to be the end of us."

That would be an interesting election pitch: "vote for the best Party to argue our case in Brussels". I'm sure it would go down a wow on the stumps.

Anyhow, it may all come to naught. Apparently, Cameron also hinted that he believed the European project as it currently stands would ultimately fail, saying "there was life before the EU and there will be life after the EU." With that we would agree, and perhaps the Boy King is hoping it will fail before the voters notice that his avowed Euroscepticism is not even skin deep.

COMMENT THREAD

A certain lack of resolve

"The EU is becoming a global power; a force for good in the world," says Javier Solana. And, inflated by that sense of self-importance, his subordinate, Nick Whitney, Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency, happily burbles about the need to "improve the EU's military capabilities".

What capabilities? When it comes to supplying the piffling number of 1,500 troops to augment the badly over-stretched (and largely incompetent) 17,000 United Nations troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo (pictured), member states are all in a tizz-woz.

The EU has been asked for help by the UN to deal with the forthcoming elections on 18 June and, as Deutsche Welle records, ministers of the EU member states in Innsbruck, Austria, yesterday, "hesitated to pledge troops", instead calling for more details on what the mission will entail.

At the forefront of the undeciders is German defence minister Franz-Josef Jung, revealing that Germany had been considered to lead the force – if it can be called that. He adds that, if Berlin does take the lead, chances are the mission will be small. "Germany cannot commit to sending 1,500 soldiers," he says, and neither is he prepared to see those few who could be sent staying longer than four months.

Berlin insists that even with French support, the plans are too ambitious, Jung declaring that "this cannot be only German and French troops… We cannot take over a leading role alone." Thus, Poland, Sweden, Austria and Spain are also being asked to offer troops, for a force that may eventually be pared down to 1,2000.

This is to police the aftermath of a war that has killed some 4 million people since 1998 and left 1.6 million others homeless. But, to make sure that the precious German troops are not put in harms way, Solana has pledged that the EU "force" would be based close to but not inside the conflict-ridden country. "We are talking about 1,000 (troops) over the horizon in case of need… close enough so that it doesn't take three months to deploy," he says. So much for "global power".

This lack of resolve, however, has not stopped ministers coming up with grandiose plans to increase research and technology spending of defence, but even then they failed to agree on how much, and how the money will be controlled.

Yet, to judge from the lack of enthusiasm for the Congo mission, I don’t know why they bothering. Clearly, when the chips are down, they have no intention of actually deploying troops for anything useful or dangerous, so they might as well save their money.

COMMENT THREAD

A position of weakness

There is perhaps an amount of linkage between disparate pieces of news that have emerged lately, all on the subject of energy. Either way, the cumulative effect of the events reported certainly seem to warrant some concern.

The first news item comes via Reuters and others, reporting the views of Jonathon Porritt's "Sustainable Development Commission", which has told the government that it does not need to build a new generation of nuclear plants to meet future electricity needs.

Arch-green Porritt believes that renewable sources like wind, waves, solar and biomass, combined with increasing energy efficiency, can provide the solution to our future energy needs, albeit that these options also denote changed lifestyles.

"There are no easy options here," he says. "It is going to be a tough journey with or without nuclear power. Governments need to start changing people's mindsets on what it will be like to live in a low-carbon, oil-scarce environment."

Apparently unrelated is the news of the forthcoming EU commission White Paper on a common energy policy, due out tomorrow but widely leaked to the media – for those that can be bothered to report it.

One that paper that is bothering is the International Herald Tribune, which predicts that the commission will warn governments that they are failing to adequately curb fuel consumption and develop alternative forms of energy. This has so much in common with the Porritt line that one cannot but help see the parallels.

The commission's worry, however, is that failure to address these issues "may push Europe's reliance on foreign energy sources to dangerously high levels in coming decades", a concern that is very real – even if there are very different views on the best solutions.

EU energy commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, predictably, wants "EU energy ministers" to define a "common energy policy" although there are complaints that he has missed the opportunity to deal with consumption issues, like the automobile's pre-eminence and the industrial sector - Europe's two largest users of energy.

We are told that he has also avoided looking at attempts by France, Spain and others to shield their companies from foreign bids to create national energy champions. Instead, it seems, the commission presents a largely grim assessment of Europe's growing demand, warning that "around 70 percent of the Union's energy requirements, compared to 50 percent today, will be met by imported products."

Worryingly, the very serious prospect of an energy crisis in Europe is being used – once again – as an argument for further integration, with the Greens and the European Free Alliance in the European Parliament arguing that "It is not possible to build a European market while leaving competition control on the national level".

From a British perspective, though, the indications are that the current inertia on energy policy is driving the nation into the arms of a common European policy, which Blair is said to favour.

Even the likes of James Lovelock argue that the only realistic way to stave off a crisis is to go nuclear but, if the government follows the Porritt line – which seems, as we have observed – mirrors commission thinking, then we will be forced increasingly to rely on European suppliers for core energy needs – not least France, which seems to have no worries about developing the next generation of nuclear power stations.

Already, we have seen the baleful effect of over-reliance on European energy sources, with Sir Roy Gardner, chief executive of British Gas group Centrica, telling the Independent on Sunday that the European energy market of adding millions of pounds to UK fuel bills this winter.

The antidote to this is to develop a robust system of domestic electricity generation, but the government seems reluctant to grasp this nettle. Blair seems content to allow us to drift into a position of weakness, viz-à-viz our Continental "partners", adopting a policy far too much like Sweden for comfort. Those with a conspiratorial bent might wonder whether he is doing it deliberately.

COMMENT THREAD

All change at the Telegraph

There is much rejoicing in the ranks at the news that Sunday Telegraph editor Sarah Sands has been dismissed.

Famous for her aspirations to make the paper "intelligent and elegant", she achieved neither. The first edition under her control, in November, was graced with a picture of Kate Moss, coke-snorting supermodel, in exotic lingerie.

The paper went downhill from there, suffering a dramatic collapse of readership in December, of over 50,000. It is rumoured that figures due out shortly show the collapse has continued which, it is believed, triggered Mz Sands' rapid exit.

She is replaced by Patience Wheatcroft, currently City and Business Editor at The Times, a post she had held since 1997. Also, Eurosceptic and scourge of big government, Scotland on Sunday Editor Iain Martin, is leaving that paper to join the Daily Telegraph.

With a bit of luck, we may be seeing a return to grown-up journalism in both newspapers.

COMMENT THREAD

What price human rights?

One gets so used to the great and the good sounding off about Guantánamo, as if there were no prisons or camps, and considerably worse ones at that, anywhere else in the world (try the rest of Cuba) that, at first, I paid no attention to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams pontificating.

“Any message given, that any state can just over-ride some of the basic habeas corpus-type provisions, is going to be very welcome to tyrants elsewhere in the world, now and in the future.

What, in 10 years' time, are people going to be able to say about a system that tolerates this?”

Yes, yes, I thought. Repeating what Archbishopt Desmond Tutu has said (clearly not having read any of the recent reports about South African prisons) and the Archbishop of York. Then I noticed where Dr Williams was when he made this outburst. In Sudan.

Sudan? And he is blathering about Guantánamo? I wondered what he said about the situation in Darfur. Apparently very little, not wishing to upset his hosts, the Sudanese government.

According to the Daily Telegraph report

“Dr Williams was speaking in Khartoum during a World Food Programme tour of Sudan, the first by an archbishop since last year's peace agreement between the mainly Christian south of the country and the Islamic government.”

The south has been more or less pacified, so the Sudanese government is shepherding all foreign visitors and journalists there. Darfur, on the other hand, is off the map as far as they are concerned and, it seems, the Archbishop of Canterbury accepted this state of affairs.

As David Blair, the Telegraph’s Africa correspondent wrote with barely concealed contempt:

“The Archbishop was worried about the fate of Camp X-ray's 500 prisoners. He said nothing about the two million refugees who have been driven from their homes in Darfur.

They are prisoners, just like Guantanamo's inmates, trapped in squalid camps and unable to leave for fear of the brutal militias who have turned Darfur into a killing ground.

These armed gangs were, incidentally, raised and deployed by the regime that hosted Dr Williams.

Including those who succumbed to starvation and disease, the number of dead in Darfur may now be as high as 300,000 - five per cent of the population.”

How different, one might note, from the behaviour of his predecessor, Archbishop Carey.

“His predecessor Lord Carey's first trip to the Sudan in 1994 led to the expulsion of the British ambassador when the then archbishop refused to visit the north of the country on the government's terms, instead flying into the south from Uganda.”

But then Archbishop Williams is not known for stepping out of line as far as the left-of-centre consensus goes. In the recent Synod decision to push for disinvestment in Israel (not any other country), the Archbishop voted in favour. In the subsequent brouhaha he tried to explain it all away to the Chief Rabbi. Former Archbishop Carey said, quite simply, that the vote made his feel ashamed of being an Anglican. There, I fear, one can see the difference between posturing and genuine goodness.

Darfur is, of course, one of the great failures of the transnational organizations. Untold, uncounted and unaccountable millions have poured into the country from the UN, from the EU and many other organizations, supposedly to help the people of Darfur in their plight.

There have been no explanations where the money has gone and the destruction of the civilian population by the janweed militias, armed, trained and protected by the Sudanese government (Archbishop Williams’s hosts) has gone unabated.

Peace was supposed to have been imposed by the African Union forces stationed in the area but, even as a joke, that sounds feeble. Recently the Sudanese government has insisted that it did not want UN troops in Darfur, apparently seeing this as another example of western interference with Muslim rights. As it happens, the vicitms in Darfur, unlike southern Sudan, are also Muslim but they happen to be black, not Arab.

Curiously enough, neither Sudan nor Darfur were mentioned in an article signed by several Nobel Peace Prize winners, published in the International Herald Tribune. The signatories were Jimmy Carter, Oscar Arias, Kim Dae-Jung, Shirin Ebadi and Desmond Tutu. They have obviously decided to take their struggle against the United States, its ambassador John Bolton and the whole notion of accountability public.

The title of the article was “Human rights: Principles defeat politics at the UN”. This is clearly nonsensical. If principles defeated politics, the UN would cease to exist and Jimmy Carter would have no occasion to keep travelling round the world, making ridiculous comments.

The piece is promoting the compromise proposal put forward by the President of the UN General Assembly, Jan Eliasson for the new Human Rights Commission. It will not be a weak compromise, assert the signatories (as they cannot possibly be the authors).

“The new council creates new expectations that members will uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, fully cooperate with the council, and undergo additional scrutiny through a peer review. Most significantly, a member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights can be suspended from the body.”

Well it can. It always could. But will the process of suspending an errant member go through in the teeth of opposition from other members? Will this new Council, in short, prevent the scandal of Sudan’s presence on it? Seems unlikely. Oh, and by the way, shouldn’t Archbishop Tutu making comments about Darfur?

COMMENT THREAD

Business German-style

It is always nice to know that our European Union trading partners are such splendid chaps, no more so than the DaimlerChrysler group, one of the largest industrial and financial conglomerates in Germany.

Better known as world's fifth largest auto manufacturer and supplier of fine Mercedes automobiles to the likes of Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) and the EU commission, DaimlerCrysler also owns 30.2 percent of EADS, the European aerospace and defence manufacturer, one of the parent companies of Airbus.

We are shocked, therefore, that such a prestige and valued partner has admitted that it has paid bribes on three continents and that "several" employees have been fired or suspended over bribes paid in eastern Europe, Africa and Asia which could break US and German law.

The company has announced that it has "discovered" improper payments – i.e., bribes, often hidden in inflated commissions - going back at least 12 years, after a year-long internal investigation. This includes payment of a kickback to secure a contract for an armoured car under the Iraq oil-for-food sanctions regime, although the company is playing down its involvement, on that, arguing that the bribe was only €6,950.

The admissions could lead to heavy fines and possibly even criminal action in both the US and Germany. The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice in the US are both examining the bribes following allegations by a dismissed employee.

Daimler officials say Dieter Zetsche, the new chief executive, has now put his weight behind to a campaign to promote ethical behaviour by staff, which includes a new code of conduct and an "ethics hotline" for queries.

Nevertheless, this new code of conduct does not extend to admitting how many people were involved in the bribery or in which countries. However, the company has cut €222m from the previously published balance sheet for 2003, a sum which also takes account of under-paid taxes for the period.

A separate discovery that the company had under-paid tax for expatriate employees over the same period led to an €84m reduction in shareholders’ equity in 2003, and a further €25m charge against last year's net income.

However, we are much assured by Daimler's statement that it has "initiated improvements in our business processes as well as in compliance, control and training activities in order to foster a culture defined by openness and honesty."

There is no truth in the rumour that the company has appointed consultants from the EU commission to help it in this task.

COMMENT THREAD

So, does it matter?

[Health warning: This posting will appear to be terminally frivolous to many of our readers and certainly to most of those who post on the forum. I can do nothing but suggest that they do not bother to read it but go on to weightier matters.]

There are two things that most of our readers know about me. Firstly, that I have no interest in toys. This posting will have no toys at all. Got that? No toys.

Secondly, that I am seriously frivolous in my interests, whether it be detective stories or new and old films. In fact, I find it quite hard to live up to the level of seriousness displayed by readers of the blog.

With that preamble, I can launch into the theme: the Oscars. (There, I warned you all.) I have not yet seen the pictures of the various outfits so cannot make any comments about that but I can, together with many other people, write about the awards themselves.

This has been the year of the least watched nominations, as anyone who has read Mark Steyn or various other commentators knows. The most popular of the winners is the documentary, “The March of the Penguins” and that only in the United States. The first Narnia film that was awarded various prizes also did well.

“Crash”, which won the Best Picture award, has already gone into DVD, a bad sign for a main-stream film, however low budget it might have been. The other nominated ones, “Brokeback Mountain”, “Munich”, “Good Night and Good Luck” and “Capote”, have grossed remarkably low.

That, in itself, would not be a problems. The Oscars do not have to go to particularly popular films. The problem is that these are not films from little-known arty film makers. They are all main-stream and have had quite the most astonishing amount of publicity. Yet the public has been staying away in droves.

(To be fair, very few films do all that well nowadays, proof that Hollywood has lost its ability to understand what the audience wants.)

A few years ago there was a genuine surprise at the Oscars when the Italian “La vita e bella” won the Best Picture award. It was genuinely off-beat in that a film that would normally have been nominated for the Best Foreign Language Picture award, was put in for the big one instead and won. As it happens, it was a genuinely moving film handling a difficult issue – the Holocaust in Italy – in an unusual, comical way.

Since then there have been few surprises, though much is being made of the fact that “Brokeback Mountain”, the favourite, did not win.

The other interesting and, even extraordinarily funny, aspect of this year’s nominations is how seriously they have been taken by the industry itself and attendant hacks. Solemnly, we have been told that this is the year in which Hollywood and the Oscars have grown up because so many of the nominations were important, meaningful and dedicated to a cause.

Curiously enough, the causes were all left-wing and the alleged courage of the film-makers non-existent. Just how brave is it to make an anti-McCarthy film? Or one about the supposed evil-doing of corporate pharmaceuticals?

Interestingly enough a more “courageous” or, at least, a more truthful approach to both those subjects would have made better and, possibly, more popular films. If Clooney, or someone else as Clooney is terminally incapable of thinking outside the BDS Hollywood box, were to make a film that looked at the McCarthy era and what went on before it in the light of all the information that has come out in the last decade or so, he might have had something interesting to say.

Why did all those privileged people become Soviet agents? How did the party manage to dupe so many seemingly intelligent individuals like Edward Murrow? Was Murrow a dupe or a liar? How was “McCarthyism” used to prevent any discussion of Communism and Communist infiltration for decades?

Similarly, Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes might consider making a film in which the truth about medical drugs in Africa is told. That would involve a certain amount of research, of course, but the information is available to all who want to read it.

Mind you, the villains would not be big business but African governments who slap taxes on all those drugs that are sold to them at cost price or given free by the companies, thus preventing their use by the people who need them.

Other villains might be African officials who steal the drugs and sell them at highly inflated prices, again interrupting the flow to those who need them. Would Ms Weisz consider playing the heroine in something like that? Somehow, I doubt it. After all, that would mean abandoning all that she “knows” from everybody around her.

And what of the winner “Crash”? Have we not already had many films about the issue of race, some rather more courageous in peeking at the unfashionable red-neck attitudes? Only peeking, mind you.

Homosexuality? As Mark Steyn points out, the most courageous film on that subject was made in 1961. Joseph Losey’s “Accident” dealt with the issue when homosexual activity was still illegal in Britain. Dirk Bogarde took the role of the barrister in the closet at a time when he was one of the great pin-up heroes of young British womanhood. Now, that is courage.

So what do we have? A bunch of outdated and seriously unoriginal ideas put forward by people who take themselves and everything they say far too seriously and are of no interests to the public at large. Sounds like the Conservative Party. In fact, I can almost see George Clooney or Ralph Fiennes in the role of the Tory leader, who comes up with ideas that were buried years ago and people who have retired just as long ago.

There were some very delightful aspects to the whole circus, such as the fact that apart from Rachel Weisz getting an award for looking pretty in trying circumstances, the only British film to win anything was “Wallace and Gromit”. As it happens, I have seen it. (Well, how could I resist a film which was titled “The Curse of the Were-Rabbit”?) It is very good, indeed.

So what does any of it have to do with the European Union? Nothing at all. But it does have something to do with another theme that we pursue on this blog.

As politics and the MSM turns into mass entertainment (some of it extremely cruel), the entertainment industry has decided, unilaterally, to become the conscience of the world and its political intelligence. Sadly, nobody else, apart from dribbling journalists agree with that idea but that has not stopped George Clooney, Rachel Weisz, Ralph Fiennnes, Stephen Spielberg and others, too numerous to mention, from pronouncing endlessly on subjects they have no knowledge or understanding of and, to be quite frank, no interest in. Otherwise, even pea-brains though they are, they might have found out something new and interesting.

The subject of British films has been uppermost in my mind (incurably frivolous, I tell ya) because on Friday I went to the National Film Theatre to see that wonderful 1954 comedy “The Constant Husband” with Rex Harrison, Kay Kendall, Margaret Leighton, Cecil Parker and a host of other excellent British actors.

What is it that made it possible for the British to make good films for quite a long time? Why can they not do so any longer? As it happens, I did see “Mrs Henderson Presents”, a rather fatuous and plot-less film about the Windmill Theatre, for which Judi Dench was nominated for the Best Actress Award. She was very good, as was Bob Hoskins, but neither was what I would call an outstandingly stellar performance. And the film was dull.

(As for our other hopeful, Keira Knightley – forget it. I am not going anywhere near what is quite clearly a travesty of one of the greatest novels in English literature.)

In the end I come to the same conclusion. Films were made by people who saw their art or craft or trade as being part of entertainment. Not only they were more popular, they were actually better – better written, better directed, better produced, better acted. How many of the ultra serious, self-important Oscar winners and nominations will be watched in ten years’ time? A big round number, I should say. But “The Constant Husband”? No problem.

Oh well, I suppose the two films that, respectively, justified and glorified terrorism, “Munich” and “Paradise Now”, got nothing. One must be thankful for small mercies.

COMMENT THREAD

The equality of wimmin

The capacity of the EU commission to capitalise on meaningless events, and then to devote its energies to fatuous, irrelevant schemes, never ceases to amaze.

Its latest wheeze, in conjunction with International Women's Day on 8 March 2006, is to get its statistical body, Eurostat, to publish tables providing information on women in the EU, showing differences and similarities with men.

In the spirit of international co-operation and helpfulness, we have published some pictures, just in case the commission is still having difficulties. The first picture is of a car.

A helpful summary by Bloomberg states that "EU Women Work More, Live Longer, Are Better Educated, Earn Less", but then, I think we knew that.

We are also told that women work more hours a day - including paid employment, study and household work - in every country surveyed except Sweden. The average life expectancy of women in the EU is 81.2 years, compared with 75.1 for men. Women, who account for more than half of university-level students in almost all EU member states, earn 15 percent less than men once in the workforce.

Women were more likely to be unemployed than men in the EU, only 32 percent of managers in the EU are female, and about a third of working women are in part-time jobs compared with 7 percent of men. The biggest gaps between men's and women's pay were in Cyprus, Estonia and Slovakia with about a 25 percent difference. The narrowest gaps were in Malta, Portugal and Belgium, at around 5 percent.

Anyhow, nothing is for nothing, and the release of these statistics is all part of the commission’s strategy to raise awareness of women's issues, not that its members are actually interested in women per se – especially Mr Mandelson.

No, the real agenda is to kick-start its stalled plans for yet another EU institution, its European Gender Institute, which was launched last year – on International Women's Day 2005 – a location for which has yet to be agreed, even though it is supposed to be up and running in January 2007.

The problem, as always, is the EU's very own version of pork-barrel politics. As EUpolitix points out, the institution comes with a €52.5m annual budget so there is much competition between member states as to which country will be awarded the dubious honour of hosting the offices.

The decidedly male social affairs commissioner, Vladimir Spidla, hints that agreement may not be in place by the time the institute opens it doors, in which case it will have to start its life in temporary lodgings in Brussels.

The original plan was for it to open in Vienna, close to where the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency located, but the new accession states – which as yet do not have an EU institute to call their own, have been lobbying hard to relocate the body in one of the new states.

In due course, one expects this will be resolved, and the new HQ will be located in the far-flung reaches of the empire, staffed on strict gender equality lines, so far from the main corridors of power that, even if it had a useful existence, it would be unable to influence the course of events. However, at least then it (presumably) female chief executive can get an equal glimpse of the realities of the European Union.

COMMENT THREAD

East, west, home's best

Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph did manage to throw up one interesting piece, written by Justin Stares, the ST stringer who writes for the little-read but highly regarded Lloyds List.

He reports that, after decades of encouraging the free movement of workers, the EU has conceded that all but a tiny number stay put. Despite the EU mantra of "ever closer union" and the widespread impression that western Europe is groaning with "Polish plumbers", the reality is that people prefer to stay at home.

Just 1.5 percent of member state citizens of working age live in an EU state other than their country of origin. What is more, that percentage has changed little in 30 years, rather negating the argument that the EU has brought greater movement. It seems that we were just as likely to work in Europe before the EU, despite the lack of rules which the commission claims are so necessary.

Moreover, the reasons why people are so reluctant to look further afield than their own home countries turn out to be rather predictable. They are put off by the prospect of having to learn a foreign language, they don't want to lose touch with family and friends, and they feel they will lose valuable support such as childcare or care for the elderly. Most of all, though, they are happy where they are already.

Ever willing to flog a dead horse, though, the commission is going to set up a "mobility road show" and promote hundreds of "awareness-building" events, all aimed at increasing the flow of workers around the EU.

You can see why the commission must do this. Only by creating a large body of rootless, tranzie workers, detached from their own national base can it hope to build a European demos – people who owe more to "Europe" than the state in which they were born. And, like everything else the commission turns its hand to, it will prove a failure.

COMMENT THREAD

Another anniversary

My colleague has written about the real anniversary to be celebrated today: the first flight of the Spitfire. But there is another important event associated with March 5 – the death of Joseph Stalin. Well, to be quite accurate, this is when his death was announced and we cannot be quite sure when he actually died. It would appear that he had a stroke a day or so before his death but none of his hastily summoned cohorts dared to call a doctor. Then again, neither were they too keen on letting him live.

Today is the fifty-third anniversary of that momentous event. As we believe in a certain amount of recycling on this blog, I have decided to post the article I wrote for the Salisbury Review in 2003 for the fiftieth anniversary:

“Fear and fascination fifty years on

Fear is the overwhelming theme of Russian history. People fear the rulers and the rulers constantly fear the people. There is other fear: that experienced by members of the ruling caste both of those above and those below; that experienced by the educated elite, that used to be known as the intelligentsia of the dark people, the incomprehensible peasantry, the masses.

Fifty years ago this month all those strands coalesced. On March 5 1953 died Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, the dreaded master of Russia and the other republics, of satellite colonies and of foreign communist parties. A man so feared and yet so adored that his name was pronounced only with awe. Otherwise, people whispered nicknames and avoided any mention. A man, whose closest colleagues sweated (and worse) with fear every time he summoned them. A man, who, with all that, was so afraid of the people that he rejected the very idea of a home guard in Moscow as the German army rolled forward in the autumn and winter of 1941, certain that the guns would be turned on him and his immediate entourage.

His death provoked relief but also fear. There were worried mutterings about what might happen next. The authorities were so afraid that on the day of the funeral side streets were blocked off with armoured cars. A sudden wave of panic drove many of the huge crowd to the barriers and hundreds, maybe thousands, were crushed to death. As he ruled, so he died: surrounded by a sea of blood.

In the free and wealthy West his death was mourned far more. Liberals and left-wing politicians, writers, journalists, academics, even the occasional trade union activist saw Stalin’s Soviet Union as the shining beacon, the great hope of mankind. To do this, they resorted to greater and more extensive lying than any supporter of the Nazi regime had done. For decades the existence of labour camps and torture chambers, the death of millions of people and destruction of whole sections of the population was denied.

Each small and carefully controlled revelation from the Soviet Union was greeted with shock and surprise. Those who wrote openly about the Soviet reality were vilified as cold warriors, reactionaries, fascists. Only slowly has the truth about Communism been accepted. And really, has it? Yes, people sort of know that it was a nasty regime but there are few discussions and any mention of Communist labour camps is dismissed as being tiresome and unimportant. It is all finished. Let us not talk about it.

But alas, we need to talk about it. The man who died fifty years ago and his influence has distorted European and world politics to a far greater degree than his equally vicious colleague and enemy, Hitler, did. Yet Hitler’s deeds and misdeeds are analyzed repeatedly and, more importantly, castigated. Any apologist for Nazism is denounced immediately and rightly; more, anyone who doubts the accepted version of the Holocaust is equally denounced. Apologists for Stalin, deniers of the Communist mass murder are still highly regarded and it is their opponents that are vilified. Fifty years after the death of the Great Leader and one of the world’s greatest criminals it is time for the West to start thinking seriously about his deeds and their consequences.”

Another man who died on the same day was the composer Prokofiev. And forty years ago, on March 5, 1966, the great Russian poet Anna Akhmatova, who had created one of the great monuments to the victims of the Terror in her sequence of poems, Requiem, died.

One more anniversary, also to do with that evil system: on March 5, 1946, exactly 60 years ago Winston Churchill, then Leader of the Opposition, gave a speech in Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri. The speech was carefully listened to by President Truman.

He warned against Soviet expansionism and the various Communist fifth columns that were operating in western and southern Europe. He reminded his listeners of the perils of appeasement and, although, not all East European countries had become actual Soviet colonies, he presciently and memorably pronounced:

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.”

The iron curtain has gone but we have not yet recovered from its effects.

COMMENT THREAD

The perils of spin

You go in at about 180 knots, ease the stick back, pulling about 2G. As the nose lifts above the horizon, you close the throttle and let the speed wash off. The controls slacken and you pull the stick right back into your stomach. It goes quiet… 90 knots and you're looking at the sky… 85 knots and you feel the pre-stall buffeting. Quickly, you boot full left rudder.

In a flash, you're no longer looking at the sky. The aircraft is plummeting, gyrating wildly. The rudder bar kicks against your feet and the stick lashes out at you like a wild animal. You centralise the controls, locking your feet on the rudder bar and gripping the stick… it takes both hands and all your strength.

Count the turns… the sun is your marker. Flash! One. Flash! Two… confirm the direction of turn. Flash! Three. Apply full opposite rudder. The turn stops and you centralise, ease forward on the stick and bleed on the throttle. As the speed builds up, you ease the stick back and pull through, back to level flight.

Then you lift your visor to wipe the sweat from your eyes and grip the stick again, easing cramped muscles, hoping your instructor does not notice you are shaking - part exhilaration, part terror. You have just recovered from your first spin.

In a modern training aircraft, spin recovery is relatively routine, but even then you are gravely warned that if you have not pulled out by five turns, you don’t mess about – you eject. In the first aircraft, the spin was irrecoverable and almost invariably fatal. Even in some modern aircraft, it is still so.

But its is spin of a different kind that seems set to do for the Joint Strike Fighter. Booker today, as we mentioned in the post before this, picks up on the current situation, as we see it, summarising our most recent reports here and here.

But today, also, The Business picks up the story, reporting that there is to be a "US Senate inquiry into F-35 contract". More precisely, this is to be an inquiry into the Pentagon proposal to cancel the second engine for the JSF - in which Rolls Royce has a 40 percent stake. This is entirely expected and predictable - as part of the normal political process of vetting the US defence budget. To this, we have referred several times, not least here, here and here.

But, to this innocuous and expected development, which was reported in more detail by Market Watch on 2 March, The Business adds that the moves "comes amid frustration in the Ministry of Defence that the Pentagon is becoming increasingly protective about the project – and that it may not be viable if Britain cannot have access to software codes used for the aircraft."

This is definitely part of the "spin" that we consider is part of a concerted move by the government to prepare the ground for abandoning the JSF project in favour of purchasing the French-built Rafale, as part of a side-deal linked with the building of the Royal Navy’s new carriers.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not fully on-side on this, and The Business reiterates the line taken earlier by procurement shadow Gerald Howarth, this time in the mouth of shadow defence secretary Liam Fox, who says the deal threatens to split the transatlantic alliance by pushing Britain towards European defence alliances. "There are a lot of people wanting to pull Britain out of the JSF," Fox is cited as saying. “We have expressed our concerns that the JSF contracts have strategic, not just financial implications.”

The Business story concludes that it understands the MoD has little hope of resurrecting the Rolls-Royce deal, a level of pessimism that is not shared by some US commentators – indicative perhaps of yet more spin.

Behind all this is building a low-level propaganda campaign that is seeking to project the UK is somehow being badly treated by the US over the JSF project but, as a recent report in TMC Net indicates, this is far from the case. Apart from the involvement of Rolls Royce,

BAE Systems facilities in both the US and UK are responsible for the design and delivery of key areas of the vehicle and weapon systems, in particular the fuel system, crew escape, life support system and Prognostics Health Management integration. The company also has significant work share in Autonomic Logistics, primarily on the support system side, and is involved in the Integrated Test Force, including the systems flight test and mission systems.

BAE Systems is also designing and developing the F-35's Electronic Warfare systems suite and is providing advanced affordable low observable apertures and advanced countermeasure systems. Additionally, the company is supplying the Vehicle Management Computer, the Communication, Navigation and Identification modules, the active inceptor system and the EOTS Laser subsystem.

The report goes on to say that the system development and demonstration phase is estimated to be worth more than $3 billion to the company and production contracts could total $21 billion. These figures do not include export sales, support or other opportunities such as upgrade programs.

In all, the F-35 project has a major British component, much of which could well be at risk if the government does pull out. And if that happens, it will be because, as Booker writes, Britain's defences and military procurement have now been locked into the European integration process.

He concludes that the most remarkable feature of this astonishing shift in Britain’s defence policy is that our government has been able to drive it forward without ever admitting what it is up to - and virtually without anyone noticing. Whatever else we write, that much is true. Much of what we do deduce is, inevitably, informed speculation. But at least we are following the developments, while the MSM has abandoned its duty in this respect and is letting a major issue go unremarked.

COMMENT THREAD

Booker

In an exhibition of amateurism to which we have become accustomed, The Sunday Telegraph prints the wrong, uncorrected version of the Booker column, failing to input the key corrections we always make to the first draft. We publish here, therefore, the full text of the correct version of the first story:

In Cambridgeshire, John Prescott is planning a new town for 20,000 people, Northstowe, on land owned by a body, English Partnerships, run by his department. It is the biggest single planning application ever submitted in the UK.

Yet the councillor for the community most immediately affected by these plans has been told that, under Mr Prescott's "Code of Conduct" for local councillors, he cannot in any way represent the views of his electors, must leave the room whenever the plans are discussed and that it will be an offence even for him to discuss the subject with other councillors or to attend informal briefing meetings on the planning application.

There cannot be a clearer example of the way Mr Prescott’s Code of Conduct is being used to stamp out democracy in our local authorities than the ruthless gagging of Councillor Alex Riley, who was elected to South Cambridgeshire district council in 2004 specifically to voice the concerns of the villagers of Longstanton over the plan to build this new town next to their village.

Councillor Riley was astonished to be told in October 2005 that he would no longer be permitted to put the views for which his neighbours elected him, This has been made repeatedly clear to him by Colin Tucker, the council's "monitoring officer", a post created by Mr Prescott’s Local Government Act 2000, to enforce the new Code of Conduct for councillors issued by Mr Prescott in 2001. The Code is ultimately enforced by the Standards Board for England, the body of which few had ever heard until it suspended Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London.

Mr Tucker has ruled that, because Councillor Riley lives near the site of the new town, this gives him a "personal and prejudicial interest", which not only excludes him from any discussion of it in the council but bars him from even discussing it with fellow councillors.

Councillor Riley's latest "offence", which he has been warned could lead to his disqualification to act as a councillor anywhere in the country, was to send emails asking for help in rectifying inaccurate council minutes of a meeting relating to Northstowe from which he had been barred.

So widespread has been concern in the council over this issue that, in January, South Cambridgeshire's chief executive, David Ballantyne, sought advice from David Prince, the chief executive of the Standards Board. He explained that many people felt that Mr Tucker's interpretation of the Code of Conduct was "over-zealous" and were troubled by the fact that Mr Riley was not being allowed to represent the views of his electors. But he enclosed a QC's opinion, commissioned by Mr Tucker, which supported Mr Tucker's view and suggested that one option would be for Councillor Riley to resign.

Mr Prince conceded that similar concerns about "over-zealous interpretation" had been expressed "up and down the country", but confirmed that Mr Tucker’s reading, "far from being over-zealous", was fully supported by the Standards Board. Since I first reported on this issue, which is arousing growing alarm and anger in many councils, I have been approached by several MPs. Next week I hope to report on another case which suggests that the Standards Board is relying on a fundamental misreading of the law.

This story, although not directly linked with EU affairs, is nonetheless relevant in that it illustrates our thesis that our membership of the EU is but a symptom of a broader malaise, the most visible signs of which are the gradual but inexorable erosion of our democracy.

In the Observer today, Henry Porter gives another example, commenting on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill which, when enacted, will give the government power to ministers to make laws without the scrutiny of Parliament and, in some cases, to delegate that power to unelected officials.

While this is raising considerable concerns, we on this blog have been largely underwhelmed, recognising that this Bill simply codifies that which is already current practice in the way we are governed. After all, what is EU law, other than law made without the scrutiny of Parliament, which MPs are then obliged to implement – notwithstanding that EU Regulations come into force without any reference to Parliament?

For the rest, by far the bulk of legislation going through the system comes in the form of Statutory Instruments, which receive only notional scrutiny. They are framed by unelected official, they cannot be amended and are virtually impossible to overturn.

However, if the new Bill means that some of the "clever-dicks" are getting worked up about the erosion of our democracy, that can do no harm. Give them time, and they will put two and two together, and make the EU link.

As to Booker’s second story, he picks up on our report last week, on the JSF. The Business covers the JSF today as well, so we shall do a separate post on both stories.

Booker also deals with the British Chambers of Commerce report, that we covered on the blog and, for his finalé, he has a tilt at the Kinnock dynasty, with the following put-down:

Some readers were struck by my reference last week to the fact that, as a former vice-president of the European Commission, Lord Kinnock is entitled to a pension worth £75,000 a year, since this is a higher figure than has been quoted before. It derives from a written answer given to Lord Pearson of Rannoch on January 11 2005.

This shows that, on reaching 65 in two years time, Lord Kinnock will draw 45 percent of his final salary of £165,000, and is entitled to draw most of that already. On this he pays tax, at a special preferential rate for EU employees of only 11 percent, to the Belgian government.

This is of course in addition to what he receives as chairman of that increasingly rum body the British Council; not to mention the rewards received by the rest of his family, including his son Stephen, head of the British Council in St Petersburg; his wife Glenys, who receives £200,000 a year in salary and expenses as an MEP; and daughter Rachel, also on the EU payroll as her mother's researcher.

In the Kinnock dynasty, we have the embodiment of the "snouts in the trough" gravy train, that family doing more to bring the EU into disrepute than any hundred Eurosceptics. In that respect, they are almost worth what they cost us.

COMMENT THREAD

The way we were

This day, exactly seventy years ago, at 4.35 pm on 5 March 1936, the first ever Spitfire lifted from the grass strip at Eastleigh Airport, home of Supermarine Aircraft, on its maiden flight.

In the hands of Captain "Mutt" Summers, the flight lasted just eight minutes. Afterwards, he stepped from the aircraft and tersely conveyed to the assembled crew that he had found no problems - then he added "I don't want anything touched" - and so the first official Spitfire was born, the cost of development to that date amounting to the sum of £14,637.

This was the aircraft, alongside the Hawker Hurricane, which was to play a pivotal part in winning the Battle of Britain in 1940. Back in 1936, so impressed was the Air Ministry with it that, even before the full test programme had been completed they issued a contract for 310 Spitfires on 3 June 1936.

The aircraft alone, however – superb though it was – would never have performed without the parallel development of the 12-cylinder Rolls Royce Merlin engine. But there were two other developments which gave it the edge over the Messerschmitt bf 109 – one British, the other American.

The first was the three-bladed, variable-pitch propellor, manufactured by Rotol, and the other was leaded petrol. A consignment of the vital tetra-ethyl lead was rushed over to the UK, just before the Battle of Britain. With it, Roll Royce were able to increase the power of their Merlins, which gave the aircraft those extra few knots that made all the difference.

Behind the fighters, of course, there was that other British invention, the chain of early-warning radars, linked in with a then unique system of fighter control, which enabled the embattled Royal Air Force to prevail against the greater might of the hitherto unbeaten Luftwaffe.

Interestingly, seventy years later, the Spitfire has come in the top three in the Design Museum contest for greatest British design since 1900, the other two being Harry Beck's 1931 London Underground map and, perversely, the Anglo-French Concorde.

In a hundred years time, if the Design Museum runs another contest, this one for the greatest British design since 2000, you can almost guarantee that there will not be a Spitfire-equivalent. In this era of European "co-operation", the days when we built our own war machines have long gone.

COMMENT THREAD

Stresses and strains

Illustrative of the stresses that are building up in the EU, the European Central Bank yesterday has raised euro interest rates a quarter point to 2.5 percent, setting off a storm of protest in Italy.

There, the Berlusconi government accused the ECB of "monetary masochism" and warned that its fragile recovery could stall again after zero growth in 2005. Worse still, the Northern League, part of the ruling coalition, said it was stepping up a drive for a return to the lira.

This is according to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph, who also reports that the ECB president, Jean-Claude Trichet, is entirely indifferent to the plight of Italy.

Since its inception, the ECB has been concerned only with controlling inflation and Trichet is saying that the bank was "ready to do whatever is necessary'' on this front. And, with Eurozone inflation remaining at 2.2 percent, most experts predict further rate rises in the coming months.

Italy's big problem is that its own internal inflation continues and it is losing competitiveness against Germany at a rate of 3 percent a year. With a debt of 108 percent of GDP and rising, it faces serious problems with tightening rates and debt levels are expected to "go through the roof."

In the past it has resorted to devaluations to regain lost competitiveness but, with the "one-size-fits-none" single currency, it now faces, on the brink of a general election, the bleak prospect of deflation to claw back lost ground against Germany.

Meanwhile, back in Brussels, Ambrose reports, the EU commission is belatedly trying to reassert its authority in a bid to check the slide towards economic nationalism in the so-called "take-over war".

After first denying that the French action was illegal, and then declaring that the commission needed a formal notification from one of the parties before acting, Charlie McCreevy, the single-market commissioner, is now saying that the French government may, after all, have breached EU law by orchestrating the merger of Suez and Gaz de France to scupper the takeover by Italy's Enel. Yesterday, he wrote to Paris demanding an explanation - the first step towards legal action.

EU lawyers are also drawing up a response to a new Spanish decree, widely denounced as a move to block a possible take-over of the Madrid electricity group Endesa by Germany's E.on, where last-minute clauses appear to give Spain's energy commission sweeping powers to block mergers. Madrid's El Mundo newspaper suggested that the plan was to shut out E.on on security grounds, purportedly because the German group relies on gas from Russia, while Endesa depends on Algerian gas.

Nevertheless, McCreevy is not going to have an easy time of it. Both the Spanish and French governments are in a rebellious mood and the French are already planning measures to block further foreign take-over bids. More than ever before, the commission is on the back foot, and the grand dream of European integration is looking distinctly jaded.

COMMENT THREAD

Golly

In another wonderful snapshot of this England, we learn from the Daily Telegraph that police have seized three golliwogs from a shop window display after a passer-by complained that they were racist.

Officers told Donald Reynolds, the owner of Pettifers hardware and gift store in Bromyard, Herefordshire, they were acting on the complaint. Mr Reynolds, 53, said the seizure, rather predictably, was a case of "society gone mad". He said: "I can't really see what I have done wrong. The town thinks it is hilarious. Many people have told me they had gollies - I can't say golliwogs - when they were younger."

This was West Mercia Police, cited as Britain’s "best performing" police force by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Police. They said they had acted under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. It outlawed the display of offensive material, "which might cause or was likely to lead to alarm, harassment or distress."

Of course, one fully appreciates that the plods were quite right to take immediate action to deal with this egregious offence, just as the Metropolitan plods were absolutely right to take no action whatsoever against those harmless Muslim enthusiasts who, one month ago, paraded their messages of peace and harmony through the streets of London.

As for the golliwogs, it is also comforting to see that Worcester racial equality council is on the case. Its spokesperson said the sale of golliwogs could cause offence, even: "It may lead to a worsening of race relations." Quite.

COMMENT THREAD

You shall not die!

It is very easy to see why the EU has taken so enthusiastically to its road safety portfolio. The subject offers endless opportunities to pander to the "nanny state" tendency inherent in the construct, allowing sundry politicians to lecture us on our behaviour.

Latest in this line-up is Hubert Gorbach, vice chancellor and transport minister of Austria, commenting on the EU’s mid-term review of its Road Safety Strategy.

According to the faithful Reuters, Gorbach's target is the citizens of the EU's mostly ex-Communist new member states. They must, he says, get in the habit of wearing seatbelts to help cut the high number of road deaths in the Union. "Forty-thousand people are killed on the roads every year in Europe," he wails. "That's terrible."

The particular problem identified, to explain the rise in road accidents in the accession countries, is the lack of seatbelt usage. The level of use in nations such as Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands was 95 percent, while that in countries that joined the EU in 2004 was a low 70 percent. "There's a great potential for improvement there," says Gorbach.

Other explanations offered for the death toll in the accession countries – but buried deep in the commission's working document is the fact that high-powered, modern West European motor cars are now available in increasing number in the East, but they are being driven on decrepit roads which are not designed for them – with disastrous results.

To remedy that, however, would cost real money and take considerable time, so it is much easier for Gorbach to hector the citizens. As always, he offers the mantra that people in road crashes not wearing are seven times more likely to die than those who are belted up.

That conveniently ignores the number who have been killed because they were wearing seatbelts. Certainly, if in the one major crash in which I was involved (as a passenger), I had been wearing a seatbelt, I would have been killed. Instead, I was thrown clear, and suffered only a brief spell of unconsciousness, while the part of the sports car in which I had been sitting was completely demolished after impacting with a telegraph pole.

One expert, John Adams, author of the book "Risk", sheds a different light on the issue. He agrees that, overall, death rates in accidents are lower but argues that, when drivers feel safer – such as when they are wearing seatbelts – they take more risks, and thus have more accidents. Often, the risk is transferred from the drivers to pedestrians.

Thus, says Adams, if you really want to improve safety overall, the way to do it is to have a sharpened steel spike projecting from the centre of the steering wheel of every car. But what makes me think that an amendment to the EU's vehicle construction and use regulations, along these lines, is not in the offing?

Photo courtesy of autoliv.com

COMMENT THREAD

The European Dating Agency

Yesterday, EU officials proposed that member states should share the costs of developing new protective technology for soldiers and vehicles on joint missions in hotspots such as Congo.

That was the substance of a piece in the International Herald Tribune, which went on to report that under the plan, countries would agree to relinquish some control over the ways in which funds are spent. The immediate target is the development of such technologies as lightweight body armour and vehicle defensive systems.

The project, says the IHT citing unnamed officials, would be voluntary but could eventually lead to more ambitious initiatives and defence ministers are now to discuss the idea in Innsbruck, Austria, next week. EU officials are hoping they will agree by mid-May to let the fledgling European Defence Agency (EDA) oversee the project.

Even the IHT admits that this could be optimistic, suggesting that the project could be "a tough sell" at a time when the EU is concerned by an apparent drift toward protectionism.

For once, it seems, the Conservatives are on the ball, with Liam Fox, shadow defence secretary, speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, his view amplified on the Conservative website.

According to this source, Fox warned that the EU plans, involving the creation of a central budget, and extending co-operation among member states on defence technology and research, would undermine NATO as well as UK relations with the United States.

"It will not just be technology. They will be looking for common European procurement, and once we get the Commission involved in that, then we are well on our way to having an integrated European defence policy," he said, adding – of the modest plan proposed,: "This will be only the start. Once this budget is started, then they will be looking for more money."

Fox goes on to say that the policy represented the thin end of the wedge, claiming that co-operation on technology would soon lead to an integrated defence policy. He declared: "That diminishes Britain's relationship with the United States, it undermines NATO, and it is typical of a Government that talks very transatlantic when it is in Washington, but ultimately buys European when it has to deal with its French allies."

However, Reuters, picking up on the Today programme, reports that “Britain opposes common EU defence fund”, retailing a comment by a British “senior official” that the UK instead wants EU states instead to focus on raising their meagre spending in the area

It cites Lord Drayson saying that he would resist the creation of a new centralised budget and pursue its policy of picking individual projects for cross-border co-operation.

The programme itself had Drayson saying that the UK preferred member states to keep control of the own defence budgets, and wanted the EDA to look after "low level" projects, and that it should "not run before it had learnt to walk".

That comment did not seem to rule out a greater role for the EDA in the future but, for the moment, Drayson is dismissive. The EDA, he say, is a European Dating Agency, identifying common needs and putting member states in touch with each other. Dating may be all Drayson has in mind, but what follows could be a shotgun marriage.

Graphic by Anoneumouse.

COMMENT THREAD

To the barricades

Tom Utley in today's Telegraph takes what some might think as a slightly odd line. He argues that New Labour, having rubber-stamped EU directive 2003/20/EC - requiring that most children up to the age of 10 (and shorter children of 11) must be strapped into special child seats or made to sit on booster cushions – is the reason that we must now get out of the European Union.

Far be it for me to disagree with him, one might still think this is a rather OTT reaction – after all, this is only one minor directive, hardly a cause over which to go to the barricades.

But, reading Utley's argument, you can quite see the sense in it. He uses the directive – and, in particular the way it comes to be part of our legal code – to illustrate the generally undemocratic way the EU works and how, through a series of petty restrictions, the EU is having a cumulative effect on our liberties.

I can hardly disagree with his general thesis. After all, my route to Euroscepticism came via the Poultry Meat Marketing Directive where, for the first time, I saw how EU law affected me personally. From there, I learned that others were similarly affected and drew the conclusion that the EU (or EEC as it was then) was not for me.

In that way, many of us become converts to the Eurosceptic cause – when one or other EU impost has impacted on us personally, which opens our eyes to the wider problem. And if Utley's route is via booster cushions, so be it.

Actually, the example he gives is one that has great resonance with my own personal circumstances. Utley cites a family holiday in the west of Ireland during his childhood when the family was joined by his father's secretary. He writes:

Our car at the time was a Fiat 500 - one of those tiny little Italian jobs, barely bigger than a bubble car. People never believe me when I tell them this, but I am almost sure that my memory serves me faithfully: all seven of us crammed into that baked-beans can of a car - three adults and four children, with luggage for a fortnight on the roof-rack - for the long drive from London to the Holyhead ferry and from Dublin to the west coast. I will not pretend that it was a safe or a comfortable way to travel, taking it in turns to sit on each other's knees in the front and the back. But somehow all seven of us survived, and a good time was had by all.

As a boy, I had similar experience as our very first family car was a Series I Land Rover (short wheelbase) which, predictably, we christened "Tilly". My mother, who had been taught to drive a Civil Defence Ambulance, then took us all over the place, to our great delight, and I recall upwards of 12 children (we once got 16 in it), myself included, tearing around the countryside in this vehicle.

The prized position was in the very back, sitting at the rear opening of the canvas tilt, where we could lean out and observe the countryside, or gesture to following motorists.

The like of those treasured experiences, and those of young Utley, are now to be denied to future generations. They will be illegal - courtesy of the EU. Perhaps that is a cause over which it is worth going to the barricades.

COMMENT THREAD

They do keep trying

Anyone who followed the Asian Tsunami crisis and its aftermath will recall the impotence of the EU and other transnational organisations, compared with the swift response of the United States, Australia, Japan and other nations who quickly organised themselves into a "core group" to bring aid. If there was any lesson to learn, therefore, it was that national governments were the most effective deliverers of humanitarian aid.

The same applies to routine development aid, not least as the EU’s aid-delivery organisation, ECHO has become a by-word for fraud and inefficiency rivalled only by UN aid organisations.

Amazingly, though, this does not stop either organisation calling for more funds and greater roles in the delivery of aid, the latest pitch coming from EU aid commissioner Louis Michel.

According to Reuters, Michel is now suggesting that the EU’s 25 member states should pool their aid resources, vesting control of the funds in the EU, "to make their assistance go further and give the EU a greater voice in the world."

The EU calls itself the biggest aid donor in the world, with EU figures showing its countries provided a total $43.3 billion in 2004, although it is the member states rather than the EU itself which provides the aid. But that is not good enough for Michel. He wants to “co-ordinate” the money, and use it to expand the EU's influence as a donor.

However, this is from the commission that is seriously tarnished - unable to get its legislative programme through, weak and hesitant on the "Cartoon Wars" and slow to respond on the current "take-over" rebellion.

Thus, member states are already expressing doubts about the EU ambitions, with one diplomat saying that they will want to make sure that the move will not allow the commission to accrue greater powers in dispensing aid. Nor with they permit it to interfere with individual member states co-operating with other (non-EU international donors.)

You have to give it to the commission, though. When it comes to self-promotion, they do keep trying.

COMMENT THREAD

Freedom of speech - 2

In an article in the Canadian National Post, John O’Sullivan explained the refusal to discuss Communist crimes to be the result of the Left’s bad conscience:

“These, surely, are the uneasy consciences of post-communist Europe, guiltily aware that for seven decades they have turned a blind eye to the evils of communism. They too had been Marxists and had at various times supported the Soviets, Mao, Ho-Chi-Minh, Fidel, and all the other murderers. And they are unwilling even today to surrender their Marxist illusions which gave them a sense of moral and intellectual superiority over their political opponents.

They have their counterparts on an American Left that regards McCarthyism as a greater evil than Kolyma and the Arctic slave camps. As the piles of communism's corpses mounted, increasingly impossible to deny or justify except for the most intellectually calloused, both Lefts have tried to silence their consciences by preventing the subject ever being raised--that and "crying witch.".”

With the East European countries taking an ever more vigorous part in European and world politics, it has become more and more difficult to pass over Communist crimes. Soon even Tory MPs will realize that there were two depraved systems in the twentieth century.

Recently the Parliamentary Committee of the Council of Europe (PACE), though this would never happen in the European Parliament (the Toy Parliament), voted by a simple majority to condemn the crimes of Communism. According to the report these included:

“… individual and collective assassinations, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportation, torture, slave labor and other forms of mass physical terror”.

Most of us would call that pretty depraved, Ms Villiers. PACE went so far as to equate Communism and Nazism, calling them both totalitarian, and to call for “moral restitution” for the surviving victims. That, presumably, means some form of apology.

A tougher resolution that called on the European governments to condemn Communism and to investigate those guilty of crimes who were still living (these, incidentally, would not be eighty-something year old men but somewhat younger) did not get the necessary two-thirds majority.

It was blocked by the Russian delegation, and a combination of the existing Communist parties, and the United Left of the Greens and various socialists. One must distinguish, they whined, between Communist ideology and Communist governments, who committed the crimes. The ideology was super-excellent, meant for the best for everyone, and must not be sullied by the crimes.

As Mr O’Sullivan points out, it is hard to get away from

“… the curious fact that the crimes were invariably committed wherever communists came to power”.

Even the very limited PACE resolution has been denounced by various West European socialists (who clearly do not wish to know what happened to their political brethren under Communist regimes) as a “witch-hunt of progressive forces”.

That brings me to another historical event about which endless lies have been told and are being told.

One of the big Hollywood movies of the year is George Clooney’s “Good Night and Good Luck”. Rapturously greeted by critics, though disdained by the public, it is yet another “courageous” account of the evils of McCarthyism, this time focusing on the TV journalist Edward Murrow, who launched a counter-attack, in defence of friends of his, who had been accused of being Communist agents.

How many times have we heard of the evil McCarthyite witch-hunts that destroyed innocent people’s lives through accusations of Communism? Lies, all lies and pernicious lies at that.

There has been no evidence of a single innocent person being accused. In fact, documents found in Moscow and published in the last decade show that the extent of Communist subversion in American public life was far greater than even Senator McCarthy believed.

The Hollywood Ten? Every one of them has admitted to secret membership of the Party and to following the party line in providing propaganda and destroying the reputation of anyone who tried to tell the truth.

Anyone who wants to know about that whole sad tale can read the well researched “Red Star Over Hollywood” by Radosh and Radosh.

As for Murrow, the freedom-defending, truth-seeking journalist, as he was described by the Daily Telegraph film critic, he was either a liar or a dupe. An article recently published on TechCentral Station goes into the whole story. Mark Steyn picks up another episode in the film and proves the same point. Ironically, the truth would have made a better and, possibly, a more popular film.

The persistent lies of writers and film-makers who have produced a completely distorted picture of McCarthyism and what had led up to it has made any reasonable discussion about Communism and its horrors very difficult, if not impossible. The slightest mention of it and we hear those shrieks of “witch-hunt” and “McCarthyism”.

Hizonner the Mayor of LondON has even gone so far as to call people who have criticized him for his persistently anti-Jewish attitude a new and updated form of McCarthyism.

Lies and falsification. Should we not arrest and imprison the people who are responsible? If not the film-makers (though I would give much to shut up George Clooney the next time he starts pontificating) then at least the historians. Yet there would be demands for just that if there was a film that justified Nazi propaganda or pretended that it never really happened and if there were agents, they merely wanted to create a better world and did not quite know what they were getting into.

There is another disturbing aspect to our obsession with the Holocaust. It has been reified, turned into a concept with no understanding of what caused it, who were the people involved, what was the political system that created it.

During the campaigns for and against the Constitution for Europe, as our readers will remember, first the fragrant Margot, then some Dutch MEPs tried to use the Holocaust as an argument for further integration and for the Constitution. (To be fair to the Dutch MEPs, they also tried to use Srebrenice and the Madrid bombing attack.)

There was a justifiable outcry. The fragrant Commissar had to change her speech and prevaricate at great length about what she did and what she did not say in Terezin. Noticeably, of course, she did not go into any detail about the horrors of Communism, a supranational ideology.

The Dutch MEPs were forced to pull their TV ads, though they were available on the internet for a long time.

The word Holocaust is used for all sorts of purposes as the supreme evil with no real understanding. Even more appallingly, the word gulag (the network of labour camps in the Soviet Union) is now trotted out as a reprimand for what we do not like.

Thus, first the Chief Executive of Amnesty International (to the horror of many of the employees), then our own egregious Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, called Guantánamo the new gulag. Setting aside the alliteration and, even, what you might or might not think about Gitmo and its prisoners, comparing it to the gulag is dishonest and despicable.

How many people are there in Guantánamo and how many have died? How many were there in the gulag and how many died? As for comparative conditions, let us not go for the real horror stories. Why not read “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”? With all the horrors, it is the description of a “good” day.

(My father, who was in the camps about the same time, said that the daily rations prisoners received were lower in quantity and calorific value than those given to POWs by the Japanese. Guantánamo, indeed.)

The obsession with the Holocaust is also camouflaging something else – the growing new anti-Semitism in Europe. Partly it comes from the Muslim minorities but partly from the left in politics, who insist that they are anti-Zionists and not anti-Semites.

Well, that depends. Criticism of the Israeli government is a legitimate exercise. Most Israelis do it all the time and, anyway, it is only a government and they are only politicians.

To say you are anti-Israeli is a little trickier. The idea that you can be anti any country, no matter what, is absurd, but then people are anti-American in the same mindless fashion. (I recall somebody saying to me with great surprise, when I expressed some criticism of the American government: “But I thought you were pro-American.” Largely I am, but it is not a religion. Of course, for the anti-Americans it often is.)

If you are also anti-Zionist, you are saying that the Jewish people have no right to have a country; that those who want to sweep Israel into the sea are right. Confronted with this logic, most “anti-Zionists” back away and mutter about occupied territories but the truth remains: Hamas, for instance, thinks all the territories are occupied and even the land that had been legally sold must be “returned”.

Let us face it, “anti-Zionism” goes way beyond it. We have a situation when the most disgusting cartoons are published about the Israeli Prime Minister in newspapers such as the Guardian or the Independent. Some of them could have come out of Der Stürmer, but no, I don’t think they should be banned. Incidentally, I do not recall any demonstrations.

The Association of Univeristy Teachers (yes, I know, who cares about them) tried to pass a resolution to ban all Israeli academics from British universities and conferences. The attempt failed but only just. All Israeli academics? Nothing like that had ever been suggested about Soviet or South African ones.

The Church of England Synod has voted for a financial disengagement from Israel and Israeli businesses, saying in effect that Israel is uniquely evil. It has not suggested to do so with China, for instance, or any Middle Eastern country that persecutes Christians mercilessly. To his credit, former Archbishop Carey expressed his disgust with this move. The present Archbishop voted for it, then prevaricated mightily to all and sundry.

And so on, and so on. The situation is even worse in Continental countries. Most of them, for instance, now have a police guard around synagogues.

But whenever these points are mentioned, hands are raised in horror: how can you accuse us of being anti-Semitic when we care so much about the Holocaust and what happened during it.

Even Hizonner the Mayor of LondON plays that game.

It is, of course, impossible to view the Holocaust as just another historical event. But then, it is impossible to view the various Communist collectivizations and purges as just historical events. The banning of any discussion, however, serves to distort our perception of history and camouflages increasingly disturbing developments.

We must not go down that route and repeat the horrors of the last century.

COMMENT THREAD

The trouble with Eurosceptics

Just for once, we've let the forum do most of the talking today, as my colleague and I knuckle down to our respective day jobs. Membership is now approaching 300 which is minuscule compared with some, but enough to sustain interesting debates on a variety of subjects.

Watching the debates develop, and occasionally diving in to contribute to them it perhaps more entertaining than writing again about the "take-over wars", although there is an interesting analysis article in the International Herald Tribune, arguing that the "nation-state appears to be back". We would have got more excited, though, if we were not ourselves ahead of the game, having suggested that integrations was reaching its limits, back in January.

So confident are we that the European Union is dying on its feet that Booker and I have already decided that there will be no need to write another edition of The Great Deception. Our next book on the EU, we have promised ourselves, will be its obituary.

I suppose though, today, we could have written about the Times report that the France had been fined £40 million for continuing to disobey laws against catching undersize fish. But that is so much a "dog bites man" story that it is difficult to drum up the enthusiasm to report it. And no, triumphalism is not in order. Our own fishermen bend the rules as well, as do all the fishermen in the maritime member states – a reflection of the corrupt and unworkable Common Fisheries Policy.

Then there was the very minor matter of a new leader for a minor political party being elected – the Lib-Dims, I think, with an ex-athlete, verging on the geriatric replacing a former drunkard. I think they call him Menzies Campbell, who already qualifies for a free bus pass and next year will be eligible for a pension.

So, with groundhogs rampant in other areas of community business, and my colleague promising to do a piece on Hamas, the forum has my attention, and in particular the response to my colleague’s piece on Bukovsky and his fantasy about the European Union developing along the lines of the former USSR.

This affords the opportunity for a rare but necessary rant, on the peculiarities and failing of the Eurosceptic movement which, as I have remarked in the forum, seems to have and almost child-like insistence that the EU is like some other construct.

Thus we have people who want it to be, variously a Nazi plot (with or without Vichy), a Vatican plot, a Communist plot and, even, an American plot... to say nothing of the Bilderbergers, the Trilaterals - and even the shape-shifting lizards, for all I know (or any combination of the above).

From my own experience, it is this tendency to invent "bogymen" which has done more damage to the movement than any other single thing – even the UK Independence Party – and drives away the legions of sane people who have perfectly rational fears about the nature of the EU, and the way it is actually developing. But them, it is one of those odd quirks of political life that your real enemies are invariably on your own side.

But the point I have made is that, having spent the best part of my life dealing with and latterly studying the EU in some little depth, I have concluded – with many others that the EU is unique... a unique experiment in government, which has no exact parallels anywhere in the world, at any time.

Of course, it has similarities and parallels with other forms of government and constructs - not least because it has borrowed from some (many_ of them: much is taken, for instance from pre-Vichy France - but then as much is taken from the British. But the fact is that, in its totality, the EU is unique.

With that in mind, I thought, in order to develop the debate, it would be helpful to list just some points which, in combination, make the EU unique – quite unlike the USSR, Nazi Germany – or even the USA. Thus, not in any order of importance, are ten offerings:

The EU is a treaty organisation – a grouping of states which have agreed to be bound together by common rules, administered by a supranational authority which has supreme power in the areas where it has been awarded competence.

The construct, as it stands, remains a grouping of sovereign states, with a central government. Thus, it is not a nation, or a state and the government – or commission, as it is called, is a government without a state.

Membership of the organisation is maintained by the continued assent of the member governments and their parliaments and there is nothing physically which prevents any member state leaving at any time. The EU has no army to enforce its will.

The central government has no tax-raising powers and no independent source of income and is entirely reliant on its members to assure its continued funding, on a year-by-year basis.

The organisation boasts an assembly – a parliament – elected by universal franchise, which has genuine powers to block legislation and to approve and to dismiss the central government (that it chooses not to use those powers, or use them very rarely, is another matter).

Laws are proposed by the central government but they must be approved by the member states, which can block them – either individually or collectively, depending on the circumstances – or amend them.

The power of the central government is expressly limited to certain areas and that government cannot decide, unilaterally to extend its powers – it must have the unanimous assent of all its member states, a collective decision which must then be ratified unanimously by all the member states.

There is no single official language and no intention there should be one – all of the main languages of the member states are recognised and all have equal status. Citizens of member states are entitled to conduct official business in their own languages.

Laws which are agreed by the member states – and the assembly – are, with very few exceptions, enforced not by the central government, but by the member states in their own territories; non compliance is determined in the courts of the member states and penalties are applied by those courts.

The supreme court of the EU – the European Court of Justice – is genuinely independent of the central government, and is accessible to all member states and to individual citizens. It has the power to, and does, rule against the central government.

Taking these ten points together, I defy anyone to find any other organisation, past or present, which shares them all. There are other characteristics which, with those listed, do in my view, support the contention that the EU is unique.

Let the debate continue.

COMMENT THREAD

Another failed project

Much as certain people have tried to pin the origins of devolution to the EU, there is no evidence whatsoever that the well-documented break-up of the United Kingdom stemmed directly from European Union law.

In fact, the push to create regions in the United Kingdom – which includes so-called Welsh and Scottish devolution – stems primarily from initiatives taken not by the EU but by the Council of Europe, a process explored in this report.

The essence the regionalisation process, as devised, was originally to break down divisions between border regions, so as to reduce ancient enmities, but the process has since been harnessed as a tool to aid European political integration.

By creating regions and then permitting them to inter-relate with each other, and directly with Brussels, this effectively bypasses national governments which, traditionally, have a monopoly in conducting foreign affairs, thereby reducing the sovereignty of the state – a process known as "perforated sovereignty".

Whether from the EU or the Council of Europe, though, it is clear that the process lacks general public support, demonstrated by last year’s rejection of an elected North-East Regional Assembly in the referendum.

Things are slightly different in Wales, where the few people who turned out to vote gave a narrow assent to the creation of a Welsh Assembly. Thus it was that yesterday saw the opening of the £67 million Assembly building in Cardiff, by the Queen.

Predictably, the BBC exuded enthusiasm for the event, even going to the trouble of setting up public viewing screens throughout Wales, so that the public could watch the opening live.

In Caernarfon, however – as elsewhere, the public response was somewhat less than enthusiastic, as can been seen from the photograph, courtesy of Caernarfon Online News. This illustrates, once again, another elite project, which has failed to carry the people with it. Apparently, the peak crowd amounted to three people.

COMMENT THREAD

I could care less

In the ultimate descent into farce, the EU commission has now announced that it is setting up a fund "to help European workers cope with the hazards of globalisation". Says, José Manuel Barroso, El presidente, "we want to show that the EU cares".

Barroso adds that the fund would counter a recurring claim made by national politicians faced with economic tensions that: "We are the good ones and the EU are the bad ones."

So this is the deal folks: we (the commission) take money from you, the taxpayers of the member states, to pay out workers made redundant because their employers are rendered uncompetitive by EU regulation, all so we can be called the "good guys". In Euro-speak, of course, this translates into: "highlighting the solidarity principles and social dimension of the European Union". Yea…

Mind you, already the rats are gnawing away at the "principle". The Financial Times observes that "it was hard to establish… how the much-hyped EU globalisation and adjustment fund would boost European employment, given its limited budget, protracted application procedures and confusing criteria for allocating the money."

It seems that Brussels will only have €500m to hand out, which will pay a mere 50,000 workers made redundant by the effects of globalisation, plus an amount for re-training and other goodies.

This is almost as bad as the Boy King's ideas enunciated yesterday which both my colleague and I have been trying to avoid reporting, not least as we both now tend to vomit when we hear those dulcet tones pronounce, yet again, "Modern Compassionate Conservatism".

Anyway, while the Commission was planning to spend OPM (other people's money), the Boy King was setting out his vision of "modern compassionate Conservatism"… aaaarrrrrgghhhhhh, and "spelling out the aims and values of the Party he plans to lead to victory at the next general election."

Doesn't he just wish.

Entitled, Built to last - although he didn’t say how long – his speech could easily have come from the commission.

The aims of the (modern compassionate Conservative) Party, he says, "are to improve the quality of life for everyone through a dynamic economy, where thriving businesses create jobs, wealth and opportunity; a strong society, where families, communities and nation create secure foundations on which people can build their lives; and a sustainable environment, where the beauty of our surroundings are enhanced and the future of the planet is protected."

Being a family blog, I cannot repeat the words I used to my colleague to describe my reaction, but it went along the lines of saying that it was no business of the Boy King or anyone else to strive to "improve the quality of life for everyone".

The purpose of government is to facilitate an environment where we, the people, can get on with doing just that. And since virtually everything the government does, it does badly at considerable cost, the best way government can "facilitate" is by doing as little as possible and getting out of our faces.

But, like Barroso, the Boy King, wants to show he cares. If you really, really want to know what he cares so passionately about, you can read the rest of the speech yourself. Unlike Barroso, I could care less.

COMMENT THREAD

Bukovsky ought to know better

Vladimir Bukovsky has been a heroic figure in all of our lives for some decades. Even if one was on the periphery of helping Soviet dissidents you could not avoid knowing about his fight, his imprisonment, his stay in psychiatric hospitals and, finally, his exchange for the Chilean Communist leader Luis Corvàlan.

This last event was of particular interest for all USSR-watchers. Corvàlan was a political prisoner according to the Soviet leadership and media. The Soviet Union, according to the same entirely trustworthy people, had no political prisoners. So they exchanged a non-political prisoner for a political one. Umm, yes. To this day I don’t know why they wanted the Chilean that badly. What did he know?

Bukovsky in Britain settled in Cambridge and studied biology. He wrote an excellent autobiography “To Build a Castle” and appeared in the media and at meetings, explaining the details of the Soviet system to the sometimes incredulous audience.

He kept in touch with dissidents both inside the Soviet Union and outside, thus gleaning a great deal of information which he tirelessly tried to broadcast.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening up of the archives (mostly closed again) Bukovsky acquired a new purpose – to collect as much information as possible about Soviet crimes and to publish them in the West. Like so many of us, he was constantly frustrated by the continuing blockage placed on that by the largely left-leaning western media. But he did succeed to some extent.

Somewhere in that period came the event that he keeps referring to, his supposed understanding that the EU as a federal state was an entirely Soviet invention, put together by Mikhail Gorbachev and various left-wing and Communist Western politicians.

Here, I am afraid, we run into a difficulty and that is Vladimir Bukovsky’s almost complete ignorance of how the EU was constructed and how it works.

The first time I became aware of his interest in the EU and its Soviet “roots” and “connections” was some years ago, when I was working at the European Foundation. One day my colleague, David Matthews, received a letter from Bukovsky with a list of questions and demands for information that would show that the European Union was simply a new version of the Soviet Union.

The work he wanted David to do was extensive and without any offer of remuneration, having various other tasks to perform, the latter refused. It would appear that Bukovsky went ahead in the construction of his theories without the necessary research.

A few years later word started getting round that Bukovsky had a completely new theory, backed by an astonishing amount of documentary evidence, of the roots of the European Union.

He gave talks on the subject and produced papers. The gist of it was the same: the EU is a Soviet creation, whose purpose is to recreate a socialist utopia in Europe. Why that should be an issue for people who, by the late eighties, ceased to believe in socialism, remained a mystery.

So taken was Bukovsky with this theory that he tried to fit the Yugoslav war into his schema. According to this the EU was determined to destroy Milosevic because he was producing a rival version of socialism. An interesting idea, if one ignores the many years during which the EU and its member states supported Milosevic in his attempt to hold Yugoslavia together by whatever means he found necessary.

Another couple of years later I was given the Russian paper that he and his colleague Pavel Stroilov put together. (Yes, nasty little Englander that I am, I could read it in Russian.)

What surprised me was the complete lack of anything interesting in the quoted documents that Stroilov is supposed to have brought out with great difficulty. Discussions between Soviet leaders and Western Communists about how to keep the parties going in the West did not strike me as anything new. Who doesn’t know that the Western parties were run from Moscow? Who can fail to understand that the winding up of the USSR presented its henchmen abroad with serious difficulties?

Nowhere did I see any indication that there was any serious interest in Moscow in the EU or, as it was in the eighties, the EC. Well, maybe I missed some things. One does glaze over reading transcripts of conversations between Communist leaders.

Anyhow, the paper was translated and duly published to be taken up by various people, mostly within the eurosceptic movement but also one or two outside it. Periodically, one is told that it must be true that the European Union is just like the Soviet Union because Vladimir Bukovsky says so. The fact that he says so on the basis of very inadequate knowledge does not seem to matter.

And, of course, there is the amazing theory that the EU would not even exist in its present form if it had not been decided on in the eighties in old Moscow, in the Kremlin, as the rather irreverent song about the Nazi-Soviet Pact had it.

I may add that about a year ago I raised this matter with Bukovsky himself. Did he really believe that the ideas of the EU had not existed until the late eighties? He hummed and hae-d a bit and sort of agreed that there was some point in what I was saying but did not bother to listen to much of what anybody was saying.

Bukovsky and his theories have resurfaced. He was invited to Brussels by the Hungarian right wing party FIDESZ because of the fiftieth anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Actually, the anniversary will not come till October 23, but let that pass. What we are remembering now, as this blog has pointed out, is the fiftieth anniversary of Khrushchev’s speech to the Twentieth Party Congress.

Bukovsky used the opportunity to make a speech and to give an interview to Brussels Journal, which, rather breathlessly and uncritically published all his pronouncements.

So what are we to make of this:

“These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home”.”

Only someone who has never heard of Jean Monnet, Alterio Spinelli and the other founding fathers can actually believe that. Brussels Journal, on the other hand, ought to have known better.

It seems that Giscard d’Estaing did know better because he warned Gorbachev that in fifteen years’ time Europe will be a federal state. How the hell did he know that, asks Bukovsky. The Maastricht Treaty had not even been drafted. Must be a conspiracy, though it is not clear, whose, the French or the Soviet president’s.

Well, now, of course, Europe is not a federal state and the aim is to create a more or less unitary one with some federal aspects. And the idea has been around for a very long time, since between the wars and certainly since the Second World War. M Giscard was showing a knowledge of the theory of European integration that seems to have escaped Mr Bukovsky.

Then again, the Maastricht Treaty may not have been drafted but the Single European Act was already in place with the former foreshadowed. In fact, they are really two parts of one treaty, divided up in order to make the whole process more palatable.

Then the interview gets into the details, some reasonably accurate, some more fanciful of the parallels between the EU and the SU. The truth is, as another and much better commentator once said to me, all these systems come from the same matrix of ideas. So there are similarities.

In more detail, you can certainly draw parallels between the Commission and the Politburo and the European Parliament and the Supreme Soviet, though even the EP has occasional flashes of bloody-mindedness. Well, at least, some of the members do.

Of course, there is the minor matter of elections but we shall let that pass. There is also the minor matter that legislation is done very differently in the European Union from the Soviet Union and the not so minor matter of the position of the party in the latter. The fact the both entities have an ideology does not make up for that. (In another posting I shall try to analyze the differences in the ideology.)

Then again, there may be certain socialist ideas somewhere in the make-up of the EU, but it is really more centralized, bureaucratic and protectionist than outright socialist. Land is not being confiscated, business is in private hands and by no stretch of the imagination can the 80,000 pages of regulations be described as a Gosplan. Bukovsky ought to know better.

Finally, what of the Gulag? Given Bukovsky’s experiences, that should figure strongly in his analysis.

He is rightly worried about Europol and about the European Arrest Warrant, though he does not refer to it by name. But even he has to admit that this is not yet the KGB. So, in the end, there is only one thing: people are being persecuted for not saying the politically correct things. That is, of course, outrageous. But a man who has been through Soviet prisons, labour camps and psychiatric hospitals should be careful with his comparisons.

The trouble with all this and the subsequent rather vague warnings against this, that and the other is that there is a kernel of truth in it and one needs to see the dangers of the European Union. But we are engaged in a war of ideas and the first thing we must do is to understand the enemy. I am afraid Mr Bukovsky, much as one admires him in other ways, is no help in that.

COMMENT THREAD

Trust the BBC

On the one hand, the BBC World Service Website did put up a story about the anti-Islamist letter signed by 12 writers (it probably quite liked the fact that they choked on the word Communism and substituted Stalinism instead).

On the other hand ... well, on the other hand, they asked their readers on the "Have Your Say" website the following two questions:

"Do you agree with a group of writers who say the "world now faces a new global threat"?

Is it responsible for them to make a statement like this in the current climate?"

Well, golly gosh! How irresponsible can you get? I can only surmise that the BBC thought in 1940 that criticizing Nazism was seriously irresponsible in the "current climate". And, of course, it would have asked its listeners whether it was a good idea to report the fact that Soviet tanks were rolling into Budapest in November 1956 in a way that might imply the slightest criticism.

That "current climate" is a mighty powerful force.

COMMENT THREAD

That elephant in the room, again…

The front page of the Telegraph business section runs the headline and graphic illustrated (left).

Government regulations have cost British business £50bn since Labour came to power, billions more than the Treasury expects to collect in corporation tax this year.

This is research carried out by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) based on official figures, and shows that the burden to business of complying with workplace, consumer protection and environmental regulations has reached £10bn a year. Even if no new regulations are passed over the next five years, says the BCC, the total red tape burden since Labour came to power will hit £100bn by 2011.

It is not until you look at the list of regulation about which the BCC complains, available only online, that you realise that by far the bulk is EU-originated.

Yet, what we get from Sally Low, the BCC's director of policy, is that the "sheer volume of new rules was overwhelming businesses and the government had to act."

And precisely how is the government supposed to act, Mz Low, if you can't even see the elephant in the room?

COMMENT THREAD

More on the Democratic Muslims in the West

Yesterday a new Manifesto was signed by 11 people, mostly Muslims in the West. It is a declaration of free principles and well worth reading. My only surprise is the name of Salman Rushdie among the signatories. I know he has suffered (for a while) from Islamist intolerance but the document starts with the following words:

“After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.”

I don’t remember Mr Rushdie’s name among those who fought against Communism. In fact, he supported every tin-pot left-wing dictatorship. Either he hasn’t read the document or he thinks that the nasties he supported were not the “heirs of Stalin”.

Apart from that, it is a good Manifesto, which will, probably, be ignored by much of the MSM. This is the best paragraph, in my opinion:

“We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.”

Well, now, if only we could get our politicians to read that.

COMMENT THREAD

Demonstrations you may have missed

With all those stories of endless demonstrations up and down the world about the Danish cartoons – it seems in Pakistan they have been reduced to dragging the children out – even when it is clear that these were absolutely minute, you would think our media would pick up on a few other recent events of that kind.

Not so but far from it. Did anybody see any mention of the pro-Danish reports a curious story of Dominic de Villepin being booed and pushed out of the crowd. According to their account, which was published in various newspapers:

“With punches and boos, a crowd ejected right-wing politician Philippe de Villiers from the march. De Villiers' Movement for France blames immigration for France's social ills -- like the extreme-right National Front which was banned by the organizers from the demonstration.”

Odd. It was Sarkozy who called the rioters of last autumn scum, not Villepin, yet nobody bothered to boo, hiss or punch him. Perhaps, they did not like Villpein’s poetry. “Tear him for his bad verses.”, as the mob shouted in Julius Caesar.

Halimi’s murder was not the first one of a Jew by a Muslim immigrant, in this case a gang led by someone from Côte d’Ivoire, where he has been arrested, pending extradition. But it is this one that has caught the people’s imagination and made them feel particularly disgusted by the growing anti-Semitism and ever more violent attacks. In years to come we might, just might, refer to the Halimi case as being the equal of the Dreyfus case in importance.

Interestingly, there was no mention of any official Muslim organization joining the march, though they would have been welcomed with open arms. These guys need to sack their PR firm. Did it not occur to them that they needed to be there at the head of the march to show their credentials?

They cannot rely indefinitely on the pusillanimity of political leaders. Sometimes a gentle nudge towards good publicity is needed.

Then there was a demonstration in Madrid. Heard nothing about that either. This one was protesting against negotiations with ETA, mooted by Prime Minister Zapatero. There are, once again, wide differences in the figures given:

“The demonstration was organised by the Association for the Victims of Terrorism, who said it was supported by 1,400,000 people. The regional government of Madrid put it at 110,000 people.”

But again, even at the lowest figure, it is impressive. A good deal more impressive than the few hundred in Lahore or even a thousand in other places. Why were we not told about it? Could it be because people demonstrating against terrorism are not news? And while we are on the subject of demonstrations, here is one I have found on the news just now:

“Hundreds of people in an ethnic Arab neighbourhood of the south-western city of Ahwaz staged an anti-government demonstration hours after three explosions in Khuzistan Province on Monday morning, according to local residents.”

Now, can the BBC prove that this demonstration was really anti-American and about the Danish cartoons?

COMMENT THREAD

The curse of the "occupied field"

You really do wonder about the quality of MEPs these days, not that I have ever been particularly impressed with the species.

The latest to make rather odd comments is the Italian chairman of the EU's transport committee, Paolo Costa, who is complaining that a revised EU regulation setting out detailed security measures which must be taken at civil airports could backfire and provide terrorists with a set of guidelines on how to skirt security checks.

This is according to UPI referring to Commission Regulation (EC) No 240/2006 of 10 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security.

Had Costa bothered to check the text of the regulation, however, he would have seen a very unusual legal text, which states that, "in order to prevent unlawful acts" the measures imposed by the law "should be secret and should not be published."

Thus it is that the EU is not only passing laws in secret – when they get to the Council of Ministers – but in this particular instance, the detail of the law is secret as well.

Perhaps a more substantive objection, however, comes from Conservative MEP Phillip Bradbourne, who argues that having a single set of harmonising rules to cover all 25 member states could reduce rather than increase security. "If a member state is facing a particular terrorist threat and wants to apply more stringent measures," he says, "it can not do so urgently because it will need Brussels’ approval".

What Bradbourne is referring to is a little-known principle of Community law known as the "occupied field". What this means is that, once the EU has legislated in an area of its competence – as laid down by the treaties – even though the legislation may not be comprehensive, the area or "field" is deemed to be "occupied". The significant of this is that member states are then specifically prohibited from making their own laws in that field, without the express permission of the commission.

As this, in the ordinary course of events, may take several months – and permission is by no means assured if the commission is intending to bring out its own legislation – Bradbourne has a good point. A national authority, on becoming aware of a threat, might want to rush out a new control and, in the UK as in other legislatures, this can be done in an emergency in less that 24 hours.

EU involvement, therefore, slows down the whole process and could leave gaps which could be exploited by terrorists while the bureaucrats catch up. I suppose this could be called "the curse of the occupied field".

COMMENT THREAD