French all at sea

Two polls on the EU constitution present different pictures of the state of the French electorate. The first, carried out by TNS-Sofres-Unilog for the RTL radio station indicates that 52 percent of decided voters would vote "oui", although nearly a quarter of the 1,000 people questioned said they had still not made up their minds.

The significant aspect of this poll is that is shows Socialist Party voters coming back into the fold. With the official party supporting the constitution, now only 51 percent of socialists are against the constitution compared with 63 percent in a survey by the same organisation published on 20 April.

On the other hand, according to a survey of voters by Ifop for Le Journal du Dimanche, French opposition is holding steady at 52 percent. This one, which questioned 795 voters on 28 April, showed the same reading as a poll 22-23 April for Le Figaro. In this current poll, though, thirty percent of people polled said they could still change their mind.

Both polls, however, were taken after an unsuccessful television appearance by L'escroc Chirac but before the interventions of Jacques Delors and Jospin, old socialists both, and it remains to be seen how they might have influenced sentiment.

According to The Independent though, the Blogs are winning the battle for the "no" campaign. Europe's political elite, the paper says, are coming to terms with a new fact: the battle may yet be won and lost in cyberspace and it is the "no" campaign that seems to have sparked the imagination of French bloggers.

So concerned is the EU commission about the increasing influence of les Bloggeurs that the Fragrant Margot has been driven to producing a French version of her occasional Blog. "It was a gesture towards the French", said her spokesman Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, "since all eyes are on the French referendum".

Dowgielewicz argues that the Blogging phenomenon will be increasingly relevant to politics in the EU. "You could see in the American presidential elections that bloggers were able to set the agenda," he says. "This is a very attractive way to communicate a message that could not be heard otherwise. Serious newspapers would not publish something in that form but you can put a string of comments on a blog.”

The Fragrant Margot is said to be "extremely satisfied" with her blog which, her office says, has had more than 60,000 hits. However, despite the new French version, its impact on the referendum may not be massive: yesterday only two of the comments by bloggers were in French. It might, of course, help if Margot descended off her plinth and actually got stuck in, answering some of the comments.

This notwithstanding, the Frogs seems to be all at sea with their referendum which given the record of French naval victories (not), is not a happy position for these amphibians. Looks like Trafalgar Day might be a little early this year which, given that it is 200 years since Nelson dished the French fleet, could be rather appropriate.

A failure of enforcement

The Times today has a story about the scourge of the fishing industry, "black" fish.

It retails how details emerging from the trial in Glasgow of fisherman John Duncan suggests that the extent of the "black" fish trade in the Shetlands means that there is a 50 percent of fish are illegally caught.

Duncan, described as "a burly millionaire fisherman with a passion for collecting vintage motorbikes", and his neighbour Jerry Ramsay have admitted a £3.4 million scam in which they illegally landed more than 7,600 tons of mackerel and herring over a two-year period.

The case, says The Times, has exposed Britain's black fish trade, where fishermen land more fish than allowed under EU quota restrictions, and threatens to make a mockery of the fishing industry’s claims of hardship.

The paper then goes on to quote "industry sources", saying that the black fish trade is worth up to £100 million a year in Britain, with up to £80 million of this in Scotland, home to two thirds of the fleet. Up to 50 percent of fish caught in Britain are landed illegally, according to those same industry sources.

However, it seems the "industry sources" are in fact one fisherman, saying that that up to 50 percent of all pelagic fish - mainly mackerel and herring - was landed illegally in Shetland and up to 70 per cent elsewhere in Britain.

Therein give the clue to the illiteracy of the piece as Duncan and his colleague are pelagic fishermen – the "princes" of the industry who number no more than a dozen or so wealthy men who own a handful of multi-million pound boats

Duncan himself owns the Altaire, built in Turkey and fitted out by the Norwegian Solstrand shipyard in Tomrefjord (Norway) at a cost of £14 million in October 2004. At 249ft (76 metres) long, it is the largest and fastest of its kind in Britain. The pelagic fleet is in no way representative of the larger – and relatively impoverished – demersal fleet (which has much less opportunity for landing "black" fish).

Fishing in mid- to distant-waters, pelagic boats are very hard to monitor, especially as they travel long distances in search of herring and mackerel shoals, with catches often landed in Norway, Iceland or the Faeroes where there are few controls in the import of foreign-caught fish.

The fact that Duncan and his like have got away with it for so long represents a singular failure of the enforcement effort, where the sea area of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are patrolled by just three fisheries vessels, with two more allocated to the Scottish fisheries agency.

Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated that the quota system is an extremely inadequate way of managing fisheries, not least because quota are so hard to police, with more successful systems being based on "days at sea" allocations, which are much easier to enforce.

This was the basis of the Conservative fishing policy launched last January, based on successful systems observed elsewhere in the world, where "black" fish landings are considerably less of a problem.

Furthermore, all the Atlantic fishery countries have expressed a preference to work more closely with Britain, which would allow for better co-ordination of data and monitoring of fish landings. But, as long as Britain links in with the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, this is not possible – again a point made in the Conservative fishing policy.

The Times story, therefore – which seems so gleefully to focus on errant fishermen – has missed the point. The issue is as much a failure of the fishing policy and its enforcement as it one of criminal enterprise. Had a more effective system, been in place, the likes of Duncan would never have been able to get away with what they did.

I guess we all missed this one

Well, well, just look at that. Mr Blair actually referred to a European issue during the election campaign. Alas, it was so uninteresting, that nobody noticed.

Asked by Sky News, Mr Blair suggested in a slightly languid fashion that most probably there would be no referendum on the euro and, therefore, Britain would not go into economic and monetary union, should he be returned to Number 10.

He could not, it seems, recommend a yes vote because

“If the economics aren’t right, if it won’t help your country economically, you don’t do it.”

Furthermore, he did not expect any changes on that front in the foreseeable future (just reading this stuff makes one write in cliches).

“Now, at the moment there is no part of business and industry clamouring to say we need this for our economy, so it doesn’t look very likely. On the other hand,things can always change and the sensible thing to do is keep your options open.”

The following morning he tried to “clarify” his positiong during the daily press conference, explaining that

“Politically the case for going in is strong – economically we have to meet the tests.”

The Tories jumped on it, sort of. Oliver Letwin did say that there would be no joining the euro under the Conservatives because it would be bad for the economy. The Liberal Democrats announced that the Prime Minister should not prejudge the issue – there would have to be careful reports back to Parliament on the five tests and and a referendum.

Oh dear, one can’t help yawning. In the first place, the euro is not the issue at the moment. There are many other European problems, not least the Constitution.

In the second place, what is that strong political case for going in? Blair did not explain but, disgracefully, the Conservatives did not ask.

In the third place, why oh why are the main parties still pretending that the project is one of economics and the decisions are taken for economic reasons? Wouldn’t it be nice to have some grown-up politicians who treated the electorate as if they, too, were grown-up? Dream on.

Sharing the fantasy (not)

Rather touchingly in Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, Jacques Delors recalled how hurt he was by the famous Sun 1994 headline, "Up yours Delors".

He was speaking to Sarah Montague about the French EU referendum campaign, whence he told her that a French rejection would not derail the treaty. "If France is the only exception," he said, "the other countries will decide to go on". They would then "study the situation" and "at the end of the process", there could be second French referendum.

Dismissing the poll findings which have put the "no" campaign in the lead, he told Montague: "It's not the first time in European countries that the polls don't reflect the exact feeling of the citizens." He remained optimistic as the "yes" camp still had four weeks to explain the constitution.

Apparently contradicting Juncker, though, he denied there was a "Plan B", saying that it was not possible to renegotiate and a "core Europe" was "an idea which has no real support".

Delors's comments were seized on by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who followed him on the programme. He claimed that they disproved the claims of the supporters of the constitution that the UK would be ejected from the Union if it produced a "no" vote. If France won't be ejected, neither will we, he said.

Nevertheless, the French élites are really getting worked up if they are dragging in Delors to make their case, his intervention following another "voice from the past", that of former prime minister and failed presidency candidate Lionel Jospin. He is warning that a "no" vote "would punish France, punish Europe, but not punish the government in office."

Speaking on state-owned France 2 television, he added, "If we have a political problem in France, let's solve it in France and not hold Europe as a witness or hostage to the debate" on how our country is governed.

Meanwhile, the lower house of the Spanish parliament has ratified the constitution, with a vote of 311 in favour and 19 against, with no abstentions. A crowing prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, told parliamentarians before the vote that their actions would set an example for countries where the charter is experiencing "moments of uncertainty."

He would have found ready support from the three political representatives on the BBC Radio 4 "Any Questions" panel this evening, none other that David Steel, Chris Patten and Neil Kinnock, a totally impartial trio which were ideally qualified to give an opinion on what would happen if the French voted "no" to the constitution.

Obviously not listening to his own words, Patten launched into a tirade against referendums in general, declaring that they "undermined parliamentary democracy". That from a man who, through his support for the EU, has done his level best to support institutions which undermine parliamentary democracy.

He was joined by Kinnock, that other great democrat, who at least confirmed the Delors thesis that a rejection would do no lasting harm, saying that it "would not lead to a plague of locusts". His view was that, sooner or later, we'll have to come back and produce a better version [of the treaty]".

But, for sheer nerve, you cannot best his closing comment when the former commission declared, in ringing tones, that the constitution "changes not at all the way we are governed".

What all this confirms is that, in their own way, each the players is occupying a fantasy world. Interestingly though, it seems that they are not sharing the same fantasy.

More on the UN and human rights

You have to hand it to the United Nations – it is consistent. There is now official confirmation that one of the 15 countries chosen by the UN’s Economic and Social Council to serve on the UN Commission on Human Rights is Zimbabwe.

That’s Zimbabwe, led by President Mugabe (whose ban on entering the EU was waived again for Pope John Paul II’s funeral). As Roger Bate points out on the American Enterprise Institute website:

“For the UN to have voted Zimbabwe onto the UN Commission for Human Rights it had to ignore the following:

the 20,000 members of the opposition that Mugabe ordered killed in the 1980s

the destruction of half of the economy in the past five years to maintain power; the regular physical abuse encountered by any opposition to his regime (and that includes just saying nasty things about the leader)

the lack of free media

food allocation used as a political weapon

helping wage a war in the Congo so that Mugabe and his cronies make millions from conflict diamonds

the neglect of the entire health system so that life expectancy has dropped from 55 to 33 years in the past decade.

I could go on, but you get the point.”

We do, indeed, get his point and would like to add further a couple of details. One is the existence of one Henry Dowa, one of the worst torturers in Zimbabwe, who was seconded to the UN police force in Kosovo in 2001.

When his behaviour there became particularly bad, he was sent back, to continue his grisly work in Harare. The UN acknowledged the truth of all the allegations about his behaviour in Kosovo but, alas, it, apparently, has no resources to pursue criminal cases against torturers that carry on their trade wearing its blue berets.

(What happened to all those international lawyers who are always jumping up and down, demanding that Bush or Blair or whoever should be indicted?)

Then there is the interesting position of SecGen Kofi Annan and his son Kojo, of oil-for-food fame. According to Roger Bate’s account, Kojo was a contractor for the construction of Harare’s bright new International Airport. Rumour has it, he made a mint. Rumour, further cannot help speculating what other links there are between the Annan and the Mugabe families.

To think that there are people around who solemnly tell us that we should look up to the UN as the fountain of international law and morality.

Reorientation

From being in the thick of it, canvassing at the front-line of election politics, borrowing someone else's computer to snatch a quick posting, before dashing out again, to return home to the comfort of the familiar office and computer for a day or two is actually quite hard to take.

Driven by adrenaline all week, the rush has subsided and all that is left is an overwhelming fatigue. The words on the web, crying for conversion into the golden words of another EU Referendum post, seems to merge into a shapeless mass as the eyes glaze over and the brain rebels.

Actually, yesterday was quite fun. I was at the wheel of a Land Rover Discovery and we were hitting the outlying farms and settlements in the deepest, rural parts of the constituency, where I dropped off leafleters and canvassers at farms and little hamlets, bouncing up rough tracks and into farm yards, ending up with a car that looked as if we'd being doing some hard rallying.

In between, I indulged in a spot of flyposting and must congratulate the authorities – whoever they are – for these marvellous new footpath signposts. A deft few strokes of a hammer and a handful of galvanised nails and they are quickly converted into adverts for our candidates.

Back to reality – if you can call it that – still the vital issue of Chines textile imports and the protectionist attitude of the EU looks somewhat remote and I groan inwardly at having to tackle the issue, having cravenly avoided it all week.

Fortunately, Tim Worstall has done a piece on it so if you are throbbing with anticipation for this Blog's "take" on the issue, we can simply refer you to him and say "nous aussi".

Equally, in less pressured days, we would have done a posting about the resolution of the WTO sugar dispute, where the scandal of EU dumping of subsidised sugar has run its course, and the EU has finally been brought to book.

We had a lot to say about this last August, when the interim judgement was published and, since then the EU has been stalling, trying to avoid confronting the urgent need to "reform" the sugar regime. Now, Mandelson and his "colleagues" will have to bite the bullet.

Anyhow, despite the focus on the general election (or not – if you relied on the Sun or the Mirror front pages, you would not even realise there was an election going on), this weary Blogger is undergoing a quick reorientation.

We will resume posting on matters EU shortly, before returning to the fray next week the final push on the campaign trail, and the long, tedious wait at the count to hear the results of all our hard work.

The election that never was

The extraordinary events of yesterday, arising from the publication of the legal advice on the Iraq war, culminating in the performances of the three party leaders on BBC Question Time have brought to a head a strange dynamic in this election.

Not only do the committed supporters of each of the two main parties detest the leaders of the rival parties but, increasingly, party activists are declaring considerable antipathy towards their own leaders.

At the coal face, therefore, activists are increasingly turning inwards, supporting their own candidates and working for them, and for the "party" in very general terms but not for the leaders who are regarded variously as embarrassments or handicaps.

On the doorsteps, we are also seeing another phenomenon. Armed with records of previous voting declarations, we are able to identify many former Labour voters and a large number of those we have questioned are showing a strange reluctance to declare their allegiances this time round. On balance, the Conservative "core" vote is holding up, but Labour supporters are wavering.

The feeling is that the next few days will be critical, when the waverers will make up their minds. But, as we see it, the decisions will focused not on who to vote for, but whether to vote at all. As never before, this election will be decided by turnout and, in that respect, the experts have got it right – and the polls are of little value in pointing to the result.

However, with Iraq and its related events now dominating the national political agenda – and set to do so for the next few days – and local campaigns increasingly being fought on local issues, this means that any chance of "Europe" taking its turn as a mainstream issue, even for a day or so, is receding rapidly.

Thus, on one of the most important political issues for decade – the European Union – this is going to be the election that never was. The battle here will not start until the voting is over.

"Defrocked" peers speak up again

Our readers will, no doubt, remember the saga of the Conservative peers, who called publicly, together with some of their cross-bench colleagues, for a UKIP vote in the European elections last June.

At the time, we found ourselves wondering why the Conservative Party should be so stupid as to lose stalwart members like Lord Pearson of Rannoch or, especially, Lord Willoughby de Broke. We are still wondering about that. In fact, we are wondering about the Conservative Party’s attitude to and understanding of the House of Lords and its significance.

The peers themselves have remained logical, as a letter from two of them in today’s Daily Telegraph shows. We are reprinting the letter in full.

“Sir - We write as peers who lost the Conservative whip for suggesting that those who valued our sovereignty should have lent their vote to UKIP in the European elections last June.We find it surreal, when the House of Commons has become largely redundant because most new laws are made in Brussels, that "Europe" features so little in the election campaign. UKIP is the only party that is telling the British people the truth about this great matter; withdrawal from the EU is vital to our national survival.

Yet eventual withdrawal can happen only if it is sanctioned by a vote in the Commons, and that vote will be delivered only by a refreshed Conservative Party. There are therefore a number of marginal constituencies where those who wish to withdraw from the EU should not allow themselves the luxury of voting for UKIP if by doing so they deny a seat to a Conservative who will help to form a realistic policy of disengagement from Brussels.

It would be folly indeed if, in pursuit of withdrawal, such candidates were prevented from sitting in Parliament.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Willoughby de Broke, London SW1”

The logic is unassailable, even if one cannot help wondering which particular potential ex-MP called for the peers' help.

Unfortunately, the practical aspect – a changed Conservative Party, as far as “Europe” is concerned – remains a very distant prospect.

Other peoples' money

So, the flying black hole, aka Airbus A380, has actually flown. The Daily Telegraph, amongst others, tells the story, describing how the "'Magnificent' superjumbo takes to the sky without a hitch".

The Leader is straight out of “Boys own” magazine, applauding the maiden flight, but many other reports raise doubts as to the financial viability of the project. They are right to do so. Scoring great feats of engineering with other peoples' money is not a particularly brilliant achievement.

The consensus under pressure

A large, detached, modern house in a delightful rural area, with stunning views, the whole area oozing money - and what did the householder consider the major issue of the election, the one thing that would decide his vote? "Europe", he said, "who is going to get us out of Europe?"

He was by no means the only one, and their reasons were often different. My man in the posh house was incensed by the corruption and the lack of democracy, but another man told me – quite unsolicited – how his son and his friends has been stopped from trail-bike riding on the land of a friendly farmer as the new CAP regulations prohibited farmers from allowing their land to be used for such purposes if they were to qualify for the single farm payment.

Yet, as always, the only references to the EU in the media still seem to be the occasional commentator bemoaning the fact that "Europe" is not featuring as an issue in the general election, while the politicos continue with their own agendas.

And, of course, so does the EU. The commission yesterday, perhaps conscious of the fact that it would attract very little publicity in the UK, set out its proposals for next year's budget, suggesting that €112.6 billion would do nicely – an increase of six percent on last year, all in the interests of promoting "economic growth and job creation."

If approved, Britain will find itself paying over €15 billion, something better than £10 billion. In an election where the Conservatives are making a big deal over £4 billion in various tax cuts, it does seem surreal that the EU can put in its bill and the issue will not even rate a mention in the UK mainstream media.

And this is the last EU budget under current rules. The battle is on for the approval of the 2007-2013 budgets, where the EU will have its hand out for even more – yet still this does not feature in the general election campaign.

However, according to The Times today, it is certainly featuring in the referendum campaign in The Netherlands. There, the increasing resentment at having to pay a disproportionately high share of the EU’s rising costs, combined with the bureaucracy and fears of losing their national identity, are all driving the Dutch into the "nee" camp.

Above all, says The Times, the country is reacting to years of stifling liberal consensus. There is a backlash against the assumptions that The Hague should pay generously for other Europeans, take a lead in development aid or make concessions to a club dominated by larger members determined to have their own way. The Dutch want to concentrate on priorities at home. What they dislike is not the idea of a constitution, but the accretion of more power to an unaccountable Brussels.

This could so easily be the UK but, for the moment, the "liberal consensus" is holding. But, if the voices on the doorstep are any guide, it will not do so for much longer. Slowly, the people of Britain are stirring.

Was nun?

One of the best known novels that came out of the German depression of the early thirties was Hans Fallada’s Kleiner mann – was nun?. It is deeply depressing in a very lyrical Germanic way and it is not exactly surprising that Fallada’s own life had many problems, personal and political. He survived being blacklisted by the Nazis, incarceration in an asylum, drink and drug problems but, being taken up by the new Communist literary establishment in East Germany after the war, finished him off. He died of a morphine overdose in 1948.

It is really the title of his novel that has survived in so many people’s memory and, almost inevitably, it returns as one surveys the gloomy economic prospect of Germany of today.

An article in the Economist, entitled “If not now, when?”, points out that all the indicators are in Germany’s favour:

“IN THEORY, Germany should be booming by now. Sizzling global economic growth in 2004, and more of the same expected for 2005, has raised demand for its exports, a boon to its large manufacturing sector. The European Central Bank (ECB) has kept interest rates in the euro area at an easy 2% for 22 months, and looks set to keep doing so well into 2005. Fiscal policy is also expansionary: the government’s budget deficit has breached the Maastricht treaty’s 3%-of-GDP limit for three years running, and by all accounts will do so again this year. Yet for all this, for the past four years Germany has struggled to produce GDP growth of even 1% a year.”

Not only that, but the future looks bleak as a semi-annual report by a consortium of six think-tanks (and if that is not Germanic, I don’t know what is) says. The prediction for growth this year is slashed from 1.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent, that is almost non-existent.

“More worryingly, the report argues that the German economy is not stuck in a particularly vicious cyclical slowdown. Rather, its structural problems, particularly the highly regulated labour market, have reduced trend growth (the average growth rate of the economy) to a meagre 1.1%, in contrast to roughly 2% for the rest of the euro area, and about 3% for the United States. Unless these trends reverse, Europe’s largest economy could eventually wind up as its economic backwater.”

The most stagnant area is unemployment, which is now running at 12 per cent. This leaves the economy depressed and more reliant on export than it ought to be.

The German government has acknowledged that the problems are structural and has tried to introduce reforms as well as lower corporation tax. Critic say that the reforms do not go far enough and the cut in corporation tax will not affect many companies.

Meanwhile the “hungry” East Europeans are threatening the German worker inside the country and the whole economy from outside. Investment is moving inexorably east. If the EU regulatory regime looks like slowing down the new members, then money will move further east still.

The impending election means that politicians are juggling for advantageous position, many of them moving further left, to get the support of the unions, though that position is disastrous from an economic point of view. And the EU does not help.

“From the point of view of a German politician, alas, all policy choices must look bad. Membership in the euro area leaves the country monetarily at the mercy of the ECB, which seems determined to maintain a hard line on inflation, and thus to resist calls for an interest-rate cut. Germany’s already-large budget deficits cannot be sustained indefinitely at such low rates of economic growth, much less increased. And deeper structural reforms will not be popular with the voters who lose benefits or job protection—particularly since such reforms may well make unemployment worse in the short term, as firms shed the workers they previously found it difficult to fire.”

As Hans Fallada said in 1934: Little man – what now?

Could we have something new, please

Oh dear, oh dear. Whenever they run into trouble over ratification, what do they do? They trot out an East European, telling us all emotionally that whichever treaty is under discussion is … sob … absolutely vital for real integration, for enlargement, for the future of the post-Communist countries.

This happened with Amsterdam, which was absolutely vital for enlargement. Then came Nice and the debâcle in Ireland. What happened? Assorted dignitaries from Eastern Europe, led by the ubiquitous Vaclav Havel, turned up in Dublin to tell the Irish that enlargement could not possibly go forward without the Treaty of Nice being ratified, though none of the important issues, such as CAP reform was even mentioned in that document.

Now we are running into difficulties over the Constitution, which is, once again, absolutely vital for enlargement (which has already happened to a great extent, give or take Romania and Bulgaria) and for the future of Europe as perceived by the highly emotional East European nomenclatura.

Tomorrow the Latvian President, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, will follow Chancellor Schröder and speak in Lille, calling on the people of France to vote for the constitution.

The President’s spokeswoman, Aiva Rozenberga told AFP:

“The Latvian president will address French society and the media in an emotional manner. She will use her splendid mastery of the French language to give an insight into the new EU member states' concerns about the future of the EU.”

Whether the President of Latvia can really give an insight, splendid mastery of French or not, into other and bigger states’ concerns about the future of the EU seems a little doubtful. Especially, as she appears not to understand that many of those concerns are precisely with the Constitution and the direction the EU is moving in, quite inexorably, it seems.

Will they trot out the East Europeans for the next treaty as well?

Poll predictions

A Mori poll carried out between 21 and 25 April for The Financial Times suggests that once intention actually to vote is factored in, a ten point lead shrinks to a mere two points, with Labour getting 36 percent of the vote and the Conservatives 34 percent.

Then, The Guardian today reports that the two parties are "neck and neck in key marginals", facing strong voter scepticism and a "disciplined Conservative attack”. This has reduced Labour's lead to two percent or less in key constituencies.

It seems here that the polls are beginning to reflect the reality on the streets. This is certainly what we are finding. During our canvassing in some areas where historical data have shown mixed responses, it has been difficult to find anyone to admit an intention to vote Labour.

Other constituencies with which we have conferred are reporting the same experience and, all together, our impression is that this contest is much closer than it appears to the pollsters.

Another of our findings is that "Europe" is raised spontaneously "on the doorstep" far more often than the poll ratings would indicate, although in a complex manner. People will talk about the "headline" issues but then bring up the effect of EU policies in a variety of ways.

Talking to some truckers yesterday, there is holy war about the Working Time Directive, with some drivers losing hundreds of pounds in wages. They are not at all happy and there are well over half a million of them, all thinking hard about their vote.

The indications are, therefore, that the polls are no better in identifying voters’ concerns than they are in predicting them more straightforward question of which party is in the lead. The politicos would do well to be cautious about poll predctions.

Rich and powerful friends

EU Observer records the latest attempts (not) to bring commission president Barroso to book over his failure to disclose his week-long freebie for himself and his wife on board the luxury yacht owned by Greek billionaire Spiros Latsis.

In true gutless style, none of the leaders of the EU parliament political groups are prepared to support a UKIP call to bring Barroso before the parliament to explain his actions – or lack of them. Particularly, they are not anxious to concede that Nigel Farage, leader of the UKIP group in the EP, might have a point, and would prefer Barroso to go uncensured before they would let Farage gain any Brownie points.

Meanwhile, Spriros Latsis has mounted his own counter-offensive on behalf of his friend Barroso, commissioning leading libel lawyers Charles Russell to demand a retraction of the "serious and damaging allegations" in The Sunday Telegraph this week.

Why publication of details of the activities of the Latsis Group and its associated companies, which are already in the public domain on the web, should be "serious and damaging" and why the article has "the potential to cause very serious loss and damage" to Latsis interests – as the lawyers claim - remains a mystery.

However, the full weight of the law has been invoked, with veiled threats of claims for substantial damages. How lucky Barroso is to have such rich and powerful friends.

The cat is out of the bag

All you have to do is watch and listen and, eventually, the truth will out.

According to that bastion of transparency, the Chinese on-line press agency Xinhuanet, Chirac and Schröder met yesterday for the 5th Franco-German cabinet meeting devoted to the EU constitution and bilateral industrial cooperation. And what they had to say was very interesting indeed.

In their joint statement, they reaffirmed "their belief that when the constitutional treaty comes into effect, it will be an important step in terms of asserting Europe's weight in the international arena and reinforcing its ability to act for peace and security in the world."

Their statement added: "Our two countries are pleased that, for the first time in the history of the European Union, the community of fate between the member states will be embodied in a constitution," and then offered the "killer" point: The constitution will help reinforce "the sphere of activity of European defence through the expansion of the scope of the Union's missions."

You could not get any clearer than that – the EU constitution is intended (and does) to strengthen an independent EU military capability. Blair, when he talks about this issue, is always careful to make some reference to Nato, but nothing of this from the Franco-German duo.

For those who had any doubts, le chat is definitely out of le sac.

We return to the Tillack case

Some stories just go on and on without getting any better. We have reported on the Tillack case from the earliest days of this blog.

We wrote of the fact that his office was raided twice, his computer confiscated, his boxes broken into. We mentioned the fact that although the raid was carried out by the Belgian police, it had been clearly initiated by OLAF, the Commission’s own anti-fraud investigative body, because Hans-Martin Tillack of Stern magazine had written some hard-hitting exposés about them.

We have also mentioned that, for some reason, the British government continued to view this matter as an internal Belgian one, until the former head of OLAF explained what happened to the House of Lords Sub-Committee.

Mr Tillack, as we reported, has received the Leipzig Prize for the Freedom and the Future of the Media, though one rather wonders whether there is much future for the freedom of the media in the EU.

At the same time the highest court in Hamburg, the Oberlandesgericht, ruled that it could not prevent present and former members of OLAF from sppreading unsubstantiated slanderous stories about the journalist, as a protocol of April 8 1965 grants EU civil servants a life-long immunity from legal proceedings “in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words spoken or written”. And that includes setting the Belgian police at an investigative journalist.

Now, to take up the story. If national courts have no jurisdiction, reasoned Tillack and Stern, then they must go to the European Court of Justice, to ensure that the Commission will not be able to see the notes and documents the Belgian police had confiscated from the journalist. These have not been returned although he has not been charged with anything.

Last October the Court of First Instance absolved OLAF from inciting the Belgian police to arrest Mr Tillack and refused his plea that OLAF and the Commission be prevented from seeing the documents.

Now the European Court of Justice quashed Tillack’s appeal against the ruling of the Court of First Instance, in effect allowing the Commission and OLAF access to the documents and, potentially, to the names of the journalist’s sources.

So far the Commission has not asked to see anything and, in fact, the spokeswoman for the Administrative Affairs Commissar, Siim Kallas (himself in the past under investigation for improper political financial affairs in his home country) seemed to be giving muddled statements:

“For the moment the question does not arise, as the matter is still under investigation.

Press freedom and the right of journalist to protect their sources are enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.But press freedom is not granted without limitation. [Or, in other words, press freedom stops when EU officials are investigated.]

If a journalist himself becomes a suspect or is linked to an investigation, it is for the individual national authorities to decide which measures can be justified and whether they can be justified.”

Since the individual national authorities had been incited by OLAF; since no charges have been preferred; and since OLAF officials have been slandering Mr Tillack with no national authority having the right to stop them, that last statement can best be described as disingenuous.

But then, according to the same spokeswoman, “under EU staff regulations, officials are obliged to blow the whistle if they see evidence of wrongdoing”. And then they have every right to be bullied, threatened and persecuted.

Mr Tillack and his employers, backed by the European Federation of Journalist, who have been wringing their hands somewhat impotently on the sidelines, plan to go to the European Court of Human Rights, to retrieve those documents.

To be continued.

Stop giggling

Andrew Duff, Lib-dim MEP and Europhile extraordinaire, is getting seriously rattled about the fate of the EU constitution, so seriously that he has penned a piece for the Financial Times imploring Tony Blair to step in and save the "project".

To do this, writes Duff, he will have to be a more convincing and a more convinced - European than Jacques Chirac. His "re-elected Labour government" (bloody cheek) should drop its hitherto, mealy-mouthed and defensive approach to the constitution and Blair should welcome the prospect of a European Union with an enhanced capacity to act effectively at home and abroad.

Blair should then declare support for the binding charter of fundamental rights. He should welcome the expansion of the budgetary and legislative powers of the European parliament, as well as the extension of democratic voting in the council.

He should then promise not to obstruct stronger integration among the eurozone members in social or fiscal policies. He should welcome the prospect of more harmonisation in key elements of justice policy. He should declare his support for an EU that stands on its own feet in world affairs, and commit the UK to building a common security and defence policy autonomously from Nato.

The constitution, he should say, raises the threshold of EU membership, making the conditions for Turkey's accession more stringent. And the UK should become a leader with France in boosting the common EU effort in overseas development.

Above all, implores Duff, Blair must pledge himself to continuing with the British referendum regardless of what France decides. He and his colleagues in the European Council have both a legal and political commitment to try to bring the constitution into force.

By the time the French vote at the end of May, eight other countries, including Germany, Italy and Spain, will already have ratified the constitution. The Dutch, Duff beleives, will probably say "yes" on 1 June. Others will proceed. A contingency plan already exists if only four-fifths of member states have completed ratification by 31 October next year.

Thus Duff continues, Blair must affirm in public what he privately knows perfectly well: that there is no possibility whatsoever of renegotiating the constitution. No coherent policy on renegotiation will emerge from France if the referendum is defeated. France will not suddenly become more important than it is today if it rejects Europe and shatters its partnership with Germany.

The only people who are certain to delight in a French no are British Europhobes and American neo-cons. The European Union is unthinkable without France. There is no plausible scenario in which France becomes a second class member of the union. Nor will a French "no" permit the emergence of a core group of integrationist member states, led by France and Germany. The likelihood is that if France rejects the constitution now it will have to accept it later under Mr Chirac's successor, after a lot of fuss and delay.

And so the great Europhile drones on: Britain is not so indispensable. A British "no" could well set Britain on the exit path. A French "no vote now makes a British "no" next year far more likely. Mr Blair's chances of getting the British to say "yes" will be much enhanced if he has transformed his European reputation by contributing to positive decisions and an optimistic mood elsewhere. He must start with France.

And that is the genuine Europhile speaking, a man so imbued with the project that he cannot even begin to look at the political realities. And one of those realities is that, whatever else you might think of Blair, he is not into political suicide.

If it wasn't for who he is, one would almost feel sorry for Duff. As it is, looking at his discomfiture, it is very hard to stop giggling.

More news from the Dutch front

There are lies, dam’ lies, statistics and poll results. This seems to be the lesson we are all learning both in the British election and the various referendum campaigns. We all know that much depends on what the question is, how it is asked, where it is asked and in what circumstances.

The days when people were so overwhelmed by opinion polls that they answered everything openly and honestly are gone, even if they ever existed. Still, that does not explain the extreme discrepancy between two polls published in the Netherlands last week.

These were a poll conducted by the government (really?) and Maurice de Hond, a well-regarded polling company.

According to the government, 75 per cent of the population has said that they will definitely vote or are reasonably certain that they will vote. Of these, 50 per cent say they will vote yes and 30 per cent against. Given the usually high percentage of don’t knows, it seems that the government poll simply lumped them in with the yes group.

The Maurice de Hond poll is so different that one wonders whether they are talking about the same country. According to this, only 32 per cent have said that they will vote. Of these 37 per cent are inclined to yes and 41 per cent are inclined to no. The rest, presumably, have not made up their minds.

Previous polls indicated that the yes and no sides were neck and neck with the don’t knows easily leading the way.

Nothing much is clear, except that the government has a much harder job than it had imagined. Luckily for it, there is a “war budget” for “emergencies” of €1.5 million. Just in case the people will not do as they are told.

A shrivelled campaign

Back on the stump this week, once again it is the voters and not the policians who are rasing the issue of the European Union.

It thus takes Mark Steyn to make sense of this phenomenon, which he does in The Telegraph today with a piece headed "Big ideas? This feels like a local election".

His theme will be very familiar to readers of this Blog as he bemoans the claustrophobic narrowness of the election, and he focuses on the immigration issue which he analyses as a tactic used by the Right to "shore up the Tory base, boost turnout, and prevent further haemorrhaging to UKIP and worse."

But, he writes, UKIP arose from the Conservatives' Europhobia-phobia - the party's wariness about becoming too explicitly anti-EU, and he doubts you can woo the lost lambs back to the fold by using a lot of anonymous Balkan deadbeats as a proxy for the A-list foreigners you're not quite confident enough to have a go at.

Putting his finger on the curious gap in the campaign, Steyn observes that Mr Howard "would rather risk being portrayed as xenophobic than as anti-European."

That calculation is very telling, he adds: "I'm one of those who think France's Euro-referendum will be much more decisive than the UK's general election when it comes to determining how Britain is governed. If the French reject the European Constitution, they'll have rejected it for these islands as well. If they sign up for it, it will probably be a fait accompli for the British, too."

His conclusion is brutal: "For that reason," the Steyn complains, "the Tories at the very least owed us a campaign fought on big grand Thatcher-sized themes. This one just feels like a shrivelled local election - which tells you as much as anything about where British politics is really heading."

The word that grabs is "shrivelled" – sums it all up really. There is no breadth, no vision and there are walls around this campaign, keeping the candidates in check, excluding whole area of public policy from the discourse. No wonder the voters are tunring off.

He simply doesn't get the point

Stung by the accusations that he exposed himself to a situation where a conflict of interest arose, as a result of he and his wife spending a week on the luxury yacht of Greek billionaire Spiros Latsis, commission president José Manuel Barroso has written to the president of the EU parliament, Josep Borrell, in an attempt to explain why he should not have disclosed the free hospitality he received.

In his letter, dated 22 April (Friday), he tells Borrell that his relations with Dr Latsis and his family date back twenty years, to when he was at the University of Geneva, first as a student and then as an assistant to Prof. Sidjanki. In other words, Barroso claims, "this is an old personal and academic relation". Furthermore, he was "not aware of any dealing of Mr (sic) Latsis or his family with the Commission susceptible of suggesting a suspicion of conflict of interest".

Given the details we revealed in our posting yesterday, there is plenty of good evidence that the potential for "conflict of interest" existed, whether Barroso knew it or not. Furthermore, given the nature of Mr Barrosso’s appointment – and the resources available to him – ignorance is hardly a defence. He could have – and therefore should have – found out.

However, Barroso is adamant that he did no wrong. "There is a clear difference," he writes, "between the situation of a commissioner who was previously active in a given sector, in a commissioner who in private life knows someone active in that sector. The fact that a commissioners' (sic) friends and acquaintances may be affected by commission policy does not in itself represent a conflict of interest".

Er.. yes Mr Borroso, you are right. But that is not what you are charged with. There is a fundamental difference between having "friends and acquaintances" who are active in sectors covered by commission policy, and spending a week with your wife as guests on a luxury yacht of such a friend. Having friends is one thing – accepting lavish hospitality from them is quite another.

I cannot work out whether Barroso is stupid or simply being disingenuous but, either way, it is clear that he simply doesn’t get the point.

Another bonfire

The EU is in danger of breaking its own environmental rules. It is about to have another bonfire, though not of vanities but of regulations. I do hope that this bonfire will be done in environmentally friendly, fully EU-guaranteed incinerator. Otherwise Herr Günter Verheugen, for he it is responsible for the projected bonfire, will get his knuckles rapped by the fragrant Margot’s successor as Environment Commissar.

According to the Financial Times, always ready to see the best of every Commission proposal:

“Mr Verheugen has ordered a bonfire of legislation that was proposed under the former administration of Romano Prodi, in one of the most thorough clean-outs of red tape ever conducted by the European Commission.”

And what is that going to consist of?

“His team is screening more than 300 laws in the legislative pipeline, and expects a battle with other departments as it seeks to withdraw proposals, many in the environmental or consumer field. “It could get messy,” said one official.“But we want to make a real impact; we are hoping to identify at least 50 pieces of legislation to be scrapped.””

How exciting. Of course, one must recall that when the Commission and its minions say that they will scrap legislation, they mean no such thing. What they do mean is that they will consolidate.

Thus, instead of one directive and 12 regulations we shall have two directives and 3 regulations. That sounds like we have less legislation. In fact, there will probably be more of it, as with each consolidation extra articles will be added. But there will be fewer items and the bonfire will be deemed to have been successful.

Calculating EU legislation is extremely difficult, as there are no separate laws. The framework directives breed other directives and regulations, which multiply without ever becoming new legislation. That is why the most accurate calculation is based on the number of pages.

If British (and American or Australian) legislation can be said to start with the particular, Continental legislation moves in the opposite direction. It starts with the general – in the case of the EU, with agreements in treaties – and moves further and further towards the particular, at which, very late point, British MPs usually realize there is a problem.

The problem, however, is at an earlier stage, routinely and repeatedly ignored by our so-called legislators, despite having been caught out on many occasions over the years.

But suppose, some of that bonfire does actually achieve something. Do we know which particular regulations will be scrapped, changed or consolidated? Are these decisions taken by Verheugen and his minions, and, possibly disputed by the egregious Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a substitute for open, democratic, accountable legislation?

Meanwhile, news comes from France that former Arcelor steel boss and French finance minister, Francis Mer wants to team up with textile maker and brother of president-in-waiting, Guillaume Sarkozy, to stand for election at the head of the Mouvement des Enterprises de France (Medef).

The idea is that two forceful and shrewd operators will finally be able to get the attractiveness of entrepreneurial culture across to French politicians and the French public.

They are being challenged by other industrial leaders for the position, but all have the same aim.
But as yesterday’s Business newspaper pointed out:

“… Medef is preoccupied with national insurance and labour issues, when it should be lobbying for growth.

It's not a bad assessment of the symptoms, but his rivals appear to understand Medef's problem better. Until it can convince voters that creating wealth is the job of entrepreneurs rather than government or unions, Medef will remain a voice in the wilderness.”

The notion that creating wealth is the job of entrepreneurs is, let’s face it, an alien concept in the whole of the European Union, whether we talk of the Lisbon Agenda or Verheugen’s bonfire.

Czechs but no balances

Another Czech Prime Minister bites the dust. Stanislav Gross, at 35 the youngest former European Prime Minister as of today, has resigned because of an ongoing financial scandal. It seems he has found it difficult to explain how he managed to buy and furnish a luxury apartment.

His successor Jiri Paroubek will head another coalition of the same parties and another government of the same ministers. In fact, this particular flap is not all that different from the Italian one, though at least the Czechs have acquired a new prime minister. Clearly, they have some way to go before they are fully integrated into European politics.

The “new” government remains pro-EU as the BBC puts it but what the Beeb’s journalists do not seem to realize is that the issue is the constitution and its ratification.

Notoriously, the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, opposes the constitution and his former party, the ODS, has put forward a bill that calls for a referendum on the document this year.

The Social-Democrats, on the other hand, want to put into place a system of plebiscite being the new form of direct voting, though it is not clear how that would work in practice. Their idea is to have a referendum on the European constitution in tandem with the parliamentary elections of 2006.

Some Czech political analysts have been muttering cynically that the Czech Republic will want to be the last to vote, in order to see how the land lies first.

She just wants to deal with every-day issues

Yes, indeed, after a ten-day gap, the fragrant Commissar has put up another posting. I am delighted to say that there are some comments on it already, one or two referring to this blog.

Margot starts in a fluffy bunny mode with her eldest son, who is, mark you, a student of political science, wanting to know almost tearfully why the Swedish papers are assuming that his mother is aiming at the leadership of the Social-Democratic party, when she stated in “black and white” that she did not want to be considered for the position.

Does the lad not know that whatever politicians deny categorically must be true, particularly if it is something underhand? Of course, he cannot help having the mother he has, but if he wants to survive in the big bad world, let alone in political science, he had better learn this very easy lesson.

There is a great deal more about her commitment to her job and the many tasks she has in trying to sell the whole project to the people of Europe. As the opinion polls in one country after another move in the “no” direction, the fragrant Commissar, we assume, must be feeling quite pleased with herself. After all, her staff seem to remain loyal. One of them has even put a comment up, urging us to read Margot’s own explanation of the Social-Democrat Party’s little trouble with inflated declarations.

But hey, she has finally responded to a comment:

“I warmly welcome a debate on the horrendous slave trade with women and children for sexual purposes that goes in Europe and the world every day. I completely agree with you, Ms Gisela Strauss, that it is not only a responsibility for non-governmental organisations to tackle the problem of trafficking in human beings — even if the NGO‘s make an important difference for many of the people that are used as sex slaves.

Trafficking is part of cross-border crime and should be dealt with through improved cooperation between the police as well as the judicial systems in Europe. It is important when trying to prevent these terrible crimes that we also look at the demand side of the “trade”. Communication is also a crucial key to this problem so that we reach the young girls and children that risk becoming new victims.”

And we are all against sin. Nobody could possibly suggest that the particular comment could have been a put-up job, to give the fragrant Commissioner a chance to reply to something that is not too close to the bone and is not critical of her or of the project.

Most comments are about the European Union, its many regulations, its destruction of the European economy and social structure, its corruption and suchlike matters. It is Margot’s job to sell the Constitution. That is what she gets an inflated salary for, as well as many expenses, perks and staff. But she chooses to publish a bromide about sex slavery.

Is she ever going to engage in that dialogue she keeps promising?

By popular request

A number of our readers have asked me to provide some detailed information about the particular event I described in the tribute to Lord Bruce of Donington. Understandably, many people wanted to know about the unfortunate former Commissioner who angered Lord Bruce to the point of a volcanic outburst.

After a certain amount of research, I can reveal that the former Commissioner was Lord Clinton-Davis and the event was the Committee stage of Lord Pearson’s European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill on May 12, 2000.

Let me quote the particular comment Lord Bruce made before moving his amendment:

“The amendment seeks only to institute, if possible, a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. What objection can there possibly be to that? It may well be, I readily concede, that a cost-benefit analysis will show that, on balance, membership did not favour the United Kingdom.

But the circumstances obtaining when the report came out and showed that result might not be all that inimical to the further development of the European Union. It would depend on how one regarded the future in the light of the implications that had been determined in relation to the past. All we want to do is to put ourselves in a position where we can make a definitive judgment in which we can believe.

I repeat: successive governments have been very coy about this. When I last sat on the Opposition Benches in another capacity I remember asking the noble Lord, Lord Henley, whether he could give us some indication. His reply was laconic and short. He said that the benefits were so self-evident that it was not worth while going into them.

That, in essence, has been the attitude of successive governments. They will not discuss progress. They will not discuss cost-benefits so that one can get an idea. All we are trying to do as I see it--all the promoter of the Bill is trying to do--is to establish the facts as distinct from vapourings--they are little more than that--based upon nostalgia about past events that only partially happened. There surely can be no objection to that. As I say, those who resist it and oppose the results of the facts immediately imply that they are not confident in their own beliefs.

I am sorry about the attitude of my noble friend on the Front Bench [Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale]. She knows--and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, ought to know--that not only have I been interested in these affairs since 1963 but I have played some, if only minor, part in the unearthing of fraud on massive scale not only in the European Union as a whole but in the Commission as well, of which he possibly ought to have been aware when he was there.

In order to cut short the discussion, perhaps I may say formally, taking due account of the excellent contributions, particularly from my noble friend--I still call her my noble friend--Lady Park of Monmouth, I beg to move …”

Here is the rest of the debate. I hope all our readers will enjoy it and mourn the passing of a great parliamentarian.

Budget woes

To add to the woes of already stressed-out politicians, foreign ministers of the EU member states are meeting today in Luxembourg with the vexed subject of the EU budget firmly on the agenda.

Still on the table is the commission proposal that spending for 2007-2013 should be increased to 1.14 percent of Gross National Income, rising from the current £77 billion to £89 billion in 2007 and thence to over £100 billion by the end of the period.

Ministers are also having to deal with a fractious Poland which has already rejected the commission’s proposals, objecting to the ceiling on structural funds which would be set at 3.8 percent of a member state's gross domestic product (GDP).

This is instead of the four percent currently allowed, meaning EU aid to Poland would decrease.

Luxembourg foreign minister Jean Asselborn has said that a budget compromise would be reached "inevitably by reductions in each spending category compared to the commission's proposal".

Overshadowed by uncertainties on the constitution ratification, ministers are unlikely to make any decision today, and will leave the hard issues until after the Dutch referendum. This means that there will be only two weeks for talks ahead of the European Council on 16-17 June, by which time a deal is supposed to be reached.

However, if the heads of state and government are confronting one or more "no" votes, talks then are likely to be dominated by plans to deal with this situation, creating an atmosphere which is not conducive to an agreement on a matter so contentious as the budget.

The chances are, therefore, that the new British prime minister will inherit the poisoned chalice, most likely Tony Blair, who will have the added task of defending the rebate negotiated by Thatcher in 1984.

God has a sense of humour

From a few weeks ago, when the political élites of the EU had no idea what to do if the French rejected the constitution, other than carry on as if nothing had happened, the air is now buzzing with alternative ideas, with at least two possible "Plan Bs" in vogue.

Author of one alternative is Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg and temporary EU president, who seems to have developed his earlier "do nothing" plan to take account of the possibility that all other countries, barring Britain, actually ratify the treaty.

The assumption is that, following the French, the Dutch will vote "yes", as will all of the others, leaving only the UK and the Czech Republic outstanding by the autumn of 2006.

Given the preponderance of countries supporting the constitution, Juncker theorises that France might be prevailed upon to hold a second poll, which linked the constitution with continued EU membership. Under these circumstances, France would vote "yes", leaving the UK exposed and under pressure to come into line.

There are, however, a number of slight flaws in this scenario, not least the latest poll in Holland, which suggests that the Dutch might reject the constitution.

In a survey commissioned by Dutch NOS public television and published on Saturday, 52 percent of those planning to vote expressed an intention of voting "no", against 48 percent who supported the constitution. Furthermore, of those planning to reject the text, 61 percent said the European Union had more drawbacks than benefits.

That leaves Plan Blb, which is the much rehearsed "core-Europe" where some member states, centred round France and Germany, would go for multi-lateral integration, focused on co-operation in economic and fiscal policy. This could include the imposition of minimum tax rates or tax bands for some categories of taxation, and perhaps an attempt to preserve or strengthen their social model.

The dream scenario is that this "core" would include all the 12 eurozone countries, with the hope that a change in Italian leadership to Romano Prodi would bring Italy on board.

Prodi himself does not seem entirely on-side with this scenario as he is uttering the starkest of warnings of the consequences for a French "non". "We will pass through a long period of crisis," he says. "The problem will not only be a catastrophe for France, but the fall of Europe."

Wolfgang Munchau of The Financial Times also sees problems with this scenario, arguing that the political leadership in Europe is so weak that such a bold plan is extremely unlikely to move beyond the drafting stage. Chirac will be a lame duck and Schröder risks losing next month's state elections in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany's most populous state. The two key players, therefore, are more likely to be preoccupied with their own political survival.

That, says Munchau, leaves Juncker's first plan. This, he believes, "is the only strategy that would keep a lid on an increasingly fractious EU." However, if to the French rejection, we add the Dutch, possibly the Danes, perhaps the Latvians, even the Poles and then the British and the Czechs – and maybe even the Irish – the "project" will truly be holed below the waterline.

In another of those delicious ironies, though, when it comes to dealing with the mess, Juncker will not be in the hot seat for long. On 1 July, he will be forced to hand over the baton to the new EU president, presumably Tony Blair Esq, who will be charged with brokering a solution. God does have a sense of humour after all.

Something old, something new

Now you see him, now you don’t, now you see him again. Silvio Berlusconi resigned last week as Prime Minister after two members of his uneasy coalition, the National Alliance (AN) and the Union of Christian Democrats (UDC), had pulled out of the government, demanding that after the serious losses in regional elections of Apri 3 and 4 a more radical strategy (by which they mean some more hand-outs to the southern parts of the country) be put into place.

But fear not, they are all back. Berlusconi and the other members of the coalition know that if they have a snap election now they will lose. (Actually, they will probably lose next year as well.) So, Our Silvio got his mates together again.

Most of the old gang is back, including Berlusconi’s special chum, Giulio Tremonti as Deputy Prime Minister. He was ousted in a routine coalition feud 10 months ago. His return seems to have annoyed the left-wing opposition.

The AN and UDC have been promised radical reforms and Mario Landolfi of the AN has a new job as communications minister. His first communication was to inform the media that the crisis had been necessary and the coalition was now in good shape to fight the forthcoming election.

Others seem less sanguine. According to Reuter’s

“"We continue to think this was a useless crisis that only ended up wasting a load of time," the Northern League's Roberto Calderoli, who kept his seat as Reforms Minister, said in an interview with newspaper Libero.”

Giuliano Urbani of Forza Italia, who is out, told to the Corriere della Sera:

“I'd had enough of this politicking, the wretched divisions, the cannibalism and foolishness. How could they have opened a crisis, just a few months before the elections and after having governed for four years together? ... What an own goal!”

By all accounts Berlusconi is furious because the engineered crisis that had forced him to resign slightly spoiled his record as the longest serving post-war Italian Prime Minister. His government did not last the full five years. He is, of course, back with the same government more or less but that, apparently does not count for whatever the Italian equivalent of the Guinness Book of Records is.

Europe is missing

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the leader in The Sunday Telegraph today, rejoicing in the title "Europe is missing", is that it was published at all.

In common with the political parties, the media itself has been at pains to avoid bringing the European Union into the cockpit of general election politics, yet it is precisely that phenomenon which the is remarked upon by the Telegraph.

The paper notes that, four years ago, William Hague put the slogan "Keep the Pound" at the very heart of the Conservative election campaign - and was (rightly) pilloried after his defeat for taking that strategic decision. We recall that it was during that self-same campaign that the Conservatives ran with the fatuous slogan "In Europe but not ruled by Europe".

Now, however, it is one of the ironies of this election that Michael Howard's policies on Britain's membership of the EU are considerably more radical than Mr Hague's, but have attracted negligible interest.

As we have pointed out on this Blog, the 2005 Conservative manifesto promises not only that Britain would stay out of the euro under a Tory Government, but that Prime Minister Howard would negotiate "the restoration of our opt-out from the Social Chapter" of the Maastricht Treaty. Most ambitiously, the party pledges to repatriate control of the nation's fisheries - an entirely desirable step that would certainly involve a dramatic redefinition of Britain's membership of the EU.

Yet, in this general election campaign, the paper notes, neither Blair nor Howard have said much about the issue of Europe. For Howard, this is partly because of the divisive nature of the issue in the party while Blair has no desire so close to polling day to draw attention to his enthusiasm for EU integration - a deeply felt passion that sets him sharply at odds with mainstream public opinion.

Noting how low "Europe" features in voters' concerns (the paper's ICM poll today showing that only four percent of voters regard Europe as the most important issue in the election - only to be expected, given its marginal presence in the campaign) the Telegraph believes it would be a shame if European policy did not play a significant part in voters' deliberations, as it is one of the areas where there is a pronounced difference between the two main parties.

This is especially the case with the EU constitution where it appears that only a Conservative government is prepared to guarantee a referendum. But there is another reason why it should be an issue, to which the Telegraph does not allude. General elections are about choosing governments yet, in many respects our government is not (and will not be) in Westminster, but Brussels.

For this government we will not be allowed to vote, but the Telegraph elsewhere in its own pages gives us ample evidence of why we should have nothing to do with it.

Thus, if we are to chose a government – a British government – we must first dispense with the usurper over the water, which makes the logical choice the Party which is most likely to put distance between it and us. In the fullness of time, we hope that such a choice may provoke the same leader headline – "Europe is missing" – but in the context of it missing not from a general election campaign, but from our lives.

Barroso sleaze – we spill the beans

When it emerged last week that two EU commissioners, Peter Mandelson and José Manuel Barroso, the commission's Portuguese president, had failed to declare hospitality they had received on the yachts of two billionaires, it was not then known that this information had come to light thanks initially to a tip-off from a senior commission official and then to leaks from officials very close to the commissioners. Mr Barroso's commission is leaking like a sieve.

It was, however, inevitable that British media attention would centre on Mr Mandelson, even though the Barroso story raised far more serious implications - an obsession that has continued into today's press with "Mandy" articles in both The Sunday Times and The Scotsman.

Despite the continued parochialism of the British media, however, it still remains beyond comprehension that, just before he took office, Barroso should spend six days on the luxury yacht of Spiros Latsis, one of the richest and most powerful businessman in Greece, and that this could be just an innocent meeting between old friends, as the commission tried to maintain.

In order to bring more facts to light, therefore, Booker and this Blog have been working together, unearthing the details that the rest of the media have chosen to ignore, the results of which are published today in The Sunday Telegraph Booker column, with an unedited, more detailed version in this posting.

Our starting point was the week before the details of Barroso's holiday leaked out. Then – by all accounts – there was a tense meeting of all 25 EU commissioners, under the chairmanship of Barroso, to discuss a "collegiate" response to a series of questions put to the commissioners in the name of Nigel Farage MEP, asking whether they had received any free hospitality.

Under unprecedented security, with all officials excluded, first Barroso and then Mandelson revealed to their colleagues that they had indeed benefited from free hospitality but, at the insistence of the president, all the commissioners agreed that Barroso's holiday and Mandelson's sojourn posed "no conflict of interest". They did not, therefore, have to be declared.

In agreeing that the details could be kept secret, it is possible that all the commissioners did not know the full details of the nature of the Latsis group of companies, comprising shipping, banking, petroleum, engineering and construction interests, and the fact that the group had considerable involvement in EU-funded schemes.

But what excited our interest most was the controversial project involving the design, construction and operation of Athens International Airport, at £1.6 billion the most expensive airport project in Europe. This was constructed by a German company Hochtief, with the aid of nearly £900 million-worth of funding from EU taxpayers and the EU's European Investment Bank (EIB).

It would only have taken a few hours on the internet, though, to have established that Hochtief and the Latsis group are partners in this enterprise and in a series of vast, part-EU funded construction projects in Greece. Yet, at the time the story broke, Françoise le Bail, the commission senior spokesman stated that she was "not aware that the group had benefited from EU funding".

Le Bail may have been speaking the truth, but the fact remains that she could have found out very easily that the Latsis group did (and continues) to benefit from EU funding, and none can be more controversial that the EU funding of the airport at Spata, near Athens, on which Booker reported as long ago as March 2004.

What makes the scheme especially controversial – and a potential minefield for Barroso – is that, for three years, up to the highest level, the EU commission has been refusing to answer a stream of questions from MEPs and journalists on how the contract to build and run the Spata airport was given to Hochtief.

From the start, there were suspicions about how the contract was awarded for, although the German company contributed only €133 million to the €2.28 billion project, it now has the right to manage the airport for 30 years, through a company of which, although it holds only a 45 percent stake (the remaining 55 percent held by the Greek government), Hochtief can nominate a majority of board members and appoint the chief executive.

Exhaustive investigation by Basil Coronakis, editor and owner of the Athens and Brussels-based journal New Europe, showed that the sub-contractors who carried out the actual construction work on the airport did not receive more than €320 million. This is way below the €2.28 billion (£1.6 billion) stated by Hochtief in April 2003 to be its total cost.

Among the questions raised by Coronakis since 2003, and which the commission has persistently failed to answer, are:

1. how, to qualify to administer a contract including over €2 billion of public money, did a private, profit-making company set up by Hochtief come to be designated by the Commission as an "authority" in 1996, apparently at the stroke of a pen, when EU rules make clear that an "authority", responsible for monitoring that the money has been spent correctly, must be state-owned or at least non-profit making? How could a recipient private company itself be that "authority"?

2. how did the EIB come to lend €997 million (£700 million) to the project, at a time when its total cost was still being shown as only €950 million, and when EIB rules allow loans of only 50 percent of a project's infrastructure cost?

3. why in costings accepted by the commission was a sum of €416 million (£290 million), shown as interest, added into the total twice?

4. what happened to the nearly €2 billion discrepancy between the estimated actual construction cost and the final costs claimed?

In March 2003 three MEPs, a German, a Dane and a British Conservative Bashir Kanbhai, asked the commission president Romano Prodi for an itemised cost analysis and sight of the invoices. In April Prodi replied that the European Court of Auditors was investigating the project.

Then, in July 2003 a senior commission official of the directorate-general in charge of the Cohesion Fund (DG-Regio) assured the MEPs that the project was now under investigation by three directorates, the commission's secretary-general and its legal services department. Nothing has subsequently been heard of any outcome to these investigations.

At the end of July 2004, according to a Greek version of the airport authority’s annual report, Prodi attempted to close the "Spata dossier", before handing over to the new commission under Barroso, by calling a top-level meeting of three directors-general. They proposed that the Greek government should pay a penalty of €12.7 million, under two technical headings, although Cohesion Fund rules say that such a penalty must be paid by the "authority", not by a government.

No more has been heard of this proposal. But when, last autumn, a new Greek government was set to investigate the Spata contract, the commission sent a list of every EU-funded Greek project other than Spata, with a hint that, if all these were investigated, the government might have to return to Brussels billions of euros. Nevertheless the contract is now under investigation by Greece's public prosecutor.

A further twist to the tale has been provided by Yannis Terezakis, a commission official working in DG-Tren, the directorate-general dealing with energy and transport. As someone who must travel between Athens and Brussels up to 45 times a year, often with his family, Mr Terezakis became angered by Spata's exorbitant airport charges, which cost him nearly £7000 a year.

In November 2003, writing from home and emphasising that he was doing so as a private citizen, not as an official, Mr Terezakis lodged a dossier on the airport saga with Olaf, the commission's anti-fraud unit. In particular he asked why there was no record of any VAT payments being made on the construction cost, which should have amounted to €270 million.

In April 2004 Mr Terezakis was summoned to Olaf's offices in his official capacity to answer questions. He refused, on the grounds that his was a private complaint and that, as an official, Olaf could order him to keep quiet.

After further exchanges with Dr Bruener, the head of Olaf, who accused him of being a "whistleblower", in September 2004 Mr Terezakis applied to the European Court of Justice for his right under EU law to see key documents on the airport project which the Commission was withholding. This month he was summoned by the commission's administration (DG-Admin) to attend a disciplinary tribunal. Again he has refused to attend, on the grounds that he is not conducting his case as a commission employee who can be silenced for breach of disciplinary rules.

All this shows how, under the Barroso commission, Spata is still a highly sensitive issue – which makes it relevant to question the wisdom or otherwise of Barroso's original refusal to declare as an interest his holiday last August with Spiros Latsis, whom Barroso explains is an old friend. They met 30 years ago as students in Geneva, when they imbibed the virtues of "European Federalism" from that revered guru of federalism, Denis de Rougemont (Latsis is a trustee of Friends of Europe, an EU-wide lobbying organisation for greater political integration).

The Latsis commercial empire has been closely involved with Hochtief in both constructing and managing Spata airport. Through Hellenic Petroleum, one of Greece's largest oil companies – in which another partner is the Russian oil giant LUKoil – it holds the contract for all fuel supplies to the airport, through an EU-funded pipeline built by a Latsis engineering company. Hellenic Petroleum, according to its own accounts, in 2000, paid $612 million to acquire a 34 percent interest in the Athens Airport Fuel Pipeline Company.

A Latsis company also has a 50 percent stake in the huge contract for running most of the airport's "ground-handling" services – almost everything except control of the aircraft themselves.

Latsis's development arm, Lamda, is a partner with Hochtief in a series of vast, part-EU funded motorway projects across Greece, as part of the "Trans European Network". And between 1999 and 2004, during the time when Spata airport was completed, the commission last week revealed that the giant EFG Eurobank Ergasias banking group, controlled by Latsis family interests, held an exclusive contract to handle all EU structural funds coming to Greece, totalling €28 billion.

All this evidence might have given Barroso pause to reflect when he was first asked last February in the name of Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party MEPs in Brussels, whether he had taken any holidays which might raise a possible conflict of interest. We may also question whether his fellow commissioners were fully briefed when this month they endorsed his decision that he had nothing to declare, on the grounds, as Françoise le Bail put it, that, as far as she knew, his host had no "business ties with the EU".

Clearly, there is much more to this whole affair than has yet been revealed by the commission and, on the basis of what we know and have published here, there are no grounds whatsoever by which Barroso could claim that his accepting lavish hospitality from Dr Latsis could not be construed as representing a "conflict of interest".

Yet, the ultimate irony is that, last Wednesday, just after the story broke, in a speech in Geneva, Barroso was reaffirming his belief that the EU should be more "transparent" in its dealings with the public. He was giving the speech as a guest of the Latsis Foundation.

Happy (belated) birthday

On 20 April last year, the prime minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that he would "let the people have the final say" on the EU constitution, thereby announcing that he would hold a referendum – without actually using the word "referendum" in his speech.

Nevertheless, he closed with a stirring peroration:

Let the Eurosceptics, whose true agenda we will expose, make their case. Let those of us who believe in Britain in Europe - not because of Europe alone, but because we believe in Britain and our national interest lying in Europe - make our case, too. Let the issue be put and let the battle be joined.

We decided to take up Mr Blair’s challenge – to make our case – and two days later we started our Blog with our first post, declaring that:

In this new Blog, we hope to rehearse and discuss the issues relating to one of the most important political issues of the day - the UK referendum on the EU's constitutional treaty. Enjoy.

That made yesterday our first birthday and, over 200,000 hits later, we believe we have established a firm niche in the Eurosceptic movement, providing our own brand of news, comment and analysis.

However, with our "hits" standing at over 200,000, battle has still not been joined by the Blairites and now, in the midst of a general election, "Europe" is still firmly off the agenda and there are indications that we might not even have the referendum that the prime minister promised.

Despite that, with our first year behind us, we feel that the need for our site remains and we will therefore continue our work, not least in the hope that we succeed in better informing and occasionally entertaining our readers.

Should the day come when we are allowed to make a decision on our relationship with the European Union, we thus hope we will still be there. At the moment, though, it looks like we are in for the long haul and our yearling child may be of quite an advanced age before we get that chance.

On that basis, we wish ourselves a belated "happy birthday" and, not with a little trepidation, wish ourselves many more to come.

And the next Napoleon will be ...

You don’t ask you don’t get. That seems to be the motto of that great and good (you mean completely unknown) London MEP, Nirj Deva. Of course, if you ask you may not get either, but that does not seem to bother him.

Mr Deva, a former MP until the electors of Hounslow got bored with him, a present member of the European Parliament, and self-styled Ambassador-at-Large for Sri Lanka, has thrown his hat into the ring for the next Secretary General of the United Nations.

Fresh from the great success of failing to reform the European Parliament’s freebies (woops, sorry, expenses) system, Mr Deva, who is leading the European Parliament delegation to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (nice one Nirj!), has announced to the United States Council on Foreign Relations and, later, to St John’s University (no, I don’t know what it is either) that

“…as it is Asia’s turn to provide the Secretary-General of the United Nations he had been asked by numerous organisations to be a candidate to succeed Kofi Annan when the time comes.”

Before we go any further, one or two things need to be made clear. Nirj Deva may have been born in Sri Lanka but he is a British citizen (and, as he no doubt, likes telling people) an EU citizen as its consequence. Otherwise he would not be in the European Parliament and would not have been in the House of Commons.

Britain is a permanent member of Security Council. No Secretary General can be from a major country, let alone from one that is a permanent member of the Security Council. Ergo Nirj Deva cannot be SecGen. Q, as they used to say, ED.

Of course, he can suddenly discard his British and EU citizenship but that would mean relinquishing his place in the euro-trough. Somehow I cannot see the estimable Mr Deva doing that.

Getting away from that conundrum, what are Mr Deva’s qualifications for this post?

“They see me as a bridge; being personally and politically rooted in Asia and Europe on the one hand; and my with long standing commitment [sic] to the development of Africa Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) on the other.”

His basic understanding of civil engineering does not seem to be that hot either, but he is not applying for a job that has any useful aspect to it.

So, um, how will he deal with the variour problems that the UN has faced recently? According to his press release

“He called for a closer involvement by citizens to create a new driving force for the effective delivery of aid, and for holding governments and NGOs accountable and transparent through the use of interactive real time internet technology. Being committed to the Millennium Development Goals, he has included the "Quick Wins" solutions on eradicating poverty, in the European Parliament Development Budget of which he is draftsman and called for a New Partnership with developing countries to strengthen, align and build capacities in partner countries receiving European aid.”

I wonder if any of our readers will be able to explain what “interactive real time internet technology” is and how it will suddenly make the UN and NGOs accountable to anyone at all. It is of particular interest, as my spies tell me that Mr Deva does not quite know the best way of switching on a computer.

Further on, he gets into an even bigger muddle. On the one hand, he sees it as the UN’s job to eradicate child labour, as well as child trafficking and child soldiers. On the other hand,

“Another way of promoting sustainable development is through Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME’s) which in developing countries are often family businesses. He called for a greater role for the European Investment Bank, which has a lending base three times the size of the World Bank, to play a major role in assisting the private sector in developing countries and demanded cuts in bureaucracy which increased poverty, stifled growth and encouraged corruption in developing countries.”

But not family enterprises that employ their children, one assumes. When do children stop being children? Are we going to impose the oh-so-successful British system of reluctant fifteen-year-olds in classrooms learning nothing?

Rising to a crescendo of lunacy Mr Deva’s press release and preliminary election manifesto ends with the following stirring words.

“The Secretary-General is more than an Administrator – he is the public face of the United Nations, and it is to him that the people of the world will rightly look when problems need to be solved. He is not a dictator, he is not a line manager - he has limited powers so he must above all be a consensus-builder. This is not a job for a bureaucrat – it is a job for a politician, and perhaps it is time for an outsider who is not steeped in the culture of foreign relations, and especially not in the culture of the UN.

Above all he needs to remember that his job is not about institutions - it is about people. He is the servant of the people of the world whether they be rich or poor and whether they be weak or powerful. He must work with their governments and the international institutions which they have ordained, but he must never forget that his overriding purpose is to achieve so far as he can conditions in which individual men and women can live in peace, and develop and enjoy their human potential to the full.”

Mr Deva was last seen wandering round the endless corridors of the European Parliament in a tricorne with a cockarde pinned to it, one hand tucked into an immaculate white waistcoat and the other one pointing onwards and upwards.

Constitution muddles

In an extraordinary piece of hubris, the egregious Peter Mandelson – he of the Caribbean cocktail circuit – has been lecturing the Dutch on the perils of voting “no” in their EU referendum.

A rejection of the constitution, he says, could bring economic chaos, undermine Europe's negotiating power in global free trade talks and usher in a long period of protectionism. "It will puncture my position in the Doha development round if Europe is seen by the rest of the world to be falling apart," he said.

This great expert in EU affairs was then heard to tell his audience of Dutch Europhiles: "I'm not saying that Europe would fall apart. At best Europe would stagnate. At worse we would face some sort of chaos,"

"A 'no' vote means Europe turning in on itself, examining its navel again," he added. "It would mean people in the rest of the world taking Europe less seriously and... from a trade point of view that is the very last thing that Europe needs."

No content with that, he then rounded on his audience, accusing the "Dutch political elite" of taking a "yes" vote for granted. "As founder members of the European project, you were in from the start," he told them. "But then too many politicians have run away or closed their ears to growing public dissatisfaction. Such complacency will no longer do," he added.

At a press conference at Schiphol Airport, he reinforced his message about the perils of a "no" vote.

"The financial markets, business community don't like instability, don't like uncertainty and if the markets were to read a 'no' vote in that way it could have damaging economic consequences," he told journalists, finishing with an exhortation to "business leaders" to rally behind the treaty. They could not afford "to put their heads in the sand," he said.

Meanwhile, The Telegraph is telling us that Europe's “pro-federalist leaders” have launched a campaign to save the EU constitution from imminent death should France vote "no".

The key to their "Plan B", we are told, is to insist that countries due to hold votes later this year - or even next year, like Britain - carry on regardless of the result in France until all 25 member states have been given a chance to ratify the treaty.

They are asserting that there is a moral, political and even a legal obligation to carry on voting - an argument aimed squarely at Britain and, in particular, Tony Blair, who is now hinting that the referendum will be abandoned.

Picking up on yesterday's Financial Times story, The Telegraph retails the views of Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker saying that: "The French vote is important but I don't believe it should stop the ratification process under way in other countries."

What is new though is that "senior Eurocrats" have started murmuring that Britain and other waverers are obliged to continue the ratification process.

Their argument is founded on the declaration to the draft constitution that says that if, by December 2006, four fifths of the 25 states have ratified the treaty but "one of more member states have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification", then "the matter will be referred" to the European Council.

We are told that commission spokesperson Françoise le Bail – she who thought that Barroso had done nothing wrong by spending a week on the yacht of a Greek billionaire – is insisted that a Council could only gauge the true depth of EU support for the constitution if voting continued,

However, not all governments of EU member states agree. One EU diplomat said: "It's obvious that if the French vote 'no' there will be an immediate discussion between the governments."

This unnamed source adds that: "If President Chirac says the French won't vote twice, then the idea that other countries are going to go on to ratify is laughable. For one thing, how exactly do you go about winning a 'yes' campaign in another country, if the French have made clear they are going to veto the constitution at the end?"

The man has a point. If the French do vote "no", we will in due course see Blair slide out of his commitment to hold a referendum in the UK, although he may leave announcing the decision until after the Dutch or even the Danish referendum.

But he would do better not to crow too loudly and someone had better tell Mandelson to tone it down a bit as well.

Another week ...

… and no Margot. Or no new posting anyway. All we get is that old bromide about the Pope’s eyes and her musings about referendums.

No postings and no responses from the fragrant Commissar. Is she too busy sorting out her problems with the Swedish equivalent of the electoral commission? Incidentally, this rather pathetic peccadillo confirms what we, on this blog, firmly believe: political parties must not be financed by the state.

Is she trying to work out why Sweden, that supposed utopia of gender equality now feels the need for a new feminist party and is having a somewhat belated debate about continuing domestic violence? (Apparently, in Sweden of all countries the subject has been taboo for all these years.)

Or has she, simply decided that really this was not a good idea after all?

So the integration continues...

Adding to the steady march of European defence integration, the latest step of which we reported in January, DefenseNews has reported that the "The 25-nation European Union" plans to tighten its coordination of cross-border armaments and defence research programs by placing their control under the European Defence Agency.

This agency, which only came fully into being this year is now to absorb the activities of Europe's two main collaborative defence research groups within the next year. This was decided in Brussels yesterday by the EDA's governing steering board, which agreed the agency should take over all armaments and defence research contracts and activities of the Western European Armaments Organisation (WEAO) and the Western European Armaments Group (WEAG).

These two research entities belong to the near-defunct Western European Union defence organisation, nearly all of whose member countries belong to the European Union. Dirk Ellinger, EDA director of research and technology, says that folding them into the EDA will make collaborative research and technology “more cost-effective and tie it more closely to the capabilities needed” to implement the EU security and defence policy.

Absorbing the work of WEAG and WEAO "will give [research and technology] collaboration a much stronger political impulse," added Nick Witney, the agency's chief executive.

And that is the way the system works. First we have a number of intergovernmental organisations, working on a limited and entirely voluntary basis. Then a rival EU organisation is created – in this case the EDA – and it progressively takes over its rivals, absorbing them into the institutional structure of the EU.

Interestingly, though, in this case, the EDA is not yet an EU institution, as its formal adoption into the EU must wait until the EU constitution is ratified (if at all). Until then, it occupies a curious status of an intergovernmental organisation waiting for treaty approval.

That hasn't stopped the march of integration though and now we see the next stage in the steady, incremental execution of the master plan which has only one objective – the creation of the EU security and defence policy.

Naughty little Margot

It appears that the commissioner for truth and reconciliation, none other than the fragrant Margot Wallström has been caught with her fingers (metaphorically) in the till.

According to the Swedish daily, Expressen she has been implicated in a domestic political scandal involving membership fraud in the ruling Social Democratic Party. It has emerged that in her time as a district chair, she misreported membership figures to receive more state funds for the party.

This, incidentally, is the same commissioner who, on Wednesday, told the press corps, in a speech about "putting the EU in the picture" that "communication is not a one-way street; it is a two-way channel.. I deeply believe that we have to listen better and earlier to people".

To improve communications, she is inviting journalists to have "regular chats" in "a slightly more relaxed situation than on the podium of the pressroom". One wonders whether a little chat about her role in "membership fraud" would be that relaxed - much less her boss José Manuel Barroso talking about his holiday arrangements.

Condoleezza Rice supports "EU completion"?

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has been in Lithuania addressing a meeting of Nato foreign ministers on a wide range of subjects. But, at a press conference at the Forum Palace in Vilnius, yesterday, she was asked by a reporter from The Financial Times whether she perceived "a risk of Europe stalling" in the context of the EU constitution being rejected by France.

"We're obviously not members of the European Union," she replied, "we're not a part of this debate, individual countries have to make their choices". She then went on to say: "…but we have been very supportive of the European project, of its completion, of the European Union."

She claimed to have "developed a good partnership with the European Community - European Union - and the commission and all of the structures of the European Union", on which basis, "from our point of view, the continued success of the European construction is important."

"I would just note," she added, "that the European Union has been an important drawing card, an important incentive for democratisation and reform in a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, as they've emerged as democracies. It's also - continues to be, I think, an important set of incentives as we try to resolve the last remaining conflicts, for instance, in the Balkans."

Thus, she said, "it has been an important force for stability and for progress in this theatre and a force for good and for the promotion of democratic principles abroad."

This was, of course, very much what the "Europeans" wanted to hear and, while she sidestepped the very specific question of whether the US supported the constitution, those who so wish could easily infer US support from secretary Rice's comments.

In the febrile atmosphere of the French referendum campaign, one wonders if this is not a poison pill. Express US support could do nothing other than strengthen the "no" vote. In all utterences of the US State Department – as in diplomacy generally – you have to wonder what the real agenda is. In the style of Humpty dumpty, words never seem to mean exactly what they say, but what the author means them to say.

If the price is right

Prime Minister Raffarin has got what he wanted during his visit to China – trade deals amounting to €200 billion (£137 billion) for France. (Ahem, whatever happened to European solidarity, integration and the need to speak with one voice to play a stronger part in the world?)

But he had to pay for it. Not only he called once again for the lifting of the arms embargo despite all the many political, strategic and humanitarian arguments against it but he has also broken rank with the rest of the Western world and announced French support for the recent Chinese anti-secession law.

The law gives China the right (passed as it was by the Chinese government, it does not embody international legislation that is so close to the hearts of all French politicians, particularly when it means oppsing the United States) to attack and invade Taiwan, should it make overt moves towards formal independence.

The law was criticized by the United States, Japan and all European countries and was the main reason why the agreement on lifting the EU arms embargo was once again postponed.

Now that France has made the first move to support an obviously aggressive piece of Chinese legislation in order to win big orders, can other European countries be far behind?

Splits on response to French "non"

According to The Financial Times, splits are emerging amongst key EU players as to how to respond to a French "non".

Despite Blair maintaining that referendum will go ahead, the British picture, we are told, is that the treaty would be dead if rejected. The private view is that the UK will cancel its referendum. French officials also believe the treaty could not be revived and that the best hope would be to try to salvage some parts of the text at a later date.

However, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg prime minister, believes a French "non" or a rejection by the Dutch in their referendum on 1 June should not stop the ratification of the treaty. "The process will continue," says one of his officials. "Just because the French have said 'non' does that mean that they decide for the whole of Europe? That would be undemocratic."

Juncker argues that the EU constitution envisages all countries trying to ratify the treaty, with a decision taken at the end of the process on how to deal with "one or more member states" which failed.

European diplomats now fear paralysis in the EU, possibly disrupting the start of accession talks with Turkey scheduled for October 3. Marek Belka, Polish prime minister, said on Monday that rejection of the constitution would "completely change the way the EU negotiates with Turkey".

A decision on how to proceed in the event of a "non" in France or the Netherlands would be taken at an EU summit on 16-17 June.

Meanwhile, a poll in the Brittany and the Pays de la Loire areas has produced a "yes" vote by 52 percent compared to 48 percent for "non". This is according to a survey carried out between 14-16 April by TMO Régions pour France 3 Ouest, for Ouest France et Le Télégramme. What is significant about this is that, in 1992, the Breton vote had been decisively in favour of the Maastricht treaty and the "yes" vote was 62 percent in March.

A national internet survey also gives a buoyant picture, delivering a prediction for the "no" campaign which for the first time passes the 60 percent mark, with 62.3 percent of the vote firmly for the "nons". This poll was carried out by Market-Tools Survey on 20 April and published today by le Metro, the daily free newspaper.

All together, the picture is firming up quite strongly and it does not look as if such a huge "non" movement can be reversed. But you never know.

Galileo – the dangers multiply

The international media is beginning to take an interest in the EU’s satellite navigation system, and the dangers posed by co-operation with China, viz this piece in the Turkish Press, based in part on an interview I did with the Voice of America:

As the European Union debates whether to lift its arms embargo against China, another issue is looming. According to some western defense experts, China could gain valuable military knowledge in the targeting of missiles and smart weapons through an EU satellite project that will be completed in a few years.

At issue is the European Union's more than $4 billion Galileo network, which is set to enter service in 2008. With 30 satellites and ground stations, it is intended to establish an extremely accurate navigation and positioning system that will have civilian and military uses.

China agreed in 2003 to invest more than $250 million in the network and soon contracts for the first development projects are to be signed.

Analysts familiar with the People's Liberation Army say China's military has the capability to use the Galileo system to gain access to sensitive high-technology. Richard North is a military and political specialist with the Bruges Group, a London-based research organization that is often critical of the European Union.

"The central issue is that the Peoples Liberation Army are upgrading," he said. "They are looking to particular use of high-technology in terms of command and control systems. And also in advance guidance systems for cruise-type missiles.

Now advance guidance and command and control both depend intrinsically on having satellite guidance. The Chinese clearly want it for military purposes. And by having access to the Galileo system they acquire a potent military capability which threatens U.S. interests and can only have one rationale, and that is for military use."

Military analysts say missiles are a major part of China's strategy for controlling Taiwan, which it considers a break-away province. They also say modern anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles would help the Chinese deter US intervention in a Taiwan conflict.

The United States and its allies already have a system that performs much the same function as Galileo. By means of global positioning satellites the system keeps track of vessels and is able to guide weapons to their targets. Civilians may also use this global positioning system, known as GPS, but it can be restricted during times of war or because of other security threats.

The European Union says the Galileo satellite system is designed primarily for commercial use. But it uses an encoded signal called the Public Regulated Service, which is used by European police and military forces to fight crime and illegal immigration.

The European Union says it has taken precautions to ensure that China will not have access to the the Public Regulated Service or other sensitive technologies or functions.

Fraser Cameron, director of studies at the European Policy Center in Brussels, says Galileo does not pose a security threat. "It would be very doubtful, in my view, that this can be used for military purposes," he said. "Because the GPS positioning system upon which it is based has been designed for civilian purposes. Both in terms of safety, transport, and security. With GPS positioning I do not think there is anything in the actual project which would provide for the ability to help guided missiles."

But military analyst Richard North, of the Bruges Group, disagrees. He says Chinese technicians with detailed knowledge of the technology could gain access to codes and could also take the system apart to learn its construction. He says those who believe the China's military will not be able to do this are naive.

"That is not credible," he said. "The Chinese are not just passive customers. They are development partners. They are fully integrated into the development of the system, with their own engineers working on the system, and therefore they have full access to the technology, and that which they are not given, they can very easily work out for themselves by back engineering [reverse engineering]."

Other analysts take a mixed view. Laurence Nardon, a space program specialist at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris, says there are security concerns, but they are being addressed.

"The risk with Galileo is that they [China] will be part of the system building," he said. "And that is where the risk lies. And I think the EU has to be very cautious, but I have reason to think that they do that already. So, yes there is an increase in the risk, but I think it is taken care of."

China is the number one EU trading partner. Beijing say it wants the Galileo satellite system to help with transportation, agriculture, fisheries, mapping, and emergency services.

Beijing has also asked the European Union to drop an arms embargo imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen square crackdown, saying the ban is outdated. Several European Union member countries, as well as the United States, oppose ending the embargo, saying Beijing would gain access to high-technology with military applications.

See also the International Herald Tribune and even the Boston Globe.

As you were

According to Reuters, a poll carried out by the BVA organisation for L’Express, to be released tomorrow, gives the "no" campaign an overwhelming 58 percent of those intending to vote, its highest scoring yet.

This was from a sample of 815 people, carried out on 18 and 19 April, and represents a five point increase on the poll carried out by the same organisation over 8-9 April, before the television intervention of Chirac. Of this total sample in the poll, 29 percent of those interviewed did not express a preference.

Jerome Sainte-Marie, director of BVA-Opinion, states that greatest increase in the "nons" have come from the Left, delivering an additional seven points, but even Chirac's UMP supporters have increased their opposition by one point.

Neelie is disappointed

Poor “Nickel” Neelie. You have to feel sorry for her. There she was, happily ensconced on endless corporate boards, minding her own business (and the advantages that business gave her). Then suddenly, wham! She becomes the Commissar for Competition and great things are expected from her.

Single-handedly (well, nobody REALLY believes all that stuff about free-marketeer Barroso or free-trader Mandelson any more) she is expected to transform the social-democratic agenda of the single market and the continuing habit of picking national winners, prevalent in most member states, but particularly France and Germany.

So the lady is not completely happy with the results on the annual scoreboard of state aid, published yesterday by the Commission.

“I am disappointed that the overall level of aid relative to GDP has not fallen in line with the commitments undertaken by the member states themselves at the Stockholm European Council in 2001.”

Never mind, she said, brightening a bit, there has been “a welcome shift in aid towards general objectives, such as research and development”. Hmm.

The figures for 2003 are predictable or disappointing, depending on your point of view.

The 15 member countries gave out €53 billion (£36.2 billion) in grant and subsidies in that year, almost half the budget being accounted for by France and Germany. Not that it helped their economies much but then state aid rarely does.

As Carl Mortished says in today’s Times:

“Germany is consistently the biggest provider of state aid, handing over €16 billion in 2003. In second and third place were France and Italy, which spent €9 billion and €7 billion, respectively. Britain gave €4 billion but in relation to economic weight, Finland led the field with subsidies equal to 1.4 per cent of GDP.”

“Most of the state aid granted in 2003, some €32 billion, went to the manufacturing and services sector and €14 billion was given to agriculture and fisheries. Germany’s inefficient coal mines absorbed €3 billion.”

The Commission gave a dusty response to Gordon Brown’s suggestion that the competition directorate should become a stand-alone body, independent of the Commission. One must admit, they have a point. What precisely would the benefit of that be?

But it is hard to see why Commissar Kroes should be disappointed. Did she think that just because politicians gave undertakings in Stockholm or whereer, they would keep to these when national votes are at stake?

How does she think the sort of social-democratic economic system she, presumably, favours can be run without endless redistribution of funds. Just wait till the East Europeans get seriously in on the act. Then Neelie will really have something to complain about.

"Nons" waning?

Agence France Presse – and agency with a distinctly Europhile tinge – is reporting that support for the "no" camp seems to be waning.

It bases this conclusion on a poll conducted by the CSA institute, which appears in today's Le Parisien, showing the "nons" at a mere 52 percent, a loss of four points compared with the last poll, released yesterday.

As pollsters will be quick to tell you though, no single poll can ever be taken as definitive and it is the trend that counts. On this basis, we have now had 20 consecutive polls within the space of a month indicating that the French will vote against the EU constitution.

However, these polls do not factor in the sentiment from the overseas departements - Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and Tahiti – which swung the vote in the Maastricht referendum.

And, as The Telegraph reports today, we may be seeing some dirty tricks being played out here – quelle surprise.

Of course, it ain't over until it's over and with over five week’s to go, the result is anyone's guess (although Chirac might have been given the figures already).

Bush's sense of humour - 1

People who know Dubya and even those who have met him once or twice or been present when he was giving presentations and answering questions, all say the same thing: he has a wicked sense of humour. (He is also supposed to be quite a good mimic who does hilarious imitations of frère Jacques, President Chirac.) And he is certainly demonstrating it in some of his decisions and appointments on the international scene.

First he proposed John Bolton for the post of the new American ambassador to the UN. We have already written about that and about Mr Bolton’s attitude to transnational organizations.

John Bolton would be just the man to take that corrupt and unaccountable organization by the collective scruff of its neck and give it a good shake.

Some of our readers may have noticed that we on this blog are not great fans of the UN or other unaccountable transnational organizations. But surely, even people who think that the UN should have more power in international affairs (in fact, especially people who think in that misguided fashion) agree that a root-and-branch reform is long overdue.

So Bolton may seem to be the obvious person to take on the job but I doubt whether the high panjandrums of transnationalism perceive it that way. As far as they are concerned this is President Bush, leader of the strongest and richest country in the world taking a potshot at them and all they stand for. Well, they may be right, but they will have to co-operate or lose even more credibility.

It appears that the supporters of the UN are even less logical than one had expected them to be. Bolton’s nomination has run into difficulties with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that has been torn apart by the usual Democrat shenanigans when there is a Republican administration.

They have tried to drag the nomination hearings out as long as possible, perhaps hoping that Bolton and President Bush will give up. For the moment they have been successful, largely because Ohio Republican Senator John Voinovich has agreed to a postponement of the vote, that was going to be called for certain this week.

During the next three weeks the Democrats hope to produce more evidence to show that Bolton is the wrong man for the job.

Briefly, there are two aspects to the complaints. One has to do with his managerial style, which seems to involve periodic outbursts of anger, a great sin in the eyes of these people, unless it is righteous anger expressed by the likes of John Kerry.

Bolton is accused of harrassing his staff, something that one would have thought is an absolute must in the UN. However, this is not sexual harrassment. He would have got the job with no difficulty if it had been. This is something to do with maternity leaves and one of the complaints goes back to something that happened ten years ago.

As with Clarence Thomas, so with John Bolton, one worries about convenient complaints that surface years later, particularly if there is only one at a time. The complaints about Clinton’s behaviour, waved away airily, though they were far more serious, were consistent and repetitive.

Another aspect of this is an accusation that Bolton has shifted or moved away intelligence analysts he did not agree with. Possibly so, though Otto Reich, formerly President Bush’s special envoy for the Western Hemisphere, explained it all slightly differently. The analyst in question, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 14, had been producing consistently erroneous analysis, probably coloured by his own political attitudes.

As this was analysis about Central America and Cuba, you can bet that the political attitudes were not precisely anti-Communist.

The point is that there is nothing sacred about intelligence analysts. Their advice might be right or wrong; they are, as Otto Reich says, human, therefore they err. Nothing says that politicians must accept everything they say with awe, particularly as different analysts come to different conclusions.

If it becomes obvious that one errs more often than is good for the health of political decision making and if, furthermore, these consistent errors may well be put down to political opinions, then it is perfectly acceptable for a politician not to want that analyst’s opinions any more.

Whichever way you look at it, these are managerial decisions that are of little significance, particularly when one bears in mind the far worse scandals that have emerged and continue to emerge from the UN.

John Bolton’s greatest sin is his disdainful attitude to the UN. The International Herald Tribune wrote in its editorial on April 14 that it was outrageous to send a man like Bolton to the UN, given his negative attitude to the organization. But then the same issue carried an article by SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) on the need for rich countries to cough up the promised aid for Sudan. It did not quite explain why the UN is doing nothing in Darfur (not a genocide, honest, guv) or where the money already paid over has gone.

The following day the Trib did have another article that explained a little more clearly Bolton’s attitude. Yes, he was disdainful of the UN but that was the UN as world government not the UN as an organization that could exercise peacekeeping powers.

Indeed, Bolton has written on the subject extensively and his views are no secret. The UN, an unaccountable, self-absorbed organization has proclaimed itself to be a world government in bud and, at the very least, the fountain of international legality.

Given that it has not been given either of those powers; does not account to anyone; is full of bloodthirsty, kleptocratic governments that alternate between attacking the United States and demanding more money from that country, this is not an unreasonable attitude.

Nevertheless, the attitude of the tranzis and the UN groupies has been odd. If they really want the organization to flourish they would want someone like Bolton to go there. After all, Pat Moynihan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick were rather good for it.

Surely, it is people like me who should be against it, on the grounds that the worse it is the better it is in the long run. Why try to give that organization an extra lease when it is due for demolition?

(My excuse for not taking that line is that I like Bush’s sense of humour and want to see it working its way out in the world.)

Are we to understand that the people who are so shocked by Bolton’s opinions of the UN and his appointment do not actually want to see that body reformed, despite the many scandals that have been made public recently?

Do they seriously believe that SecGen Annan who has presided over these scandals will somehow, miraculously carry out those reforms, when he is incapable of explaining his son’s role in the biggest and baddest of them all?

Or do they simply not care and cannot see a way out (just as, frankly, neither can we on this blog)? Do they, perchance, just want to get their heads down, get the last few benefits for themselves out of the system before it collapses? Surely not.

Looking in the wrong direction

Following the revelation that Messrs Barroso and Mandelson had been accepting hospitality in rather dubious circumstances, and that the pair are denying any wrongdoing, The Telegraph is back on the case but, as usual, is missing the target. Instead of following the much more interesting and important trail of commission president Barroso, The Telegraph is going for the cheap shot, chasing Mandelson.

It appears that the trade commissioner was on the island of St Barthelemy, with film stars, peers, pop musicians and leaders of world business. And among those whose hospitality he enjoyed was Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, and the world's seventh richest man, having attended a drinks party aboard the tycoon's yacht.

Yawn! They are looking in the wrong direction.

When are they going to get down to serious politics?

First in The Daily Telegraph yesterday comes Ferdinand Mount, who poses the question: "There's a big world out there - why is this election ignoring it?" Then, in today’s Times comes Peter Riddell, with a piece entitled: "What you see is not what you get".

In their own ways different pieces, they also offer a single theme, one rehearsed in this Blog and one increasingly preoccupying commentators. That theme, essentially, is: "what they are leaving out of the election?"

Ferdinand Mount picks on two main issues, the decision to invade Iraq and the European Union, issues he believes are foremost in the minds of the most agitated voters at this election.

Every Leftish person I bump into, he writes, is obsessed with Blair's lies in the run-up to war. Every Rightish person is exercised by the latest excesses of Brussels and in despair at our apparent impotence to undo them, let alone to find a stable and enduring relationship with the EU, in or out of it. Every tobacconist and taxi driver is liable to let rip on either front.

He continues: "There are not one but two elephants in our sitting room. And the politicians are doing their best to pretend that neither of them is there," from which he concludes that, "for an outward-looking country like ours to go through a whole election without mentioning the world is a disheartening prospect. We deserve better than to be turned into one big ostrich farm."

Riddell, on the other hand, takes a more sanguine view, observing that election campaigns are a poor guide to what happens over the following four or five years, and suggests that "it is an invariable rule" that the big events of parliament were neither predicted nor debated during the preceding campaign. More often, big issues are either ignored or played down, he writes.

Equally dangerous, he asserts, is where the main parties agree. In 1992, all three parties supported sterling’s involvement in the European monetary system. Any hint of devaluation or realignment, while considered privately, was suppressed. The Maastricht treaty on European union was raised only by backbench sceptics. Yet the political debacle of Black Wednesday and the year-long battles over the Maastricht Bill in 1992-93 fatally weakened the Major Government, even if it took several more years to die.

After reviewing that key issues that were not discussed in earlier campaigns, he asserts that this campaign has been similarly unilluminating on other issues, notably Europe:

None of the three main parties wants to discuss the EU for fear that it may lose them votes. Yet decisions on the EU constitution could have big implications for Britain. Of course, there is the shadow of the French referendum on May 29 and the Dutch one a few days later. It is not just that "no" votes would bury the constitution but also that Jacques Chirac's authority would be undermined for the final two years of his presidency. In the medium term, and that could mean most of the rest of Mr Blair's premiership, there would be a limbo period, as economic reform and institutional change both stall — though awkward decisions are likely only to be deferred.

Thus he concludes that Europe, to which he adds the economy, Iraq, terrorism, could all overshadow the current campaign arguments in the next Parliament.

This definitely strikes a chord. After a full day out on the stumps, in a rural backwater, this day devoted mainly canvassing, many of the usual issues were raised but – despite my posting of yesterday – a surprisingly large number of people raised the issue of "the war" and "Europe", entirely spontaneously. And more than one angrily demanded in either context, "when are they going to start talking about…".

Mount and Riddell are at one with the country. We watch in amazement as the politicos squabble about their "schools'n'hospitals" and wonder when they are going to get down to serious politics.

Children must be seen and not heard

The EU is clearly enamoured with Victorian views of education. Or, at least, with what we think of as Victorian views of education, the best known of which was the famous saying “children must be seen and not heard”.

There cannot be another reason for the recent announcement by Hans-Horst Konkolewsky, director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, as the Daily Telegraph acknowledges:

“But the education sector is a hidden source of risk, said Mr Konkolewsky,especially where today's more raucous pupils are housed in hard-floored, echoing Victorian classrooms, built for the days when children sat silently, copying from a blackboard.”

Well, I expect we can go back to that delightful system.

According to him when Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise comes into effect next year, all primary and nursery schools as well as day care centres and playgroups across the European Union will have to conduct a noise level assessment.

If the level in any of these institutions is found to be above 80 decibels (and almost all will be), the heads, managers, owners, what have you will be legally obliged to do something about it.

What will they be legally obliged to do?

“Actions required could involve fitting acoustic tiles on classroom ceilings,giving staff longer breaks or reducing class sizes, said Mr Konkolewsky.”

And if none of that worked? Would they be obliged to contain the children in something resembling those wonderful pens that Romanian orphanages had and, for all one knows, still have? I’ll bet on this score Romania is ready to join the European Union tomorrow.

This little problem was foreseen by some of us. I am very pleased to say that when the first news came through of proposed and rapidly implemented EU legislation to reduce the noise level of toys, I suggested that it is children they need to ban. After all, as every parent knows, the biggest noise of all comes from the little angels themselves.

It has taken the EU a couple of years but it has caught up. I cannot wait to see how they will implement this particular aspect of the Noise Directive and what will happen when, as is inevitable, much needed nursery and play group facility will disappear because small children will not stay quiet.

WTO talks stall again

As rumblings about debt cancellations and increased aid have rolled on, so have WTO negotiations on easing up agricultural trade around the world, a key aspect of the proposed help to developing countries.

Alas, the talks have broken down again or, if you prefer the phraseology of the head of the WTO's agricultural negotiations committee, Tim Groser:

“What we haven't got is the basis of an agreement.”

His view is that the envoys of the various countries have been “misinformed” and everything can be sorted with a bit of good will.

It is, of course, precisely the good will that is missing. The misinformation or break-down has to do with a very technical subject: how to convert into a percentage customs tariffs currently expressed in a nominal value such as euros per tonne.

It seems that agreement that is vital to the lowering of agricultural tariffs across the world was almost achieved but was scuppered at the last minute by the EU (which is the negotiator, not the member states).

The EU and net agricultural importers like Japan and Switzerland felt that the almost agreed formula would have forced them to lower tariff barriers “excessively”. This brought out the wrath of the Brazilian negotiators, though one assumes that some of the smaller and more struggling producers were not too happy either.

Well never mind. We can always send them part of what we collect in customs duty as a form of unwanted aid.

Is Brown trying to blow it?

Gordon Brown, according to The Financial Times, has called for "sweeping reforms to competition policy in the EU", suggesting that an independent authority could take responsibility for investigations into key markets.

This is to be the central part of Labour's forthcoming business manifesto, to be published next week. It argues for competition policy at a Europe-wide level to be set independently of any political influence. The manifesto will say: "We will propose that European competition policy is more pro-actively focused on driving up competition."

If Brown really wanted to spook the French, this seems to be the way to do it.

One rule for us… and another for the French

Not that the EU commission is anything other than a totally impartial guardian of the treaty… so it is entirely a coincidence that it is shelving, downgrading or reversing any legislation that may upset the French until the referendum is safely over.

So doesn't say The Times, which informs us today that the commission is deliberately sitting on plans to harmonise the duty on wine, that it is holding back the services directive and is also watering down regulations in areas such as local transport, supermarket planning laws and government aid to industry.

Wine is especially sensitive so the proposals to introduce a minimum Europe-wide duty on wine have been shelved until next year. There is no duty on wine in France, and such proposals would be seen as an assault on French culture.

"The issue is very sensitive. We were told to make proposals taking into account sensitivities. We won't say anything about wine," one Commission official said.

Then, last week, after a nod and a wink to l'escroc, Chirac was able to declare that the commission would be imposing controls on Chinese textile imports to protect European clothing manufacturers — even though it had not announced any such decision.

"The problem is that in a referendum campaign any proposal takes on an extra dimension," explained one EU official. Another privately admitted: "We will have more room for manoeuvre after 29 May."

That may or may not be the case but what is surprising is that The Times finds any of this remarkable. EU law has always been regarded by the French as something other countries are required to obey, while the French themselves only observe it – from afar.

And, of course, this sudden burst of inactivity also serves to keep the EU off the agenda for the duration of the British general election campaign... cunning folks these continentals.

News from the Dutch front

We hear from our Dutch colleagues in the Vote-No organization that the panic in the yes camp has not only started but been advancing apace.

The Dutch referendum will take place on June 1, just three days after the French one, apparently regardless of its outcome. Could be interesting. Historically, there has been little love lost between France and Holland, so it will be interesting to see what effect the French vote will have.

Whatever it will be, one Dutch Minister has shown himself to be even sillier than our own politicians by announcing that if there is a no vote in the Netherlands, the economy will collapse because “people would stop buying things like television sets”. Why on earth would they do that? Do these people live in the same universe as the rest of us?

Then, as some of our readers have already noted, the Dutch Minister of Justice announced that if the Constitution fails, the whole Continent will collapse into immediate and prolonged warfare. Look at Yugoslavia, he wailed.

Well, yes, indeed, look at Yugoslavia, his opponents answered quite sensibly. Look what happened when an impossible federation was kept together by force as its integral parts declared for independence. And there is less to keep the EU together.

Thanks to our Dutch friends, we can publish a critique of the speech that appeared as an immediate response:

“The same arguments that Donner states in this article to support a YES vote, can be used to support a NO vote. Yugoslavia that was further integrated than the EU has fallen apart.

Indeed! Where only a few begin dictating their rulings to minorities - and the Netherlands will become such a minority - groups will begin to secede, using violence if need be, as we have seen.

Cooperating on a European level is OK and could be extended, but giving up national sovereignty and subjecting ourselves to the power of a few larger European countries is a step too far. It is not in the interest of continued peace when some will soon have to dance to the tunes of others. We put our future at stake when we give up our independence!”

They have also achieved a small coup in the media. The leading Dutch magazine Elsevier has devoted one issue to the proposition “Why NO is better than YES.”

Though they seem to be managing extremely well, our Dutch friends and colleagues can count on our support until jointly we defeat the monster.

Blogging-lite

To those who have noticed a relative paucity of posts from yours truly on the Blog today – my apologies. Some will be pleased to know that I am not in jail again.

Despite all attempts to avoid being ensnared in the election process, I have been co-opted by a candidate in a rural constituency, to assist in electioneering. I am thus fully engaged over the next few days – and then almost completely in the coming weeks – on the nuts and bolts of democracy, the tiring and stressful process of actually trying to win an election for a particular individual.

Arguably, this is what elections should be about – individuals. In an ideal world, voters would chose individuals on their merits, not for their party badges, and the best man – or woman – would win. In an idealistic way, in the area in which I am campaigning, I am fighting for what I believe to be that "best man".

What is interesting about the process is that, immersed in what some might call the "real world", or real people and real lives, how remote are the concerns and preoccupations of the "Westminster village" and how totally unreal seem the bleatings of the BBC and the prognostications of the printed media. They seem to belong to a totally different world.

And, if Westminster seems a million miles away, Brussels does not even feature on the horizon. People know about it, in the sense that they know that it exists, but any real knowledge of its machinations is entirely absent – although even here, there is some concern that a French "no" will allow Blair to opt out of a referendum.

Nevertheless, for this blogger, a brief sojourn in that "real world" will probably do me good – and the exercise certainly will. Perforce, though, it means that for a short period, posts will be relatively erratic. My colleague, Helen, will pick up some of the load, and for that I thank her. I hope, between us, we can continue to keep you informed and entertained.

In the meantime, please bear with us and the short period of "blogging-lite".

Surprise, surprise - Greece says yes

As the French support for non surges (to some extent thanks to l’escroc Chirac’s overweening TV appearance) and the Dutch yes campaign begins to panic, we have to declare ourselves to be underwhelmed by the news that the Greek parliament has voted the Constitution for Europe through.

268 deputies voted in favour, 17 against and 15 were absent. This makes Greece the fifth country to ratify the Constitution and the fourth to do so without bothering to put the question or the information to the people of the country.

Given the amount of money Greece receives under various funds and given the fact that it relies on the Commission’s good will to have its growing divergence from the growth and stability pact as well as various financial peccadilloes excused, can we really be surprised by that vote?

Come to think of it, if the vote were left to parliaments alone, which member states would have a different result?

Remembrance

For some years, if anyone asked me what was so admirable about the House of Lords (if anyone dared to ask me that) I would say Lord Bruce of Donington, whose obituary, alas, appeared in the Daily Telegraph today.

Actually, I would probably also say Baroness Strange, who died some weeks ago to general mourning, or Lord Stoddart of Swindon, or Lord Pearson of Rannoch, or the Countess of Mar or Lord Willoughby de Broke or Lord Monson or Lord Moran or many more, all of whom are thankfully still with us.

All of these people (and, as I said, many others) have repeatedly demonstrated their independence and refusal to knuckle under to bullying by the government and its minions. In most cases they also refuse to be bamboozled by the flood of misinformation emanating from Brussels or its various outposts in Whitehall and around the country.

By the time I knew Lord Bruce he had shed something of his old left-wing fervour (some would say he had shed most of it when he became an extremely successful businessman) and concentrated the fire of his still formidable oratory on subjects to do with the European Union and its many shortcomings.

It was Lord Bruce who kept a very beady eye on the EU budget, forcing ministers to reply to some very uncomfortable questions.

It was Lord Bruce who first uncovered the existence of an EU diplomatic service, that was not listed in any of the budget lines and forced the British government to campaign for a modicum of transparency on the subject.

Lord Bruce’s favourite modus operandi was to wait for the discussion to proceed for a few minutes, then lumber slowly to his feet and announce ponderously:

“My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have the documents his (or her)officials do not seem to be able to locate?”

He would then follow up that devastating opening by asking a complicated question on the subject under discussion that showed his complete grasp of it and the minister’s equally complete lack of grasp.

The most terrifying sight of all the sights I have watched from one of the galleries of the House was that of Lord Bruce exploding like a volcano after a former EU Commissioner had suggested that Lord Bruce did not understand the European Union. I do not suppose that former Commissioner has ever been the same since.

In the last few years Lord Bruce had become physically weaker, moving at first with a stick (though rather rapidly) then in a wheel chair. He has not really been seen for some time in the House, a sad sign of mortality.

His death, one might think therefore, will not make that much difference. But reading his obituary and remembering his exhilarating performance in the House, I cannot help thinking that an age in parliamentary history is coming to and end.

Beyond comprehension

The Times and The Telegraph have picked up the story we ran yesterday on the free hospitality enjoyed by Barroso and Mandelson.

Typical of the parochialism of the British press, both papers choose to focus on Mandelson, The Telegraph producing a pathetic effort that barely mentions the EU commission president. The Times is almost as bad, not not quite. It proclaims that Mandelson "faces sleaze claim over free Caribbean holiday", dealing with the details of Barroso in the text of the story.

According to The Times, Mandelson was "at the centre of a new row over sleaze last night after it emerged that he attached a free Caribbean holiday to an official trip just months after his political comeback as a European commissioner."

We learn that he was forced to make a statement after details of his holiday were leaked, apparently by disgruntled European Commission officials, days after Brussels declared that no commissioner had accepted any improper hospitality.

Then we come to Barroso with the statement that: "also leaked were details of a free holiday enjoyed by José Manuel Barroso, who spent a week with his wife on the private yacht of the Greek banking, aviation and shipping billionaire Spiro (sic) Latsis last year."

After much more detail on Mandelson, Barroso is said to have given full details of his trip in August, and the reference to Latsis’s business interests is that his "shipping business is affected by EU maritime safety and environmental regulations, and one of his banks is involved in the Balkans, where the EU is the main contributor in reconstruction."

There is, as we have hinted in our earlier piece, much, much more than this, but the full details will have to wait until we have sufficiently unravelled the highly complex affairs of the Latsis empire. Suffice it to say that Spiros Latsis ranks 79th richest man in the world, according to Forbes, with a personal fortune of US$4.6 billion (although some estimate it is nearer $12 billion).

His interests include petroleum, banking, construction, shipping, and he moves easily within the circle of heads of state and governments of the world, and hasw met Mr Putin several times. In any of his business areas he would have a keen interest in the views of the commission – not least in the "liberalisation" of energy supplies – and would have benefited hugely from the opportunity to lobby the commission president.

How Barroso can possibly maintain that, by accepting free hospitality on board Latsis's luxury yacht Alexander - which, at over 400 ft in length, rates as the worlds third largest – does not present a possible conflict of interest, is beyond comprehension.

Rock stars and logic do not mix

We are heading into the dreaded G-7 summit in Edinburgh in July, when new ways of pouring money into the bottomless pit of corrupt Third World dictatorial treasure troves and NGOs will be thrashed out.

Apparently an agreement between Britain and the United States on debt relief that would put already poor nations even lower down in the scale of credit-worthiness is on the cards, though there are still differences about raising the amount of aid.

Well, long may those differences remains. We are not talking about action that is neutral in its effect. Handing over more money to the existing systems will actually make matters worse. By our breast-beating and bleeding-hearts interference we are actively condemning large numbers of people to continuing poverty and oppression.

Ah but we are going to ask for good governance. Oh we are, are we? And from whom are we going to ask it? Come to think of it, how is good governance to be defined or monitored?

Let us recall that various NGOs, many of whom have registered as sponsors for the ineffably silly Make Poverty History website, have already been squeaking about not imposing western values and making sure that reforms are introduced by the developing countries’ own governments.

As they have not introduced a single reform so far and unlikely to do so while they can simply hold out a hand or two for more dosh, this seems an unlikely proposition. Perhaps, we should wait till they do so and then give them help in carrying out those reforms. No, no, no, say the same NGOs, money must be given now. There is poverty there. (And what have all these NGOs been doing all this time to alleviate said poverty? Apart from making their own lives better, that is?)

No, the answer is to target aid better. How is that to be achieved? Well, through the NGOs, of course, who will then do various deals and impose various collectivist socialist solutions.

Let us recall also the squeal that went up when Paul Wolfowitz was proposed for the World Bank. He was accused – oh horror! – of wanting to promote the American agenda of spreading democracy in the world. It is, of course, the same NGOs who were telling us that aid should be better targeted who were hollering about Wolfowitz.

Let us hope all these people will take a little time out of their partying during the forthcoming Global Development Summit in London at the end of June. Yes, I know, the money spent on a summit of that kind is probably equal of several developing countries’ budgets. But this one will have at least one interesting speaker.

Franklin Cudjoe, Director of Imani, a Ghanaian think-tank, who has an article in today’s Daily Telegraph will address the summit on June 28. What he will say will not be comfortable hearing, if his article is anything to go by.

First of all, he has very little time for “rock-star economics”.

“Rock stars and charities can be powerful advocates for good causes, and they generally have good intentions - but in many cases their lyrics do not genuinely rhyme with the silent hum of the very poor they seek to protect. Their economics are just plain wrong. They ignore history, peddling the misguided belief that poverty, famine and corruption can be solved with foreign aid, debt relief and other policies that have already failed Africa.”

Mr Cudjoe talks of matters that are well known to many but are rarely discussed in polite circles (i. e. the media and the great and the good). For instance, while he is in favour of developed countries lifting trade barriers that they have put up against the developing ones (well, who wouldn’t be?) he points out that it is the poor countries that are the most protectionist and that policy is preventing their economic development.

He attacks so-called fair trade, which shelters growers from competition, prevents consumers from having a choice and encourages poverty as well as ingenious ways of by-passing the rules.

And, as he does not say, the western Fair Trade brigade ties farmers and producers into a single crop economy as well as artificially designated prices and a monopolistic distribution sector.
The truth is that because of their own protectionist policies African countries trade with each other considerably less than they do with the western world.

The answer is, according to Mr Cudjoe, far-reaching reforms in the developing countries:

“Establishing property rights would be an important first step; an effective, transparent and accountable legal system is another. Combined with respect for private property and the rule of law, these broad reforms would encourage entrepreneurship, trade, innovation and even environmental protection because they empower people - rather than the politicians.

As our economies grow and develop, people will be able to afford better technologies, clean water, superior energy sources, better healthcare, and insurance. But one is unlikely to hear such ideas from rock stars and development charities.

While these high-profile campaigns continue to blame western countries for our poverty, they simply give our own politicians more excuses to delay badly needed institutional reforms. Poor Africans would be far better off without rock-star economics.”

One is tempted to say that we would all be far better off without rock-star economics but, at least, these people do not condemn us all to poverty.

Governance by management

We have seen a fine example of the way politics and administration has eroded in this country in the recent statements made by Sir Ian Blair in an interview with Sir David Frost on Breakfast with Frost.

Sir Ian stated slightly incoherently that the recent Bourgass case, in which a failed asylum seeker, who was not deported despite the decision to do so, turned out to be a terrorist, intent on poisoning large chunks of this country’s population and actually murdering a police officer.

This, according to Sir Ian, shows that there is much to be said for ID cards:

“We have to go to a place where we do know who people are. We now have the technology, I think through iris recognition, to go to that and I think that would be very helpful.”

Well, with respect, Sir Ian, it would not be in the slightest bit helpful. First of all, let’s face it, Kamel Bourgass was in this country illegally, therefore his iris print or whatever it is Sir Ian is talking about, would not be on anybody’s records.

On the other hand, various young lads who had been picked up innocently taking a hike through Afghanistan, festooned with AK-47s, hand grenades and other such accoutrements of the average tourist, were actually British citizens and would have had perfectly legitimate ID cards that would not, surprisingly enough, have said under occupation: terrorist.

Then there is the undoubted fact that the technology one person can invent another person can copy.

It has to be added that in December Commander Mick Messinger (don’t these people use real names any more?) gave evidence to the plenary session of the London Assembly, in which he explained that ID cards would be quite useful. For instance they would help the police to identify people who had collapsed in the street after a terrorist attack.

And to prevent that attack or help with security afterwards? Well, um, no, he could not quite see how they could be of any use at all.

Apart from the need to have senior Commanders and the Commissioner of Scotland Yard singing from something approximating the same hymn sheet, there is the disturbing fact that the unelected head of Scotland Yard, a supposedly impartial servant of the country, has unobtrusively entered the electoral process by making statements on a subject that is a political and electoral hot potato.

Alan Milburn immediately seized on the interview and challenged the Conservatives to answer the simple question of whether they would support ID cards by a simple yes or no. The answer, of course, ought to be a simple no, but no political answer is that simple.

However, Sir Ian’s completely specious comment will, no doubt, be used by supporters of ID cards as a valid argument. It is nothing of the kind. Sir Ian has not been asked any of the critical questions about it and has not explained what he thinks they will achieve, bearing in mind their expense, logistical difficulties and intrusion on the personal liberty of law-abiding citizens.

But, given that this is election time, he should not have made statements like that. It seems that this argument no longer applies in our managerial state. (I shall not use the word meritocracy. There is dam’ little merit about the police force at the moment and Sir Ian might turn his attention to that little problem.)

Sleaze hits Barroso

See also UPDATE

News is breaking of what may be a major scandal involving EU commission president, José Manuel Durao Barroso and Greek shipping, banking, construction and petroleum magnate, Spiros Latsis, after it emerged today that Barroso and his wife enjoyed a lavish free holiday last summer on Latsis's private yacht.

The details emerged after a leak from the commission when Barroso refused to answer a written question put to him in the name of UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, asking for details of any hospitality he and other commissioners had accepted.

Barroso replied that: "The Commission considers that insofar as it falls outside the exercise of official duties, the receipt of hospitality is a normal fact of private life, and therefore falls in principle under the respect for privacy of each individual Commissioner and of those who host them".

However, it now emerges that Latsis, whose personal fortune is estimated at over $2.8 billion, has companies heavily involved in the construction and funding of the controversial Spata Airport complex, featured in the Booker column in March 2004, after millions in EU funding were unaccounted for.

The huge project, largely funded by EU grants and loans, opened four years ago at an alleged cost of €2.3 billion (£1.6 billion), which made it the third most expensive airport ever built. The project was undertaken by Hochtief, a German company which specialises in airport construction.

Although Hochtief only contributed €133 million to the project, it owns a 45 per cent share in the finished airport, and has a contract to run it through a subsidiary for 30 years, with the right to appoint its chief executive and five out of nine members of the board.

Of the claimed €2.3 billion cost, €250 million was contributed by EU taxpayers from the Cohesion Fund and €997 million was lent by the EU's European Investment Bank, backed by a Greek government guarantee. Much of the rest came from Greek taxpayers.

Further details can be seen from the link provided but it also emerges that Latsis-owned companies have considerable financial interests in the Spata Airport venture. Not least, his bank, EFG Eurobank is a "strategic partner" with the German Hochtief company, the prime contractor for the airport.

There have been many requests to Prodi's commission to investigate the dealings of Hochtief and the financial dealings relating to the airport constuction and management, but all of which have hit a stone wall of silence. Furthermore, the new Borroso commission has shown no inclination to follow up on what is clearly a major financial scandal, involving billions in EU funds.

The latest update on the Spata story can be seen on the New Europe site, which charges the commission with never responding to any of the accusations and never daring to refer to the prosecutor the editors of New Europe for reports about the project, "thus admitting, indirectly yet clearly, its guilt."

Yet, Barroso denies any wrongdoing over the cruise he accepted with his wife, his spokeswoman saying today stressing it was a private holiday and nothing to do with his job. Spiros Latsis is an old friend with whom Barroso went to university in Geneva 20 years ago and they have remained in touch since.

* * *

Separately, the German newspaper Die Welt reports that Peter Mandelson, the British commissioner and EU's trade commissioner, has admitted he had accepted an invitation to a private trip to Jamaica - another little detail to emerge from the Farage initiative.

French opinion firms up

The Press Association is reporting (see Scotsman website) that the "no" vote is winning in the French referendum.

This is yet another poll, one that shows 53 percent of the French voting against the EU constitution compared with 47 percent who would vote for it. A government spokesman, Jean-Francois Cope, wearily responded that rejecting the document seemed to have become "fashionable" (à la mode).

The poll was carried out by the Louis Harris firm and published in the daily Liberation. But what is especially interesting is that 82 percent of those questioned "felt sure of their choice" and were thus unlikely to change their views.

Nevertheless, 66 percent of the 1,002 people questioned said they felt uninformed about the constitution, while 50 percent said Chirac's televised "debate" last Thursday failed to convince them to vote "yes", compared with 22 percent who accepted his arguments.

Referendum looks doomed

As predicted by this Blog last week, a referendum in the UK of the EU constitution is highly unlikely if the French vote "no" on 29 May - making the outcome far more important than the little local event on 5 May.

That the referendum is likely to be abandoned is confirmed by The Telegraph, which today is retailing the comments of Jack Straw made during the ITV Jonathon Dimbleby programme yesterday, which suggest that a French vote against the EU constitution would lead to the UK decision.

Asked what would happen if the French rejected the constitution next month, Straw replied: "Nobody knows." He said the issue would be referred to a summit of EU leaders, but did not know what the outcome of those talks would be, or whether Britain would hold a referendum on a document already rejected by the French.

Separately, The Guardian is quoting "government sources" who are admitting that Britain is unlikely to hold a referendum if the polls in France are right and the country rejects the constitution.

Says this newspaper, the news may throw the combustible issue of Europe on to the election agenda. It is the first time Labour has entertained the prospect of shelving the referendum.

Analysing the implications, the paper suggests that a "yes" vote in Britain in autumn 2006 had been seen by some as an opportunity for Mr Blair to stand aside for Gordon Brown with an assured legacy as the man who reconciled Britain to Europe. The loss of such a date in the third-term calendar raises fresh questions over when Mr Blair might stand aside.

It feels that a "no" vote in France would also put pressure on Mr Blair to find acceptable minimalist reforms or see the EU evolve into a diffuse multi-speed bloc.

However, "private briefings from ministers" now confirm there would be a "long pause" as EU leaders, largely under a British presidency, considered the crisis. One said: "If Britain alone votes no, it is a problem for Britain. If France votes no, it is a problem for Europe. We would wait to see what the French had to say, but it is inconceivable that the constitution could go ahead."

The Blair angle is picked up by the Telegraph's Rachel Sylvester, in a long piece entitled: "Tony Blair's future depends on the voters of France, not Britain".

If, as seems increasingly likely, the French vote "no", she writes, "I am told that Labour would shelve its plans for a referendum in this country."

Although Mr Blair has promised to hold a vote, whatever the outcome of polls in other EU member states, he would, insiders say, use the French result to argue that it was pointless pursuing the matter in Britain while the future of the entire constitution was up in the air.

Although Jack Straw floundered yesterday when he was asked by Jonathan Dimbleby what would happen if there was a "no" vote in France, "privately, other Cabinet ministers are explicit that the British poll would be quickly dropped." Writes Sylvester: "A Cabinet member involved in the discussions told me 'If the French vote No, I don't believe we'll have a referendum'". "If there's a No on 29 May, then all bets are off," another said.

Sylvester thinks there would still be a crisis for Blair. As Britain takes over the European presidency in July, he would be responsible for steering the EU through the most difficult patch since its creation. It is difficult to see how the treaty could be renegotiated - particularly because if the French do reject it they will do so on the grounds that it is "too British", or too free market.

One idea being discussed in Whitehall is for Britain to propose a drastically slimmed-down statement of values - a "treaty lite" - that could be more easily agreed by all sides. But, as Straw indicates, nothing would happen quickly.

And, although Europe is the dog that didn't bark in this election campaign, Sylvester adds, it is, in the end, the issue that will determine what happens in politics over the next five years. French voters have the fate of both Labour and Conservative leaders in their hands.

If they vote "no", they will make it easier for Mr Blair to stay on because there will be no referendum crunch-moment for his leadership. They will also perhaps fatally undermine Mr Howard's position:

Right now, most Tories believe it would be foolish to stage a leadership contest before the European constitution vote is out of the way. If the referendum is scrapped, then all bets will be off for them too. On 5 May, the party leaders will put their fate in the hands of the British electorate but their futures will really be decided, three weeks later, on the other side of the Channel.

This, however, is the "Westminster village" view which, frankly, is of less importance than what will happen to the country. There, as I wrote earlier, we face the worst of all possible worlds.

The cost of regulation

According to a report in The Business today, car industry leaders are warning they face 282 separate pieces of EU legislation over the next five years, claiming that they will add £2,760-4,000 to the cost of a standard car.

This fear was expressed to a new "high level group" of government ministers, EU commissioners and motor industry chiefs who met for the first time last Monday. The group, which calls itself "Cars 21", is now to spend this year examining how Europe's carmakers can remain competitive amid increased competition from the East.

One additional problem, it seems, it that the regulation is beginning to impose conflicting objectives, opposing the laws of physics.

For example, legislation designed to protect pedestrians from low speed collisions will see the front structure of cars change dramatically; bonnets may be equipped with airbags. This, however, means cars will get heavier, which puts the regulations at odds with those governing CO2 production which are pulling cars the other way [toward lighter vehicles].

Manufacturers in the EU produce every third car in the world, and the car industry sustains 2 million jobs and, while productivity is lower than its rivals', labour costs are among the highest. Traditional plants are being abandoned in favour of cheaper plants in the East. The manufacturers thus claim that legislative pressure could have a significant impact on the survival of the European industry.

However, this does not seem logical, since imported cars will have to conform to the same standards, and suggests special pleading.

More to the point, higher prices may mean a slowdown in car sales as users elect to keep their cars longer. And, as electronic technology invades new cars, with satellite monitoring of vehicles being proposed, some owners may be reluctant altogether to buy new cars. Either way, the new regulations are bound to distort the market and add to the cost of living.

A flying black hole

Here is something that puts the long-running dispute over Airbus subsidies into perspective, and gives an entirely different slant to Schröder's claim at the launch of the A380 "Super Jumbo" in January, when he declared that, "There is the tradition of good old Europe that has made this possible".

According to a report trailed in The Sunday Times today, it seems that this aircraft is set to make losses in excess of £4 billion over its commercial life. As a result, Airbus will never repay the £2 billion-plus state aid paid to help launch it.

The report, funded by Boeing, says Airbus could realistically have expected to sell just 496 of the large aircraft in the first 20 years of the programme. To date, the authors say, the A380 has been sold for $130m-$145m, compared with the $199m building cost.

Between 2006, the year of the first commercial flight, and 2025, the programme will produce a "net negative cashflow of $8.1 billion" the report concludes. As state-aid payments are judged over 17 years, the report also looked at the financial position between 2000 and 2017. It was judged to produce losses of $6.9 billion.

Aaron Gellman, one of the report authors, said: "The project produces a cashflow that is absolutely enormous, and I think it bears some comparison with the Channel tunnel."

George Hamlin, director of the MergeGlobal consultancy and another of the report's authors, said the A380 represented a bad investment for European taxpayers: "If it's not even breaking even, then how do you get your money back?"

Overall, if these figures are accurate, they really make a mockery of the EU's attitude to state aid. A mere £100 million to Rover, it seems, has the Rottwielers out in force, but a cool £2 billion on top of many more to subsidise an industry that could and should be standing on its own two feet, is perfectly acceptable.

One wonders whether the fact that 80 percent of Airbus is owned by the Franco-German aerospace giant, EADS, might have something to do with it. Whether or not it does, European taxpayers are funding a massive black hole in the sky.

The three percent problem

If it wasn't for other newspaper polls showing markedly different results, Conservative activists reading the Sunday Telegraph poll today might be feeling more than a little suicidal. With Labour supposedly opening up a ten-point lead, the paper is predicting another Labour landslide.

But what makes even more gloomy reading is the breakdown of the poll, conducted by ICM, which ranks issues according to their importance, as perceived by the respondents to the poll. Predictably, the health service comes top of the list, with 20 percent regarding this as the key issue, followed closely by "taxation and public services" at 15 percent and "law and order" at 13, sharing third position with "education".

The gloom comes with the ranking of "Europe", way down the list attracting a mere three percent of respondents who feel this issue will be the most important in influencing their voting decisions.

More perplexing, given the considerable majority of people who profess to oppose the EU constitution, the Conservative opposition to the same and Labour support for it, when it comes to judging which party has the best policy on European Labour scores 31 percent against the Conservatives who trail with a mere 23 percent.

I cannot even begin to make sense of this latter result, other than to suppose – with no evidence to support any such assertion – that the "Europe" score merely reflects the more general support for the Labour Party expressed in the poll. It may be the case the respondents, having told the interviewer that they support Labour, are less inclined then to tell that same interviewer that they then oppose Labour on specific policies.

Certainly, Peter Kelner, writing in the Sunday Times supporting his own YouGov poll, which puts the Conservatives a mere one point behind, points up the "interviewer effect" as a major source of error, in which case we could be seeing a distorted result.

But, in other respects, the rankings may also be distorted. Given the concentration on a narrow band of issues by politicians of all parties, aided and abetted by the media, it is hardly surprising that when asked by pollsters, people – many of whom have not yet thought deeply about the whole range of possible issues which might affect their votes – simply reflect what they have seen and heard. In other words, people – or some, at least – are not offering their own opinions but simply parroting the second-hand views of the players.

It is in this context that the Booker column today is so important, as it is beyond belief that people, if asked, would not find some of the issues he has listed of some concern.

For instance, energy specialists have been warning that our gas stocks are perilously low and that, at times, the national grid has been on the point of collapse. Given that there is no new investment going into building new power stations and several of the large coal-fired stations, on which we rely, are due to come off-line within ten years, there is a serious and increasing possibility of the nation suffering widespread and prolonged power cuts within the term of the next government.

Now, while all might agree that "schools'n'hospitals" are important, I am sure that everyone will also agree that continuity and reliability of power supplies is equally important – but "energy" does not even feature as an issue in peoples' concerns. And, of course, if it did, the EU dimension would have to be a factor in any debate.

Therefore, I would assert that the rankings given to various issues are, in fact, not in the least a reflection of peoples’ concerns, but simply a distortion engendered by the activities of the media and the politicians who have, so far, successfully, narrowed down the issues.

In this, of course, we cannot blame the politicians for wanting to control the debate, to their advantage. To expect otherwise would be naïve. But what of the media – and especially the public service broadcasters? There is no reason why they should take their agenda from the politicians, and every reason why they should not.

What would stop the Today programme – as it so often claims to do – from setting its own agenda, deciding to tackle on a series of days particular issues and refusing to interview politicians on anything other than they issues it had selected?

In many ways, however, that is equally naïve – the media share the same obsessions of the political classes and we are not going to get any sense out of them. In fact, when we see The Sunday Telegraph devote front page space - and column inches inside - to the views of the prime minister's son's girlfriend, we can only conclude that civilisation is close to its end.

Thus, major issues are not going to get discussed with any intensity - or intelligence - Europe included. We will continue to be plagued with with the "three percent problem". As long as it exists, with witless hacks and their editors giving space to the trivia they seem to find so beguiling, this election campaign will remain a charade.

Booker

This week the Booker column looks at "the biggest issue of all" that can't be mentioned in the general election, that colossal "elephant in the room", the European Union.

Booker opens his column pointing out that the real reason for the collapse of the Rover-Shanghai deal was the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. These enact EU directives which would have imposed on the Chinese greater obligations towards redundant employees than they could and would accept.

Even the BBC now asks why "Europe" has become the great unmentionable issue in this suffocating election - but it is missing at least half the point. It is true that all parties seem eager to keep the EU out of view (Tory candidates, for instance, were startled last week to be issued with a set of focus-group-tested mantras on this topic and warned not to vary from them by an iota).

The politicians' stock explanation is that discussion of "Europe" should be deferred until the referendum on the European constitution in a year's time. This could prove to be more than just a convenient excuse: with the voters of France and Holland seemingly set to kick the constitution into the long grass, we may find ourselves denied any debate on this issue at all.

There is, however, a more serious respect in which "Europe" has become the black hole in this election. The discussion of many vitally important issues is now avoided because they are in fact no longer the responsibility of our Westminster Parliament. When even the Cabinet Office website admits that half our laws are now made in Brussels, this means that a whole range of policy areas which would once have been at the centre of election debate are off the agenda.

Booker then goes on to offer a list of nine key issues which have effectively been excluded from discussion, because the views of British voters are no longer relevant to how they are handled.

1. The Coming Energy Crisis
Within a few years, with the rundown of North Sea gas and our ageing nuclear power stations (currently providing nearly a quarter of our electricity), we face the prospect of a major energy crisis, which in the electronic age would be far more devastating to economic life than Heath's "three day week" in the 1970s.

Yet no party is prepared to argue the unworkability of an EU-agreed energy policy which pledges that, within 15 years, we will derive 20 per cent of our energy from "renewables", mainly wind. To achieve this - which would entail building 20,000 turbines - is out of the question. No party dares question the EU-Kyoto orthodoxy by pointing out that wind energy is hopelessly unreliable and uneconomical, and that without a new generation of nuclear power stations a crisis is inevitable.

2. The Waste Crisis
Our waste disposal policy is in chaos thanks to the insane complexity of EU waste rules and its diktat that we must replace most of our landfill sites with giant incinerators. This is not going to happen. Thanks to the EU's bizarre definitions of "waste", Britain is prohibiting all sorts of imaginative recycling systems, such as the use of sewage pellets to fuel power stations.

Labour ministers' slavish attempts to comply with ill-drafted EU law are proving increasingly self-defeating: eg the current nationwide wave of fly-tipping, or the fiasco of the EU's ban on burying "animal by-products", from fallen farm stock to old supermarket chicken tikka. Yet neither of the other parties dares question this shambles because they accept the EU's right to dictate waste policy.

3. The Defence Crisis
The Armed Forces face an unprecedented crisis in the provision of their materiel - their planes, ships and vehicles - which is intimately connected to the demands of EU defence integration. The recent award of the Army's biggest ever truck order to a German firm rather than an Anglo-American consortium was just the latest instance of how the politics of EU integration are now overriding military considerations.

The Tories promise to spend more on defence and to reverse the abolition of old regiments. But neither pledge makes sense without addressing the central issue of whether our armed forces should be reorganised and re-equipped according to the needs of EU defence policy.

4. Immigration and Asylum Rules
In January when Michael Howard first proposed a limit on immigration, he was caught out when Brussels officials explained he had no powers to do so. The Labour Government had signed up to directives which prevent Britain deciding its own immigration and asylum policy.

Mr Howard responded that he would repatriate those powers. But although he has continued to make immigration a central election issue, he has carefully avoided getting drawn into further discussion of how he could implement a policy which would be viewed by Brussels and his EU partners as illegal.

5. Road Safety and Traffic Control
Few issues have become more contentious than speed cameras and congestion charges. Even Labour's manifesto admits they will consider a new system for charging road-users. What no party explains is that Brussels now plans to take control of all "road use policy" across the EU, through its proposed Road Safety Agency, including speed limits. Furthermore, among the declared intentions of its Galileo satellite system is a plan for electronic charging for road use of EU roads, including congestion charges; and satellite-controlled automatic "speed limiters", making it impossible for drivers to break the limit even if they want to.

6. Overseas Aid
Tony Blair makes play with his plans to more than double Britain's overseas aid spending to £6.5 billion a year. What he doesn't highlight is the frustration of his ministerial colleagues at the extent to which UK aid priorities are now dictated by the EU, and how inefficiently and corruptly much of it is administered.

A junior aid minister, Gareth Thomas, recently complained at the way EU aid is weighted towards Mediterranean countries, in the hope of deterring emigration - so that Egypt, for example, receives 100 times more per head than the much poorer Bangladesh. The Tories say they would "repatriate" some aid policy, but do not explain how they would do this in face of unanimous opposition from Brussels and EU partners.

7. Foreign Policy
Because it is obscured by headline exceptions such as Iraq, few people, even politicians, are aware how much we must now comply with the EU's common foreign policy. In 28 policy areas we have already handed over our right to decide our own policy, which is one reason why the British Government has appeared to take such a pusillanimous line over such issues as the tyranny of Mugabe, Botswana's persecution of the Kalahari Bushmen and appeasement of the mullahs in Iran.

8. Competition and State Aid Rules
When, with Government support, Peugeot planned a car plant at Coventry which would have contributed more to the Midlands economy than Rover, the deal was scuppered because it took too long for Brussels to approve it under EU "state aid rules". Although the rules are widely flouted by France, Germany, Italy and Spain, Britain is punctilious in its efforts not to use subsidies in a way which might "distort competition". This has also resulted in abandoning such socially desirable policies as the Public and Private Partnerships which helped to clean up scores of former industrial sites and put them to beneficial use.

9. The Growing Deadweight of EU Regulation
When one West Country MP was recently approached by a constituent asking why, as a lorry driver, he was forced by the EU's working time rules to take a 20 per cent cut in wages, the MP had to point out that there was nothing any British politician could do about it.

EU regulations are regularly put at the top of the list by business organisations, from the CBI to the British Chambers of Commerce, as by far the biggest single factor undermining the efficiency and competitiveness of British industry. Despite weak noises from the Tories, no British politician has any practical idea as to how to curb this regulatory blizzard, which is why it is not an election issue.

These, concludes Booker, are just some of the issues which will remain undiscussed at this election, reflecting how much of our government has now passed to the new system centred in Brussels, unaccountable to any electorate. This inflicts endless damage, from the chaos over our new "118" system for directory enquiries to the continuing disaster of our fisheries.

But the more the power to run our country is taken out of our politicians' hands, the more reluctant they are to talk about it. This is why debate will continue to centre round the same obsessive little list of issues - schools'n'hospitals, crime'n'tax - ignoring that ever greater "European black hole" into which our right to govern ourselves is steadily vanishing.

The one that got away?

Although, nominally, Cyprus is one of the latest members of the European Union, the writ of the EU runs only in the internationally recognised south and not the breakaway state in the north, which is recognised only by Turkey.

Yesterday, however - a day before elections for a new Turkish Cypriot leader - the head of the self-proclaimed state in the north of the divided island has warned that his likely successor would be committing treason if he did not protect Turkish Cypriot independence.

Rauf Denktash, the 81-year-old president and founder of the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is not running in Sunday's election. But he has told the front-runner, Mehmet Ali Talat, who supports reunification with Greek Cypriots in the south, that he must swear to protect Turkish Cypriot independence.

"Whoever is elected will take the oath of office, which demands that the republic, its independence, its sovereignty will be protected, cherished and improved," Denktash has told Associated Press. "If they don't they will be committing a constitutional offence of treason and this country will not be a peaceful country."

Talat strongly backed a UN-supported plan to unite the divided island, which was approved by the majority of Turkish Cypriots in a referendum, but Denktash is adamant about what his possible successor must do. "No one has the right to give him the mandate of selling out the republic or its independence," he told AP.

So far, the Greek Cypriots in the south have been the main obstacle to reunification, but feelings still remain strong in the North of the island that merging the two parts of the island could end up with the people of the North becoming "colonial subjects of Greece".

Clearly a success by Talat today could bring reunification that much closer, but there is still a possibility that Northern Cyprus could be the one that got away.

Chirac finds no favours

It seems that Jean-Marie Le Pen was only partly right. He had predicted that President Chirac's involvement in the referendum campaign will hand the non side a huge bonus. Not yet, it seems.

However, neither has the oui camp benefited from Jacky’s appearance on prime time TV on Thursday night.

On Friday the Paris based CSA institute conducted another poll and, as before, 56 percent of those asked said that they were planning to vote agains the Constitution. A third were still undecided.

Of those who had watched the great man speak, only 40 percent said that they were convinced by his words. (Sounds rather high to me. As conmen go, Chirac is not precisely up there with Stavisky.)

Part of the problem, as Bruno Jeanbart, director of political studies at CSA, explained is that Chirac has to appeal to the suspicious left of the French political spectrum and he is not particularly well placed to do so.

He tried to reassure the voters that the Constitution was not going to introduce a free-for-all, liberal regime in the EU. (Well, he is right. It is not.) But this is not a particularly left-wing cause in France, as it is in many other countries. The entire French establishment and political class is protectionist.

The left, however, detests Chirac. (Again, one cannot blame them for their only display of sound good sense.) His appeals to the socialists, who are deeply split on the subject of the Constitution, are not likely to be heeded.

The French campaign is watched with great anxiety in Germany, where the politicians had avoided problems by simply refusing to have a referendum, and in Poland, as we have already pointed out.

In both countries there have been anxious comments about Chirac's unpopularity and what that might do to the referendum.

Sense prevails

No one sensible, reading the news that the EU has decided to draw back from the brink, and delay the lifting of the arms embargo on China can help but feel relieved.

But the whole episode leaves a nasty taste, as highlighted by the leaders in The Telegraph today, which makes the obvious comment: "China row shows how little EU cares for democracy".

Perhaps, says the Telegraph, the EU leaders have finally woken up to the magnitude of what they are proposing:

Unusually, their actions could for once have real and calamitous consequences. In the wider world, it does not much matter whether Cuban dissidents are invited to EU embassy functions, or whether Iraqi recruits are trained by European policemen. But the purchase of lethal arms by Beijing is of more than diplomatic significance.

The Chinese want weapons in order to use them. Almost every contiguous state has, at one time or another, felt the force of Chinese aggression: Korea, Russia, Mongolia, Pakistan, India, Tibet, Vietnam, Hong Kong. Taiwan, which is regularly menaced by Chinese naval exercises off its coast, understandably frets that it will be next; Japan, too, is starting to feel uneasy.

Although the EU has long argued – speciously – that the lifting of the embargo was largely "symbolic", the paper notes that, for the Americans, the question is far from symbolic. They have long-standing defence pacts with Taiwan and Japan, and are incandescent at the idea that their sailors might be the target of weapons made in Europe.

And the paper has finally picked up the link to which we have been drawing attention for some time:

The Chinese arms embargo - and the related question of Galileo, a satellite system that the EU and China are jointly seeking to develop as an alternative to America's GPS - is the latest and most serious of the clashes between Washington and Brussels.

There are also continuing arguments over Cuba, Iran and Israel. A common theme links these disputes: in each of them, the Telegraph argues, the EU favours stability over democracy. It has refused to back anti-Castro dissidents; it is pursuing a policy of "constructive engagement" with the ayatollahs; and it seems positively to resent Israel's status as the only parliamentary democracy in the region. The paper concludes:

Americans sometimes accuse the EU of hypocrisy when it cuddles up to Third World tyrants, but they are missing the point: European leaders have never been wild about democracy (or "populism" as they call it). That is why they are pushing ahead with a profoundly anti-democratic constitution regardless of the national referendum results. It is perhaps not surprising that they should feel relatively comfortable with the tyrants in Beijing.

These are words we could have used. In fact, I rather think we have.

UPDATE

According to the Chinese on-line press agency Xinhuanet, citing the Saturday issue of Luxemburger Wort, a German-language newspaper with the biggest circulation in Luxembourg, foreign minister Jean Asselborn is denying that Juncker has said that the EU embargo is not to be lifted.

Asselborn said he called the prime minister, who is in the United States, after he learned of the reports this morning. He was able to confirm that the position remains the same as it was previously, that "the Luxembourg Presidency will manage to find a solution."

Celebrations, therefore, might be a little premature.

Lies, damned lies and Barroso

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, in today's Telegraph reports that Portugal yesterday became the latest EU country to admit fiddling official data on a huge scale to evade spending rules.

Under the heading, "Lies, damned lies the Portuguese spending deficit", the strap-line highlights the story of how Jose Socrates, the new socialist prime minister, admits that the true figure is twice the Brussels limit. He is now saying that it is time to tell "the truth" about the dire state of public finances left by the outgoing conservatives.

"The information which we have indicates that the deficit will be well above 5 percent of output and very close to 6 percent," he says. The true deficit is twice the declared figure. The country is now in open breach of the 3 percent limit fixed by the Maastricht Treaty, and the growth and stability pact.

Portugal's conservatives, Ambrose tells us, had dodged a rebuke and possible legal action from Brussels by forecasting a deficit of 2.9 percent for 2005. "They left office in March", he writes.

Actually, they were thrown out, after making such a shambles of the government that the president had to step in to restore order.

And who was the prime minister of the conservative government which has been fiddling official data on such a huge scale – before, that is, he scuttled off to get a better job in Brussels?

Ah, that would be José Manuel Durao Barroso, the man who is now president of the EU commission and in charge of monitoring member state compliance with the growth and stability pact. Is this a case of poacher turned gamekeeper – or what?

Pie-throwers get "no" money

A political row has erupted in Holland after an anarchist group, infamous for targeting political figures with "custard pies", has been awarded €40,000 by the Referendum Commission as an official participant in the EU referendum campaign.

Anti-constitution campaigners suspect the funding has been awarded deliberately to discredit the "no" campaign. Hans van Baalen, an MP for the Liberty Party (VVD), accused the Referendum Commission of making a "big mistake" and has demanded an explanation from the Interior and European Affairs Ministries.

The money was paid to EuroDusnie, acting on behalf of anarchist group Vrijplaats Koppenhinksteeg, which plans to use the money for a festival of "debate and music" in Leiden in May.

Two members of EuroDusnie, which describes itself as an "anti-capitalist collective", were involved in an incident on 14 March 2002 when pies were thrown at Pim Fortuyn. The pies were allegedly laced with urine. The collective has also been linked to pie-throwing attacks on former EU commissioner Frits Bolkestein and the Dutch finance minister Gerrit Zalm in 1999.

Fortuyn's LPF party has also reacted angrily to the payment. LPF leader Gerard Van As said the world appeared to be turned on its head as "bad behaviour was once again being rewarded". He said it was "doubly painful" because the LPF was not getting any funding for its campaign against the EU constitution.

Meanwhile despite rumours to the contrary, The Netherlands will vote on the EU constitution on 1 June, even if the French reject it three days earlier. This has been confirmed by European affairs minister Atzo Nicolaï, in a letter to the Dutch Socialist Party, in which he said the referendum would go ahead regardless of the outcome in France.

Danger, children at work

As it is published by the main anti-EU party, we could not afford to ignore the UKIP manifesto issued today, if only to see where the self-proclaimed standard-bearer of the Eurosceptic movement is going.

The overall conclusion from the policy, however, is that UKIP should be thankful that the media do not take them seriously. If this manifesto was given the same scrutiny to which the others have been subjected, the Party would be exposed as the amateurs they really are.

Central to their policy, for instance, is the claim that the UK currently pays £12 billion in contributions to the EU, the non-payment of which the Party says will enable it to raise state pensions by £25 a week for all pensioners.

However, apart from the fact that this varies – from £9-11 billion – UKIP seem to have forgotten that this is the gross contribution, of which more than half is returned to the UK to pay for things like agricultural subsidies.

So, having given all the money to the pensioners, what of the farmers. Ah, says UKIP, we would replace CAP subsidies with guaranteed minimum prices, along the lines of the deficiency payments scheme which operated before 1973.

The slight problem here is that such a scheme could hardly cost lest than the current subsidy arrangement (no costing is offered) yet there is no money available in the kitty. Additional borrowing, the Party tells us, is to be diverted to cutting taxes – there is no money left for farmers.

Another slight problem comes when UKIP tells us that we “shall regain our independent seat in the World Trade Organisation” yet, when this happened, UKIP would immediately find that their agriculture subsidy scheme would fall foul of WTO rules.

And, talking of money, the Party wants to “reverse the planned cut in all branches of the armed forces… and increase spending to improve our own independent military capability”. Capability to do what, one might ask, and where will the money come from?

Turning to perhaps the more substantive point in the manifesto, the Party argues that formal withdrawal from the EU “will be achieved by repealing the European Communities Act” (ECA), following which a transitional committee would be set up, at Cabinet level, to govern the repeal or amendment of EU originated law.

What the Party shows no signs of understanding is that a huge tranche of EU law is promulgated by way of EU Regulations. These have direct effect, without being passed into UK law. Repeal the ECA and these regulations fall, leaving vast swathes of commercial activity entirely uncontrolled – until replacements are drafted.

As for the fishing policy, UKIP argues that the Conservative Party’s promise to "negotiate" out of the CFP cannot be fulfilled until Britain leaves the EU. Odd how UKIP believes that you can repeal the ECA and not amend it, but there you are.

It would be tedious and unproductive to outline more of the pitfalls of these policies, but what disappoints is that, despite the influx of money and staff that came with success at the Euro-elections, UKIP have failed to manage something a little more professional. Evidently, that was too much to ask. All we can do, therefore, is post a warning: danger – children at work.

Where we lead they follow

Otherwise: it was the blog wot done it. Or so we would like to think. But several days after we raised the hue and cry and sent out messages to various people, a number of our daily papers have picked up the cause of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, who had been denied their vote by MoD inefficiency (or skulduggery).

The Daily Telegraph’s Catriona Davies produced a factual account of the scandal under the title Most soldiers will not be able to vote. The Daily Mail had Colonel Tim Collins thundering imprecations, the Independent put is slightly differently : MoD error denies thousands of troops the vote, said they primly. Even Index on Censorship has woken up to the facts.

But, let’s face it, apart from the Herald, you read it here first.

And now, just to show that there are some political speeches we do approve of, and some events we find reasonably interesting, we publish the words spoken by the one London boy at the rally to save the Scottish regiments last Saturday in Trafalgar Square.

This is what Gerard Batten UKIP MEP and spokesman on defence said:

“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to you today. I can assure you that the Save the Regiments Campaign has the full support of the UK Independence Party.

Time and time again the British armed forces have been called upon to defend Britain, and they have never failed to do so. The great and historic regiments represented here today have played a key role on every one of those occasions. We are extremely grateful to them.

Most recently these regiments have carried out some of the most dangerous missions in Iraq, only to find an ungrateful Labour government repays them with disbandment or abolition.

Every organisation has to face changes sometime, but there should always be a clear understanding of how any change serves the fundamental strategy of the organisation in question. This has not happened with regard to the regiments.

There has been no public debate about the planned reductions in manpower and the amalgamation of the regiments. There has been no debate in Parliament. There has been no Government White Paper laying out a coherent and reasoned case.

These changes represent not only fundamental changes to the structure of the army but fundamental changes in defence strategy itself. They envisage a change from the historic, tried and tested regimental model to a new model based on a so-called super unit, and fighting groups, which have yet to be tried or tested.

What then are the driving forces behind these proposed changes? A proper assessment of Britain’s defence needs may well have come to similar conclusions, but it did not happen. Why not? In my view it is because the driving force behind the decision is not a military one but a political one. The political reason is that the Labour government has already taken the decision that Britain’s military forces should be merged and integrated into the planned military capability of the European Union.

I am a member of the European Parliament’s Security and Defence Committee. I have only sat on it for a short time but I can tell you that it has some very big plans. It intends that the European Union should have its own military capability that is capable of implementing the planned European Union Common Security & Defence Policy.

They already speak of their wish to be able to take pre-emptive military action in Europe, the Balkans and indeed Africa. And who knows how much farther afield their martial ambitions may take them if they have the means.

The military dreams of the European Union can only be realised by the integration of the existing armed forces of its member states into a pan-European military force. The best armed forces in Europe, of course, belong to Great Britain.

The military plans of the European Union undermine the existence of NATO. And it is NATO that has kept the peace in Europe since 1949 not the European Union as some would have you believe, and Britain’s regiments have played a key role in NATO. These plans are dangerous not only to the Britain’s defences but to the very stability of Europe itself.

The proposed changes could undermine Britain’s very ability to defend herself. They are being taken for political rather than military or defence reasons. They are not being taken in Britain’s national interest. These changes take no account of the affect they will have on the communities from which the regiments draw their recruits.

An earlier speaker said that in the coming general election you should vote for any party other than the Labour party. I would like to help you narrow down your choices. The UK Independence Party gives its full support to the Save the Regiments Campaign and if you get rid of Tony Blair on 5th May then you have a good chance of saving the regiments!”

This blog remains resolutely neutral in party politics (we are not all that keen on any of them), so we do not endorse the last paragraph. But as for the rest of it: we could not have put it better ourselves.

More hidden Europe

The business section of The Daily Telegraph waxes indignant today about: "Chinese lifeline to Rover snagged by worker rights".

According to Christopher Hope, business correspondent, the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation is being prevented from buying parts of MG Rover out of administration by "union-supported TUPE employment regulations."

If the Chinese now took over the company, and took on 3,000 Rover workers as well as the Rover production line at Longbridge, it would have to pay for the cost of sacking the remaining 3,000 in the company. One source "close to SAIC" is cited as saying: "If we wanted to pick up the business and some employees, the cost of redundancies, pensions and warranties will follow us around like a bad smell."

The Telegraph then cites "employment experts" saying that the TUPE rules - Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 - were an obstacle for the Chinese, and any other potential buyer while MG Rover was in administration.

But a spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry rejected any suggestion that the Government could suspend the TUPE rules to assist the Chinese in buying Rover. She said: "TUPE regulations are legislation. It is not in the Government's gift to waive them, because it is up to Parliament to consider changes to the legislation."

However, that spokesman is not exactly telling the whole truth. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (plus copious amendments) actually implement Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses., known as the “Acquired Rights Directive”.

This has been amended and consolidated with Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 the collective effect of which is to create the problem now facing the MG Rover administrators.

Yet Neil Collins, in his editorial in the "City Comment" section opines:

Ah, the Law of Unintended Consequences. Little can the earnest men who encouraged successive governments to tighten up the rules on employee rights in companies being sold have thought that one day they would be tight enough to throttle any solution helpful to the workforce.

He should be ashamed of himself. It is not "successive governments" but the EU that has created the laws. Thus, while the DTI spokesperson correctly asserts that it is "not in the Government's gift to waive them", he should have noted that neither is it is "up to Parliament to consider changes to the legislation." As EU law, it is beyond the scope of our Parliament – yet another example of "hidden Europe".

The worst of all possible worlds

Even the BBC is beginning to notice. Robin Lustig on last night's BBC Radio 4 World Tonight ran a short piece on why "Europe" was not featuring in the general election campaign and, this morning the Today programme interviewed Bill Rammel, foreign office minister, and Graham Brady, shadow Europe minister, on the same theme.

Brady gave the game away, saying that he found that "Europe" was not the number one issue on the doorstep, particularly because of the referendum.

There is the rub. By transferring the debate to the referendum campaign, deliberately, the issue of "Europe" has been neutralised. Thus it was in the 1997 campaign – when the issue was the single currency – and to extent in the 2001 campaign, when the issue remained the euro. But now the focus is the constitution, and discussion can safely be deferred until the election is over, all because we have the promise of a referendum.

But what if we do not have a referendum? If the volatile French, or even the Dutch, vote against the constitution, there can be little dispute that it will be "dead in the water", for the time being at least. Blair – and with the current poll giving Labour a five point lead, one must assume it will be Blair - will have every justification for calling off an expensive and disruptive referendum, and putting the constitution on the back burner.

One can see it now. Following brief celebrations at the "victory" of the French, or the Dutch, or whatever, the British public, aided and abetted by the media and the political classes, will sink back into the torpor from which they have barely been disturbed, and "Europe" will be firmly off the agenda. With the constitution out of the way, the European Union will become once again a "non-issue".

But, as we are seeing from the comments of Elmar Brok and others, not least Jan Rokita, the Polish politician cited in our previous post, the "colleagues" are beginning to realise that they can do without the constitution.

In fact, with time, the constitution may come to be seen as Giscard's follie de grandeur, to be quietly forgotten as a distraction from the serious business of political integration. By a variety of means, though stretching the application of existing treaty provisions, legal adventurism through the European Court of Justice, and "intergovernmental" agreements of the kind that brought us the European Defence Agency, there are plenty of opportunities for furthering the "project" without resorting to a new treaty.

In the fullness of time, there will, of course, be the need for another treaty, but an interim settlement could be achieved – especially in the revision of the "Nice" voting rights – through the accession treaties of Bulgaria and Romania. People forget that accession treaties are still treaties, and it would not be the first time other provisions have been tacked on to them.

On that basis, we are looking at a profoundly depressing situation. With the issue having been marginalised at the general election, in the expectation of a referendum, we stand at risk of not now getting that referendum and the whole "Europe" debate being kicked into touch with nothing resolved – while the march of integration goes on unabated. This has to be the worst of all possible worlds.

No renegotiation

The most startling thing to come out of Chirac’s two-hour television extravaganza last night was his blunt, totally uncompromising assertion that, in the event that France voted "no" to the constitution, "European construction" would stop. "The argument that we could renegotiate (the treaty) is not a serious one," he said.

This was his great "counterattack", according to the front-page headline of Thursday's Le Soir, or "Chirac's big test," according to Le Figaro, but it was already being dismissed well in advance by a galaxy of critics, not least Jacques Séguéla, the image-making guru who advised the late President Mitterrand.

He joined the media from across the political spectrum yesterday in criticising Chirac for choosing a soft broadcast format hosted by chat-show presenters, in front of a hand-picked audience of 83 "young people", while refusing a debate with politicians or serious interviewers.

Séguéla said that Chirac was making a mistake by turning the constitution into entertainment. "More than 86 percent of the French have not read the constitution and will not read it," he said. "They want to be told seriously and sincerely what is in it and not served-up showbusiness."

Comparisons were made with Mitterrand who, facing a similar challenge in 1992, changed many voters' minds in a head-on debate with the leading conservative opponent of the Maastricht treaty. Chirac, with an approval rating that has sagged below 45 percent after ten years in his job, is unlikely to repeat the trick.

So unpopular is he now that Communist leader George-Marie Buffet was openly saying that Chirac's support for the constitution could backfire. "I think that men and women on the left who want to fight the policy of power will want even more to say 'no' to this policy," Buffet declared, echoing the sentiment of Le Pen who recently pronounced that he was "waiting for Jacques Chirac to finish off a faltering 'yes' vote by openly supporting it."

With hundreds of thousands of French people having taken to the streets and staged strikes in recent weeks to protest against the government's planned labour market reforms and high unemployment - at a 5-year high of 10.1 percent – l’escroc is indeed going to be hard put to it to turn the tide, with now fifteen straight polls showing a majority against the constitution, but that didn't stop him trying.

He warned that a "no" vote would make France the "black sheep" of the European Union, proclaiming that "our political power alone, within Europe, allows us to defend our interests."

"If tomorrow we were to vote no, we would no longer have any power," he said, clearly attempting to invoke the "nuclear option". "The reality is that you would have 24 countries that voted yes and then the black sheep that blocked everything", he said. "France would be considerably weakened… France would cease to exist politically."

His main theme, however, was that France needed protection from "globalisation driven by an ultra-liberal [free-market] trend", and "organisation" to survive in "a world of major powers, current powers, such as the US and also the emerging powers, which are considerable - China, India, and in the future, Brazil and South America, Russia - big powers which naturally intend or wish to impose their will."

"We cannot stand against these powers on an individual basis," Chirac said. "France cannot do this - and if we want to think this out and react to it, we need organisation. Europe must be strong and well-organised to stand against this trend."

The alternative was "letting things drift… a solution leading to the kind of Europe which is driven by the ultra-liberal current, an Anglo-Saxon, Atlanticist kind of Europe. This is not the kind of Europe we want."

Rejecting the constitution, said Chirac, would "not solve any problem... You will considerably weaken France's voice and therefore our capacity to defend our interests. It's what I call the boomerang effect...", he declared.

However, according to The Times, it may be all too late. There is a weariness with the president and his administration, which is a factor in the mood of rejection sweeping the country, along with a general sense that France is suffering from a chronic economic crisis.

But many people are now coming to believe there will be no crisis if the constitution is rejected. The Times articulates this view. Contrary to the dire warnings of Jacques Delors, who said yesterday that "a rejection would lead to a political earthquake in France," it is, says The Times, becoming easier by the month to see how the EU might make do without the passage of the constitution.

Jan Rokita, Poland's centre-right opposition leader, who hopes to become prime minister in elections this year, is of that school. Arguing that the constitution was not needed, he said: "Europe can integrate wonderfully without the treaty, and it can just as easily descend into crisis with it as without it."

One needs to be a little careful here, as a "non" vote in France is not a foregone conclusion, but more and more, it is looking like Blair – if he is re-elected - is off the hook. The chances of a UK referendum are receding fast. Instead, we might get just what Chirac is worried about - a period of drift.

More porkies from the commission?

From a report published by Space Review and relayed by Telematic Journal, it seems the EU is being a little economic with the actualité when it comes to the costs of its flagship Galileo satellite navigation programme.

Although it claims that the system will cost between €3.5 and €4 billion, putting a full thirty-satellite constellation with the proposed capabilities into orbit, it appears that the actual costs will be considerably higher.

According to Space Review, the US Department of Defence spent $234 million on GPS R&D; in 2004. This year it will spend $289 million, and next year they are asking for $401 million. The US is going to be spending more than $900 million in R&D; alone on a system that has been fully operational for more than a decade.

This sum is additional to the $900 million that will be spent on the procurement of the actual hardware and software. According to one published source, GPS cost between $10 and $11 billion between 1987 and 2002, with a programme which began in the early seventies.

By that measure, the EU costings seem more than a little modest.

Pay-back time

Remember President Chirac telling those uppity East Europeans that they missed an excellent chance of keeping quiet? They did not like it then, and they do not like it now.

However, with the French opinion polls showing a consistent non majority, President Chirac grandly agreeing to address a carefully selected audience on TV and other politicians such as Jean-Marie Le Pen openly announcing that l’escroc’s intervention on the yes side is worth thousands of votes for the no side, the boot appears to be sur l’autre pied.

According to AFP

“Poland's deputy parliamentary speaker and opposition chief Donald Tusk on Thursday called on French voters to reject the European Union constitution "for the good of Europe" in a referendum next month.”

Galling, n’est ce pas? Those uppity East Europeans are now lecturing la peuple Française on its duty to Europe.

Oddly enough, Mr Tusk’s party, Citizens’ Platform, favours greater European integration and Poland’s involvement in the European Union. It does not like the Constitution, which seems a little audacious, it being a French inspired document and all. (Not that the French see it that way, which must be extra galling to M Giscard d’Estaing.)

Tusk added:

“I say France should reject the constitution because I know that this will happen sooner or later, maybe in the Czech Republic, Poland or in the United Kingdom. And in this context it would be better for Europe if France took this responsibility upon itself.”

What a very peculiar idea, France taking any kind of responsibility upon itself.

Other Polish politicians came up with different comments. Minister for European Affairs, Jaroslaw Pietras looked forward to possible repercussions in Poland:

“If France votes 'no', there will be no point in organising a referendum in Poland. If that does happen (the no-vote), we should wait for an EU summit to decide what to do with the ratification process.”

That sounds slightly wrong, by the way. Will it really be an EU summit that will make the decision? Not the European Council or, alternatively, another IGC?

Then again, lower house speaker Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said after talking with Slovenian President Janez Drnovsek:

“The rejection of the EU constitution in France would be a failure for Europe and would bear consequences affecting countries including Poland. We have been following the situation in France with great interest. I do not want to be pessimistic but reports coming from France are not good.”

Huh, said Mr Tusk. It would serve those Frenchy politicos right.

“The French, who are constantly preaching to Europe and Poland, are probably going to create the biggest clanger in the European integration process.”

At present opinion polls indicate an overwhelming majority for the Constitution in Poland but the chances are that few if any people in that country have any idea what is in it. Then again, there have been many constitutions in Polish history, many of their own making but many others not. One more, one less may not appear to be catastrophic to them.

But what do the French think of this sort of insolence? Another good opportunity for silence missed?

The real alternative

Under the heading, "Britain's place in Europe and the world" in the Lib-Dem manifesto published today, we get this direct quote:

The other parties like to posture. We think it's time for common sense. In the modern world, Britain is more prosperous and secure in Europe. But we need to make Europe work more effectively – through more democracy, more openness, less waste and less bureaucracy. That's our Liberal Democrat vision for a strong Britain in a strong Europe, a powerful voice in the world.

Saijad Karim & Fiona Hall, Liberal Democrat MEPs

Then we get to the body of the manifesto, with the statement:

Membership of the EU has been hugely important for British jobs, environmental protection, equality rights and Britain’s place in the world. But with enlargement to twenty-five member states, the EU needs reform to become more efficient and more accountable.

The new constitution helps to achieve this by improving EU coherence, strengthening the powers of the elected European Parliament compared with the Council of Ministers, allowing proper oversight of the unelected Commission, and enhancing the role of national parliaments.

It also more clearly defines and limits the powers of the EU, reflecting diversity and preventing over-centralisation. We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain's interest – but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people.

So there you have it. We love the EU and we fully support the EU constitution – as long as you vote for it in a referendum.

How's that for a real alternative?

Was this worth waiting for?

The fragrant Commissar is back and one rather wonders what has been going on. She seems less coherent than ever.

Now, after Pope John Paul II’s funeral and with the Vatican Conclave about to start its formal meetings next week, the lady has decided to begin her posting with her rather unremarkable memories of the great Pontiff.

“The Pope’s eyes.”- she begins her latest Dear Diary entry. The sentence (well, phrase, really) rather reminds us of B-feature horror movies but the fragrant Commissar then expounds:

“That´s what I remember most vividly from meeting the Pope in 1989 (when a Pope visited Sweden for the first time and I was a Minister for the (then state) church. The way he looked intensely at you, straight into your eyes, fully concentrated on seeing the person in front of him.”

Oh gosh, he looked at me. Actually, the comment about the Pope’s ability to concentrate entirely on the person before him has been made by everybody who ever met him or saw him, which makes one wonder whether Commissar Margot did actually get anywhere near him or, in fact, whether she has any clear idea of what she is doing.

This bemusement is reinforced by the following paragraph that was at first edited with the phrase beginning with the words “the harm done to these children must not be covered up!” struck through, the whole text posted with the striking through included, then corrected again and the original ridiculous syntax restored.

Before anybody accuses me of being unpleasantly anti-foreign here, I think I ought to add that if the fragrant Commissar cannot write in English, she should accept editing and not impose her own incompetent ideas.

“A new Pope will have to handle several important challenges. For example: the way the paedophile scandal was handled by the Catholic Church: the harm done to these children must not be covered up! and the attitude towards homosexuality and contraceptives.”

And without pausing for a minute, she returns to the Constitution and the question of whether a referendum is a good idea. Apparently, it is quite a good idea because it is a form of direct democracy. Presumably, that is why the Commissar’s own country Sweden has decided to forego the pleasure of asking the people what they think on the subject.

For on the other hand, it is not such a good idea, as

“It creates a divide between ‘yes‘ and ‘no‘ in the population that can be difficult to overcome.”

Then again, this is the sort of complex issue that people feel their elected representatives should deal with and are disappointed if that does not happen. Which people are those, dear Commissar? Most people we know in many countries feel that this is not that complex a subject and they must be consulted directly.

It is the ones whose opinion is not asked, such as the people of Sweden, who are likely to be angry and disappointed.

Then there is France, where the situation is worrying. How could a country like France take “a giant step backwards” and reject the Constitution?

Backwards where? Into the dark hole where

“The current treaties do not refer to the social market economy and to full employment as important values and objectives of the European Union. The Status quo does not make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. We will not have more of a social Europe through a NON in France.”

Yes, indeed. Welcome to the no camp Margot. You seem to be making all our arguments.

The Russians will send the Constitution into space

The Italian astronaut Roberto Vittori will be carrying a copy of the as yet unratified Constitution for Europe (presumably it will be wheeled along in a trolley) as he boards the Soyuz rocket that is due to take off tomorrow from Baikonur in Kazakhstan.

So, finally, that document will be in the environment that is most appropriate for it: space. It is not quite clear what will happen to it eventually. One assumes Signor Vittori intends to come back to earth at some later date. Will he bring the hefty document back with him? Surely, the EU is not so wicked as to pollute space with it.

Meanwhile, Günther Verheugen, Commission Vice President has waxed lyrical on the event:

“In orbit, the constitution will not only encompass Europe, but the whole world.Let us hope that this symbol of European identity will be well received both by Europeans and by the peoples of other continents.”

Someone should do something about Herr Verheugen’s medication in our opinion. It is the rocket that will be going … well, we are not sure where it is going but it is not encompassing Europe or the world except in the rather megalomaniac imagination of the Commission Vice President.

As for the symbol of European identity (what, all 400 odd pages of it?) being received joyfully by peoples in various continents, one hopes Herr Verheugen did not mean that literally.

The thought of that document descending from space at some unsuspecting African or South-East Asian village to cause greater chaos than the tsunami ever did, fills one with dread.

Then again, maybe the Americans and the Australians can send their navy and air force to rescue anybody whose life is being destroyed by the new Constitution for Europe.

Rigging the debate

Rather as the fragrant Margot Wallström - whose Blog mysteriously went AWOL for nearly two days – is reluctant to engage with the public on anything like equal terms, so it seems are both Blair and l’escroc Chirac, a trait they seem to share with the rest of the political élites of Europe.

Blair's latest tactic is to repeat the hoary lie in his manifesto that the EU constitution gives more powers to national parliaments, a claim that has been so comprehensively debunked that you really do wonder at his nerve in repeating it.

But, when it comes to bare-faced cheek, l’escroc, as always, must take the accolade. With the eleventh consecutive poll showing a commanding lead for the “no” campaign in the French EU referendum the latest indicating a 53 percent majority - Chirac is, according to The Daily Telegraph returning to the fray tonight, in a televised "debate" on the private TF1 channel.

But, rather than confront his critics in a genuine debate, l’escroc has opted for a live studio appearance with 80 carefully selected "young people", as his way of counter the forces of dissent.

And, already, the tactic seems to be backfiring on him. Questions are being asked about the participants in the broadcast, and about the role of the president's daughter, Claude, who leads his communications team, in its planning. Opponents have seized on the absence of any champion of the No cause. Journalists from other stations unsuccessfully asked France's broadcasting watchdog, the CSA, to intervene, condemning a "confusion of information with entertainment".

Thus, the president's approach has been described as "nervous", leaving the field to the "no" campaign, described graphically by another piece in The Telegraph, where speakers against the constitution seem to be having no difficulty holding audiences spellbound.

But then, when you are selling snake oil, all that is left to you is to rig the debate.

It hurts so much...

"We have to... do what we preach so as to be credible."

Margot Wallström

He he, tee he, ha ha, haaa ha, haaaaa, aahaaaa... waaaaaaaaah.... aaaahhhhh... ha haaaa... ooooooooh... it hurts so much....

Proxy Error

The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET/page/wallstrom

Reason: DNS lookup failure for: wt-weblog.jrc.it

Margot - have you really deserted us? Was it something we said?

Armageddon?

From an unexpected source comes a report that the unspeakable is being whispered – the euro currency project could fail.

The source is Stella Dawson, chief ECB correspondent for Reuters, unusual because the agency usually confines itself to hard news and avoids long, speculative pieces.

But, writes Dawson, in economic research reports and newspaper columns, European Central Bank watchers have begun to speculate on the fate of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) should French voters reject the EU constitution.

"The euro at risk" was the headline of a Deutsche Bank report to its clients on Monday. "Its life expectancy may soon be regarded as finite," Financial Times columnist Wolfgang Munchau wrote the same day.

"The EU could disintegrate toward a free-trade zone," said WestLB Financial Markets on Tuesday. "Such developments would spell disaster for EMU and the ECB."

Dawson cites Eric Chaney, European economist at Morgan Stanley, saying that the "no" vote "could lead to break up of EMU". "It is a real risk," agrees Paul de Grauwe, international economics professor at Leuven University in Belgium and adviser to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

Chaney and Deutsche Bank's chief European economist Thomas Mayer believe that merely the threat of postponing EU political integration would encourage investors to move capital out of the euro zone and to sell the euro. Long-term risk premia on sovereign debt, especially for heavily-indebted euro zone countries, would rise, they said.

The possibility of France leaving the EU and EMU breaking up is very low, Chaney says. But even a slight rise in a distant threat could have important consequences for financial markets. "If the second biggest player in the EU were to take its chips out, the rationale for monetary union disintegrates. The euro would react quite quickly," he said.

For the European Central Bank, a falling currency and questions about EMU viability when money supply and credit growth is already very strong would worsen inflationary risks. The ECB would have to respond by raising interest rates to safeguard the euro, said Mayer.

Failure to do so "would almost certainly set the stage for a soft-currency, high-inflation EMU, which might break apart some time in the future," he said.

However, Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for Economic Policy in Brussels, paints a different picture. "A 'no; vote creates a political crisis, which serves as a call to arms to save EMU," he argues.

Anatole Kaletsky of The Times today seems to agree with him.

Framing his argument, he suggests that, while the British election could conceivably change our government for the rest of the decade or, more likely, force Blair into retirement a few years ahead of plan, the French referendum could transform the political and economic prospects for the whole of Europe, including Britain, for an entire generation.

He then cites Charles Gave, a prominent French economist, explaining why the French will vote 'no'. This referendum gives them the chance of a lifetime to vote simultaneously against the two politicians they have hated most for the past 30 years: Chirac and Giscard.

"To understand what the average Frenchman thinks of these two defunct septuagenarians claiming to speak for the nation, imagine how people in Britain would feel if they turned on the TV news and found Harold Wilson still arguing with Ted Heath," he writes, continuing:

On reflection, this is not just a joke. The French referendum has been grandly described as a choice between the past and the future. But the real choice is exactly opposite to the one articulated by campaigners on both sides. The alternatives offered to the people of France are not between the idealistic European multiculturalism of the 21st century and the xenophobic nationalism of the 19th. Rather they face a choice between two approaches: on one hand the liberal ideology of free markets and small governments that seems to be sweeping the world after its relaunch in Britain and America in the 1980s. The alternative is the 1970s belief that a centralised, protectionist and bureaucratically managed state could gradually be extended to the whole of Europe, preserving and enhancing the traditions of Gaullism in its glory days, when Chirac and Giscard were rising to power.

Then comes the sales pitch: whatever the intention of some voters, the consequence of a 'no' vote may well be to accelerate both economic and political liberalisation in France and across Europe, Kaletsky thinks. It would be a wake-up call for the politicians and officials who have so mismanaged the European economy since the mid-1990s and faster growth could well be the consequence.

Furthermore, a 'no' vote would be such a shock to Europe's governing élites that the European Central Bank may well recognise that the only alternative to lower interest rates and a weaker euro will be the complete collapse of the single-currency project. National governments and the EU commission will abandon all efforts to patch up their deflationary growth and stability pact - and instead will cut taxes in a dash for growth.

Then the collapse of the constitution would dispel the pernicious illusion of French or European 'exceptionalism' which this journey inspired: the idea that France or Europe has a "model" of social development which somehow exempts it from the laws of capitalist economics that apply to the rest of the world.

Europe can make different choices on social services and welfare from America, but these choices can be supported only by a growing economy. The laws of the market — that people respond to incentives, that overvalued currencies destroy employment, that bureaucracy stifles enterprise — cannot be repealed by European idealism or political will.

In other words, a French 'no' will force the people of Europe and the governing élites to face the fact that their living standards, cultures and influence in the world can be preserved only by improving economic performance, not by integrating, harmonising, enlarging or writing constitutions.

Denied the illusions of 'exceptionalism' and 'ever-closer union', Kaletsky concludes, Europe may have to think seriously about economic reform.

Hell, I wish I could be such an optimist - and get paid for it. But this grouch thinks differently. If there was any chance of EU politicians facing up to reality, they would not have attempted to foist the constitution on us in the first place. Collectively, they have been living in their own 'bubble' for over fifty years, and a little thing like a rejection is not going to change it.

We have been here before. The last great attempt to foist a constitution on 'Europe', in the form of the European Political Community, failed in 1954, when the French parliament refused to ratify it. Did that stop the integrationalists then? Not in the least – three years later they were signing the Treaty of Rome.

Kaletsky may be good at economics, but he has little grasp of the mentality of the "colleagues" and their obsession with the "project". They really do have no "Plan B" and will try again for their constitution. But this time the laws of gravity may prevail. If they do, it is going to crash and burn, baby!

No UK referendum?

The Independent this morning ran what, from the perspective of this evening, looks very much like a "flier".

Its headline was: "Blair to fight for 'yes' vote on Europe", with the claim by Colin Brown, deputy political editor, that Blair would "take the biggest gamble of his premiership today by committing the Government to fight for a 'yes' vote in the referendum on the European constitution."

That much was hardly earth-shattering news, but what made the story interesting was Brown's elaboration: "Some Labour candidates," he wrote, "said they suspected that the Prime Minister's determination to go ahead with the referendum regardless of the French referendum result at the end of next month could be Mr Blair's exit strategy."

Blair, we are told, "faces an uphill task to convince the British electorate to support the new constitution, and ministerial colleagues fear it will become a chance to give Mr Blair a "bloody nose" after the election." It is on that basis, that Brown hangs his story that "some of Mr Blair's allies believe he may be using it to prepare for his own departure earlier than expected."

However, nothing in today's manifesto launch in any way suggested that Blair was preparing to put himself on a line for the referendum, making the Independent story just so much speculation (now, that’s really unusual).

On the other hand, our sources tell us that Blair is looking to a "no" vote in the French referendum as an excuse for not holding a referendum in the UK. In many ways, this is the obvious course of action for, if the French had voted "no" what would be the point of a British "yes"?

Certainly, no politician could be expected to go out of his way to ask for a beating from the electorate, and that is precisely what fighting for a "yes" vote in an unnecessary referendum would be doing. In the event of a French "no", therefore, the greater likelihood is that Blair (if returned to power) will cancel the UK referendum.

Bring in the OSCE

It seems that when it comes to electoral rights, there are at least three categories of people in this country. There are those (most of us), who have one vote, which we may or may not use on May 5.

Then there is the growing number of postal voters, such as the ones in certain parts of Birmingham or Blackburn. Among these the cry is becoming vote early or late, vote often, as long as you vote the right way.

And then there are members of the services, stationed overseas who have been risking their lives, fighting for our interests and ensuring that Iraq and Afghanistan have their first free and fair elections. They, it seems, will not be able to vote in our elections.

This interesting story has been going round some parliamentarians and has finally been brought out into the public by the The Herald.

“Ivor Caplin, the armed forces minister, told the House of Commons in January that 100,000 advisory leaflets would be distributed to bases from Basra to Benbecula by early the following month to allow soldiers, sailors and airmen to have their names included on voters' rolls in their home constituencies.

But the first leaflets were not handed out until March 1, only 10 days before the final registration date. Many units did not receive them until after the deadline, military sources said.”

In other words, around 80 per cent of our troops overseas will not be able to vote. We appear to have gone backwards in technological development. In 1945, with hostilities continuing and with huge numbers of British forces overseas, ballot papers went out, were filled in honestly, returned and counted honestly. (And brought in the first Attlee government.)

Now fast forward to 2001 and with all our technology we do not seem to be able to ensure that our servicemen and women vote in an election that has been signposted months ago.

Nor does it seem that anyone is too upset about it all.

“Peter Viggers, a parliamentary representative on the Electoral Commission, admitted that the leaflet initiative advising service personnel how to secure their votes had not been implemented "as speedily or effectively" as anticipated.”

Dear, dear. Note the passive aspect of the statement. It “had not been implemented”. Nobody is at fault. It just happened, guv.

“An MoD spokeswoman said: "The leaflets were produced and delivered. It was up to individual units, ships and bases to distribute them."

She could not,however, give detailed dates for the arrival of the documents.”

Well, that’s all right then. The MoD airhead probably went off to her statutory lunch break with the clear conscience of one who has done her work well.

It is no wonder that there are dark mutterings among some of the military:

“Jeff Duncan, manager of the Save the Scottish Regiments campaign, questioned whether the delay had been deliberate.

He said: "This government is treating our servicemen and women with contempt. This is just another example of that contempt.

"It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that perhaps Labour did not want to create the climate under which a military constituency of perhaps 250,000 potential voters facing defence cutbacks would make their displeasure plain at the ballot box."”

It is difficult not to feel some sympathy with that point of view but we on this blog believe that the MoD is inefficient rather than completely evil.

We also have a few suggestions. It seems, in the light of all the stories of postal vote chicanery, government refusal to deal with it and, now, soldiers not being able to vote, that this country must be put on the danger list.

It is not too late to send OSCE observers even for this election but, certainly, we shall need them for next year’s referendum. Incidentally, will the troops overseas, who have a fair idea of what Europe means to them, get the referendum ballot papers in time? Care to bet on that?

Then there is the purple indelible dye that so many Iraqis sported proudly on their election day. Was there any left over? Could we possibly have it here? It seems to me that we are beginning to need some extra security measures to ensure that our elections become free and fair.

In the meantime, bearing in mind the number of people in Britain, who find this election campaign of appalling tedium, we are suggesting that they might like to adopt a soldier. Find out how individual servicemen and women would have voted if they had not been disenfranchised by the MoD and cast your vote for them.

There is a slogan the Sun could adopt and mean it, for once, literally:

Cast your vote for our brave boys and girls.

Mugabe speaks out

Zimbabwean observers were last night expressing their fears that the British General Election will be invalid, thanks to widespread vote-rigging and fraud by the leader of the ruling Labour Party, the power-crazed Tony Mugablair.

Already evidence is mounting from all over the country that that Mugablair's henchmen in such remote settlements as Birmingham are forging huge quantities of postal votes in order to deliver an overwhelming Zanulabour victory.

On of the few independent judges left in Britain with the courage to speak his mind yesterday compared his country's corrupt voting system to that of a "banana republic".

Our beloved leader President Mugabe was rightly outraged by the horrifying news of how Britain's election was being stolen by its hated dictator. "Mugablair", he said, "has shocked the civilised world. He should step down at once and allow the real winner of the election to take over as rightful leader of the British Empire, ie myself"

By Our Mann in London Lunchtime O'Noose
(Private Eye 1130, 15-28/4/05)

Making Europe work better for Britain

And now, what we’ve all been waiting for: the Zanu Labour Party manifesto on “Europe” (p. 83):

We are proud of Britain’s EU membership and of the strong position Britain has achieved within Europe.* British membership of the EU brings jobs, trade and prosperity; it boosts environmental standards, social protection and international clout.

Since 1997 we have gone from marginal players, often ignored, to leaders in the European Union. Working hard with Labour MEPs, we are determined to remain leaders. Outside the EU, or on its margins, we would unquestionably be weaker and more vulnerable.

The EU now has 25 members and will continue to expand. The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain keeps control of key national interests like foreign policy, taxation, social security and defence.

The Treaty sets out what the EU can do and what it cannot. It strengthens the voice of national parliaments and governments in EU affairs. It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe.

We will also work to reform Europe. During Britain’s EU presidency this year, we will work to promote economic reform, bear down on regulation; make progress in the Doha development trade round; bring closer EU membership for Turkey, the Balkans and Eastern Europe; and improve the focus and quality of EU aid so it better helps the poorest countries.

We will continue to lead European defence cooperation. We will build stronger EU defence capabilities, in harmony with NATO – the cornerstone of our defence policy – without compromising our national ability to act independently. We will ensure the new EU battle groups are equipped and organised to act quickly to save lives in humanitarian crises.

On the euro, we maintain our common-sense policy. The determining factor underpinning any government decision is the national economic interest and whether the case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The five economic tests must be met before any decision to join can be made. If the Government were to recommend joining, it would be put to a vote in Parliament and a referendum of the British people.

That, dear readers, is what Zanu Labour Party have to offer. No comment needed. Just read some of the links.

* see also:

We have become more powerful II
We have become more powerful III
We have become more powerful IV
We have become more powerful V
We have become more powerful VI
We have become more powerful VII
We have become more powerful VIII
We have become more powerful IX
We have become more powerful X
We have become more powerful XI
We have become more powerful XII

Did we miss something?

From the Labour manifesto (pp.28-29) published this morning:

Under difficult circumstances, Labour is working with the fishing industry to create a sustainable long-term future for the fishing communities of the United Kingdom. We have reformed the Common Fisheries Policy and will continue to protect the marine environment and ensure fish stocks and their exploitation are set at sustainable levels.

So… the Zanu Labour Party reformed the CFP! What clever little things they are. But I must have been asleep at the time – I seem to have missed it.

A case for the European Human Rights industry?

The Huns are back and they are no longer at the gates. No sirreeee, they are right inside the EU fortress. Well, some of them are.

It seems that the Hungarian Parliament’s Human Rights Committee (an interesting concept) has rejected a petition by 2,500 people to be considered an ethnic minority, to wit, descendants of Attila the Hun.

Recalling stories of the Huns’ behaviour back in the 4th and 5th century when they were last in evidence and, specifically, Attila’s behaviour, 2,500 descendants are a little on the low side. When you look carefully around you in Hungary, various Asiatic features are still clearly in evidence in people’s faces. Whether that is the Magyars, the Huns, the Tatars or the later Ottomans that left traces is impossible to tell.

Attila has never been regarded in Hungary with quite as much revulsion as the rest of Europe. The name is enormously popular and the greatest Hungarian poet of the twentieth century was Attila József.

The historic Attila is the secondary hero of one of the best known children’s adventure novels by Géza Gárdonyi, “Slave of the Huns”. (His other even better known novel is “Stars of Eger” about the Ottoman conquest of Hungary.)

One of the favourite April 1 jokes among school children used to be the one about a newspaper article that they had found Attila’s tomb. Attila was supposed to be buried in three coffins somewhere in the river Tisza and the stream was supposed to have been dammed for the funeral, to be undammed afterwards.

The slaves who buried him were instantly shot, as were those who shot them and those who shot the shooters. I think there may have been a third rank of shot slaves. In other words, nobody knew where precisely the burial was. And that is that.

Apart from these exciting stories all that is known about the Huns is described by a Byzantine delegation that visited Attila. They themselves were not much given to introspection.

The Hungarian Academy of Sciences in the nineteenth century decided that the Hungarians were not descendants of the Huns and the present group maintains that the decision was unscientific.

It also maintains that thirteen other groups in the country have had minority status conferred on them with all the privileges that entails, so why not the Huns. Why not, indeed? I am looking forward to the discussions before the ECHR and, if the Constitution is passed, the ECJ, as they will be deciding on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Will the Avars and Khazars make their appearance soon? I do hope so.

Unknown Host (Error 500)

The Web site you are trying to access has not been found.
This might be because:

 You have typed the Web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling, making sure that it does not contain spaces.
 The site you are looking for has been moved or deleted.

Margot… where have you gone?

Are we in the least bit surprised?

As trailed on this Blog last Sunday, yesterday in Strasbourg, MEPs, with their snouts firmly embedded in the trough, rejected the reform package for their notoriously liberal travel allowances and expenses, by a margin of six to four.

Their decision, according to The Telegraph, "prompted anger and disbelief from British MEPs," who voted for proposed reforms. All that goes to show is what a useless bunch of w*****s they really are - "all mouth and trousers" as my mother would have said, somewhat more elegantly.

Anyway, these EUnuchs did their bit so they could then bleat to the media about how distressed they were, while queuing up for the self-same expenses that they had just endorsed and, in due course, picking up their £1 million additional, contribution-free pension package. My heart bleeds for them.

What vile, self-serving, slimy dregs these people are. Compared with them, used toilet paper is useful.

A funny old world

While the core of Eurosceptism in the UK occupies a political position that could loosely be called the "right", opposition in France is firmly embedded in the ranks of the hard left.

Now the British Eurosceptics are joined by the Greek Communists, at least 1,500 of whom marched through central Athens in an anti-EU protest yesterday, on the day that their parliament was due to begin deliberations to ratify the EU constitution.

Holding banners calling for a "double no" to the EU and the constitution, the protesters marched in front of parliament before disbanding peacefully. The police estimated attendance at 1,500, while a reported from Agence France Presse estimated the number at 2,500.

A similar Communist-led rally was staged in the northern port city of Salonika, Greece's second largest city, earlier Tuesday. Demonstrators there marched with a gallows labelled "Euro-constitution", from which they hanged papers representing EU treaties.

The Greek parliament began the debate on the constitution yesterday evening, with a vote expected in three to five days. The opposition socialists (Pasok) are expected to support its ratification.

Meanwhile, back in the UK, a poll carried out for the Financial Times of that that most capitalist of fraternities, company finance directors, revealed that nearly seventy percent were opposed the constitution, while almost none of them are strongly in favour of it.

The poll, of some 200 directors, showed that 30 percent of respondents "strongly oppose" Britain adopting the new treaty. A further 38 percent said they were "generally opposed" but "could be persuaded in favour of it" and only 26 percent said they are generally in favour of it.

But this latter group "could be persuaded against it" if they thought it would be bad for Britain. A minuscule four percent said they "strongly support Britain adopting the new European constitution".

So there you have it. On one thing Capitalists and Communists unite: their detestation of the EU constitution - while the sludgy socialists in the middle support it. What a funny old world.

Another domino?

It looks like one more country could reject the EU constitution and end up isolated in Europe.

After the collapse of the Estonian government on 24 March following a vote of no confidence, the country's parliament today approved a three-party coalition to take over, the 12th government since regaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

The move was approved by 53-40 votes, followed by formal approval by president Arnold Ruutel. The cabinet will be led by prime minister-designate Andrus Ansip of the Reform Party. He is in alliance with the rural-based People's Union Party and the left-leaning Centre Party, holding 52 of the 101 seats, giving the new government a decided Eurosceptic flavour.

One of Ansip's first moves has been to pledge a referendum on changes needed to the Estonian constitution to bring in the EU constitution. Although the December Eurobarometer survey put 32 percent in favour of the constitution with 11 percent opposed and 56 percent in the "don't know" camp, the expectations are that public sentiment will quickly rally behind the new leader and reject the necessary changes.

No date has been set for the referendum.

How to "move forwards"

The EU is not implementing the constitution ahead of ratification. That is the extraordinary claim made by a spokesman for Elmar Brok following the EPP MEP's call that the "spirit (and substance) of the provisions of the constitution regarding CFSP should be applied as of now… without waiting for the formal ratification of the Constitutional Treaty."

This call was picked up by Dave on North Sea Diaries and amplified by our own post, but now Dr Michael Kambeck, writing on behalf of Brok in an e-mail to one of our readers, denies that there is any intention "to legally implement unratified laws".

What he really meant, we are told, is that the "political will" has already uttered by elected heads of states and governments "with respect to projects alongside or outside the Constitution Treaty."

"For example," writes Kambeck, "the European Defence Agency is (legally) being set up, which was decided outside the Constitution negotiations." He also claims that the protocol to the Treaty calls upon member states, the Council and the Commission to prepare the blueprint of a European External Service. Another example he cites is that Javier Solana has already been named first European Foreign Minister, once the Treaty will be enacted.

These examples, he says, "show that the political will to cooperate in CFSP matters is already - without the new Treaty - strong." That is why Brok’s report "calls upon all concerned to move forward with political agreements and not let the ratification procedure be an excuse for a position on halt and waiting."

There is, of course, a minor problem with Kambeck's spirited defence of his boss. Brok's actual call was that the "provisions of the constitution regarding CFSP should be applied as of now". The provisions to which he was referring, therefore, are not "projects alongside or outside the Constitution Treaty," as Kambeck asserts.

However, his response give a good indication as to how the "colleagues" will try to react if the ratification process fails. They will simply "move forward with political agreements" – presumably on a piecemeal basis so that we do not notice.

Blah, blah, blah

I was mildly entertained by Vicki Wood's op-ed in The Telegraph today, and her comment that, although the campaigning has only just begun, she is finding it hard to stay awake.

But what was particularly illuminating her daughter's declaration that she "would vote if there was anyone to vote for", but "all their policies are the same… schools'n'hospitals, blah, blah, blah."

The thought occurs that the parties, guided as they are by focus groups made up from uncommitted – i.e., "swing" – voters in marginal seats, are letting the political agenda be dictated by people who are least involved in the political process. No wonder the result is so profoundly tedious.

In the real world, our (albeit limited) snapshot from canvassing teams out garnering votes suggests that there are two very important issues out there – immigration and "Europe". Canvassers have been surprised by how often punters bring up the subject of the EU entirely spontaneously, despite the reluctance of the main parties to discuss it.

There are also indications that, in some areas, the BNP has successfully stolen the clothes of UKIP (and possibly Veritas), putting the EU at the top of their agenda alongside immigration in a manner that would make it difficult to distinguish between these three parties.

With their street workers under such a tight grip that they even need to produce doctors' certificates if they do not turn up for electoral duties, the BNP may yet surprise in some constituencies.

If that happens, of course, it will be followed by ritual denouncements from the established parties, but my guess is that none of them will look to their brand of "focus group politics" as being part of the cause of voter rejection.

Strange bedfellows

Despite Conservative attempts to bury "Europe" at the back of their manifesto, when The Independent came to report the launch today, it chose to highlight the EU policy with the headline: "I'll name date for EU referendum on my first day, says Howard."

Within 24 hours of taking office, it reports, Mr Howard would set out a date for a referendum on the proposed European constitution in which his cabinet would campaign for a "no" vote.

The Europhile Independent is hardly a friend of Mr Howard and any "spin" the paper offers is undoubtedly aimed at making mischief for the Tories. It must, therefore, see in its headline, at least a scintilla of embarrassment for Howard, and appears to regard a pledge for an early referendum as a stick with which to beat the Party.

Strangely enough, Howard does regard his European policy as an embarrassment, so he is at one with the Independent. What strange bedfellows doth politics make.

Serious stakes in a serious game

An important deadline passed yesterday, the date on which the long-running dispute between the EU and the United States over Airbus and Boeing subsidies was either to be resolved or passed to the WTO arbitration panel.

In the manner of these things, however, nothing of substance actually happened, the day ending with Peter Mandelson, for the EU commission announcing that there were "currently" no plans to take legal action against the US.

Nevertheless, he made it clear that the "window of opportunity" left in which further talks could take place would not remain open for long: Airbus would soon be seeking a multi-billion-dollar soft loan from the EU to launch its A350, the mid-range plane which has stoked up the dispute to its current level.

Equally, despite accusations of bad faith from the former US trade representative and now deputy secretary of state, Robert Zoellick, directed at Mandelson, in exchanges which have been characterised by bad temper, Washington has also held back from resorting to the WTO arbitration procedure.

Interestingly, both The Times in an editorial today and the Foreign Editor's Briefing last week takes a dim view of the dispute.

Bronwen Maddox in the briefing piece wrote that "this has to be one of the stupidest rows it has picked… It is a mystery why the United States thinks it can win by setting Boeing on a collision course with Airbus." To this she added: "Any ruling could harm both companies, as well as relations with Europe, just when the US claims to be trying to make them better."

Then, the editorial today tells "both sides… to make a further effort to heel themselves," stating that a formal WTO inquiry could serve a useful purpose. "It is unlikely", thinks The Times, "that the body would rule against Airbus without also ordering cuts in Boeing's state support."

From all this, it concludes that "it is bad enough that most of the world's airlines are kept aloft by subsidies — the aircraft makers must learn to fly by themselves."

But this newspaper, like others, has not so much lost the plot as missed it altogether. Boeing is not just an airline manufacturer but has emerged as a major US defence contractor, from which it is currently earning the bulk of its revenue.

And one of the juiciest contracts up for grabs at the moment is for the replacement of the US Air Force’s ageing fleet of KC135 air tankers, and its fleet of AWACS aircraft - based on the same airframe - the total value of which over the next 20 years is over $100 billion.

Herein lies the real story for the first tranche of the contract, to lease and buy 100 767 tankers - worth $23.5bn - was to be awarded to Boeing last year. However, it was cancelled by the Pentagon at the last minute after a scandal involving former Air Force official Darleen Druyun, who went to work for Boeing, and was later found to have boosted the price of the contract as a "parting gift" for the company.

Ms Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison for holding job talks with Boeing without removing herself from air force contracts related to the company. Mike Sears, former Boeing chief financial officer, was sentenced to four months in prison for his role in the scandal and Phil Condit, the chief executive, was forced to resign.

More recently, his successor, CEO Harry Stonecipher, was forced to resign after an affair with a company director in contravention with the ethical policy which Stonecipher himself had devised, reinforcing Boeing’s reputation as a tarnished giant.

The affairs of the company have attracted the scrutiny of John McCain, the powerful senior Republican on the Senate armed services committee, who is looking carefully at other Boeing contracts – not least the $100 billion Future Combat System contract – all of which has considerably weakened this aerospace giant.

Now, ever quick to spot an opportunity, the Franco-German aerospace company EADS, that owns 80 percent of Airbus industries, has put in its own bid to supply the USAF with tankers based on the Airbus 330, claiming it can deliver its product at $8 million per unit cheaper than can Boeing.

So keen is it to gain the contract that it has teams scouring the United States looking for suitable site for a manufacturing base and is claiming that upwards of 70 percent of its aircraft would be US-built.

Ironically, the favourite site is a plant in Everett, in Washington State, Boeing's own back yard, where the company is prepared to spend $600 million on a plant employing up to 1,100 people. Perversely, this would allow EADS to benefit from the same $3.2 billion package of tax breaks and other incentives the state has offered Boeing to attract the 787 plant to the location – a subsidy which is at the centre of the Boeing-Airbus dispute.

It is this that puts that dispute into perspective. With Boeing under such pressure, the major card it has to play is the American flag. EADS is perceived as being predominately a French company, and no country has irritated the Bush administration more than the French.

Friends in Congress - particularly Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Norm Dicks, both Democrats - have been outspokenly opposed to the notion of having American military personnel fly French jets into war. In February, Murray issued a statement accusing EADS of "disingenuously wooing US communities as locations for an 'American' EADS plant." The Airbus parent company, she said, is "attempting to secure US taxpayer dollars to support European jobs."

By having the current dispute framed in a US versus EU context, Boeing hopes to stoke up national passion, particularly in Congress, to the point where buying from EADS would become politically unacceptable – in which case the only alternative supplier, Boeing, would have to be awarded the contract.

Thus, when The Times notes that the airliner subsidy dispute could harm relations between the EU and America, that is precisely the intention. And, if the EU lifts its arms embargo on China, that will kill any chance EADS might have of supplying the US Air Force stone dead.

Serious stakes are being played for here, in a serious game and Boeing is no amateur. The Europeans, crowing at having recently outsold its American rival in the airliner sector, might find themselves outmanoeuvred.

Spreading European values

Our readers have not, we imagine, forgotten what it is the strong and single European Voice is supposed to do. (No, not to promote dubious French politicians to leading positions in transnational organizations. Well, not all the time, anyway.)

Yes, that’s right, it is supposed to oppose the Americans and … all together now … promote European values of … um … democracy … no, that’s the American line … freedom …. no, that’s not it …. human rights …. that’s the one.

In the interests of promoting human rights and European values, there have been all those attempts (so far, fortunately, unsuccessful) to lift the arms embargo on China. Then there was the repeal of the diplomatic embargo on Cuba and the refusal to have anything to do with that country’s dissidents.

The campaign to be nice to Fidel, one of the last of the old-fashioned Communist tyrants, was led by Spain’s socialist Prime Minister, Zapatero, elected in a panic after the bombing of the Madrid underground just over a year and a month ago.

Zapatero, as we have reported, gone on to other glorious deeds, selling conventional arms to the man many people in North and South America call Fidelito, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, who is busy expropriating land, imprisoning and torturing opponents, banning free speech and (this is the crunch) probably supporting organizations like FARC in Colombia and other terrorist groupings in other neighbouring countries.

In fact, Chávez has boasted of being another Bolívar and exporting a revolution. Actually, his exports are much more likely to resemble the ultimately unsuccessful but murderous Cuban ones, so beloved by the left-wing media and politicos of the comfortable West.

Now, thanks to the admirable blog VCRISIS and an article in the American Spectator, we find out that Spain has also sold less conventional weaponry to the born again Guevarrista.

They both quote Spain’s Europa Press news agency to report that Venezuela bought “"biological and nerve agents" as well as dual-use materials from Spain sometime during the first half of 2004” from Spain.

The author of the article in the American Spectator wonders what the purpose of what amounts to not a great deal of WMD might be and comes to the conclusion that Chávez must want it in order to terrorize his neighbours.

The same article mentions two more aspects of the whole saga (leaving questions of what precisely are European values to the likes of this blog).

Spain and Venezuela have both ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article I of which states:

“Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:

(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
(b) To use chemical weapons;
(c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
(d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.”

Well, I guess Conventions can be read different ways, though this seems fairly unambiguous to me. No doubt clear and dangerous contradiction of this text is not nearly as heinous as the suggestion that Britain (or any other country) should somehow negotiate its way out of the Euromess. That brings about hisses and splutterings of horror.

The American Spectator reminds its readers of another interesting historical point: the Monroe Doctrine. Briefly, it can be summarized by saying that the Old World messes around in the New World at its peril. In fact, Spain has found that out quite painfully in the past herself.

We, on this blog, would like to raise another question. What happened to the common foreign and defence policy, so highly lauded by, among others, Prime Minister Zapatero? What happened to the push for an integrated defence procurement programme? Why is Spain out on her own, selling guns, boats, planes, chemical weapons, what have you, to tyrannical politicians?

And, finally, as we have said before: if Spain wants to sell arms then what about selling them to Europeans, perhaps even Spaniards? Sell one, buy one, should be the motto as Europe builds its barmy army to rival the Americans. (You there at the back, stop giggling.)

We are waiting again

The fragrant Margot seems to have forgotten that her blog is supposed to be twice weekly. She had a long holiday, posted once last week and .. well, we are still waiting. This change in frequency couldn’t possibly have anything to do with all those nasty, disagreeable comments and the way all her supporters get knocked down by facts, could it? And what are those pages of text she is posing with in the picture? Can't be the Constitution - there seem to be only about five pages with large writing on them.

Drawing the line

Behind the scenes, a fascinating general election drama is playing out, to which the media are totally oblivious.

Conservative candidates, nervously eyeing their UKIP rivals, are wondering how far they can go in expressing their Eurosceptic credentials, in the hope that they will be given a clear run.

Enough of the more dutiful (and less secure) candidates have been contacting "them up there" with requests for guidance that the party machine has been moved to issue a stern directive in an attempt to hold the line.

In uncompromising terms, the missive tells candidates:

Here is our line on Europe. You must stick to it. It is our policy and we know that these words strike a chord with the electorate. There is no need to "improve" on it. It is robust, clear, tested, defendable and right. Stick to it.*

The missive then goes on to set out policy, telling candidates that: "People face a clear choice: powers brought back from Brussels and no euro with the Conservatives, or more powers surrendered to Brussels under Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats."

"Conservatives," it continues, "believe in a Europe of nation states, not a country called Europe. We will set a date for a referendum on the European Constitution as soon as we are elected, we will hold it within six months, and we will campaign actively for a 'no' vote."

"We will bring back powers from Brussels, including control of our employment laws and fishing grounds. We will negotiate with our European partners for a 'live and let live' Europe of co-operating nation states. We will not join the euro."

This is actually further than the manifesto, but the message is clear: that's as far as you go chuck… you will not say anything more.

*our emphasis.

The Toynbee speaks

It's optimistic to imagine a referendum campaign will do much to inform or excite. It's a dead duck. The only hope is the French blow it out of the water first, so we never have to disgrace ourselves at the polls.

Polly Toynbee inspires the troops in the March-April E! Sharp

We have become more powerful XII

"And for all of those that say, if you look at the last thirty years, we have lost power to Brussels, actually it isn't true. In the last, certainly in the last eight years, as we, the Labour government, have been more involved in Europe, so we have become more powerful and more prosperous, better able, literally to implement a patriotic case for the European Union."

Jack Straw
Foreign Secretary
BBC Today Programme, 9 February 2005

According to reports from Reuters and Associated Press, the EU commission has told the British government formally to notify it within the next 24 hours of its plan to provide £6.5 million in emergency funding to help prevent the immediate lay-off of 6,000 workers at car maker MG Rover.

Reuters said commission spokesman Jonathan Todd told reporters today that it appeared the British government's support to MG Rover would be state aid and therefore had to be notified to the EU executive for approval before being paid out.

Speaking on behalf of the competition commissioner, Neelie "Board Lady" Kroes, Todd said that the commission expected to be notified about the plan "shortly", and "certainly within 24 hours."

"We only heard about this proposal on the radio at the weekend and this money must be vetted by the Commission under state aid rules," he told reporters, adding: "All state aids require clearance from the Commission, once they have been vetted to ensure they do not distort fair competition in a particular industrial sector."

Elaborating on this, he went on to say: "We do not allow operational aid, but the UK Government can issue a rescue aid package on condition that it last no longer than six months, by which time it must be repaid. Alternatively, if the company survives, it can be converted into restructuring aid, which is also acceptable to us."

"Finally, in the event that the company goes into liquidation within six months then of course the issue of competition in the market place no longer arises."

Todd said it was too soon to judge whether the aid from the British government was in line with EU rules on state aid but the commission would be able to give a signal soon after receiving the necessary information.

One shudders to think what Todd might have said if we had not become more powerful.

The Conservative Manifesto

Issued this morning, the manifesto is a relatively modest document, heavy on graphics and thin on content.

As regard policy on the European Union, the offering is as follows:

Conservatives support the cause of reform in Europe and we will co-operate with all those who wish to see the EU evolve in a more flexible, liberal and decentralised direction.

We oppose the EU Constitution and would give the British people the chance to reject its provisions in a referendum within six months of the General Election. We also oppose giving up the valuable freedom which control of our own currency gives us. We will not join the Euro.

In a reformed Europe, the restrictive employment laws of the Social Chapter will have to give way to more flexible working. We will ensure that Britain once again leads the fight for a deregulated Europe by negotiating the restoration of our opt-out from the Social Chapter.

The common policies on agriculture and fisheries are unsustainable, damaging to free trade and conservation, and waste huge sums of money. The CAP needs further and deeper reform. And, because fisheries would be better administered at the national level, we will negotiate to restore national and local control over British fishing grounds. We are determined to ensure national control in this area.

We will also build on the success of enlargement, making Europe more diverse by working to bring in more nations, including Turkey.

We value Britain’s membership of the European Union, but our horizons extend much further. A key element of British foreign policy under a Conservative Government will be fighting world poverty. We will support further action on debt relief and will work to meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas aid by 2013. We believe that British aid programmes are among the best in the world, so we will negotiate to increase British national control over our international aid spending.

Above all, we recognise that there is a vital thread that links open markets, free trade, property rights, the rule of law, democracy, economic development and social progress. We will use our global influence to champion these principles in the interests of the developing world.

There are no surprises here and anyone expecting a more robust line will be disappointed. However, the essential feature is total opposition to the EU constitution and a commitment to a referendum within six months of a general election.

At least, however, the Conservatives have got rid of the fatuous slogan which they ran during the 2001 election: "In Europe, not run by Europe". Then, they declared that the guiding principle of Conservative policy towards the European Union was “to be in Europe, but not run by Europe.”

The Conservatives committed themselves to "lead a debate in Europe about its future, promoting our own clear and positive vision." The 2001 manifesto continued:

The European Union has, with the prospect of enlargement, reached a fork in the road. Down one route lies a fully integrated superstate with nation states and the national veto disappearing. The Government is taking us down this route.

The alternative is a Europe of nations coming together in different combinations for different purposes and to differing extents. In other words, a network Europe. If Britain leads the debate, we can make this alternative a reality.

We will insist on a Treaty 'flexibility' provision, so that outside the areas of the single market and core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive EU, countries need only participate in new legislative actions at a European level if they see this as in their national interest.

At the same time, we are willing to support the principle of 'reinforced co-operation' in Europe, under which small groups of countries can become more closely integrated if they wish to do so, providing it does not damage Britain's national interest.

The next Conservative Government will keep the pound. We will maintain our national veto on European legislation. Giving up either would put our ability to govern ourselves at risk. We will not ratify the Nice Treaty but will renegotiate it so that Britain does not lose its veto.

We also propose to amend our domestic law to include “reserved powers”. This will prevent EU law from overriding the will of Parliament in areas which Parliament never intended to transfer to the EU.

This policy will be reinforced with a determination to veto further transfers of power from Westminster to Brussels. Should any future Government wish to surrender any more of Parliament's rights and power to Brussels they should be required to secure approval for such a transfer in a referendum.

We intend to press for the single market to be completed and for competition laws to be stronger so that British businesses which play by the rules are not undercut by other companies that do not.

We will also press for Europe to tackle fraud and maladministration as a matter of priority. If the EU reduced waste and abandoned ill-considered programmes, it could make significant reductions in the overall size of the European budget.

One singular difference between the two manifestos is that, in the current edition, there is a commitment to return national control of fishing. That is not a lot – but it is a start. As Graham Brady, Conservative shadow minister for Europe said in a recent speech at the London School of Economics, the point is to "establish the principle that powers can be returned to member states".

As the man said, even the longest journey starts with but a single step.

We do not disagree

Painful though it might be to acknowledge the work of any NGO – and particularly Oxfam, whose socialist agenda is not flavour of the month on this Blog – we have to take note of a report issued today by this organisation on world trade (link to follow).

Reported by Associated Press under the heading, "Rich nations' farm subsidies rigging world trade", Oxfam is saying that rich nations are rigging international trade by providing heavy farm subsidies while also pushing developing countries to lower protective tariffs.

Oxfam further claims that, in negotiations at the WTO, richer states particularly the United States of America and the European Union are forcing developing countries to open their markets and then dumping their own excess agricultural produce at below cost price, undermining the livelihood of farmers in poorer nations.

We are told that the USA and EU have repackaged their farm subsidies so they appear to conform to WTO rules, but they are still able to dump products such as corn, milk, rice and sugar.

Phil Bloomer, head of Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign, is cited, saying: "This is an example of rigged rules and double standards at their baldest. Their selfish motives couldn't be clearer."

The report is in preparation for a WTO meeting at the end of the year in Hong Kong, aimed at producing an agreement on trade liberalisation treaty by the end of 2006.

If this meeting collapses – as the Doha Round did before it - Oxfam believes the WTO "risks becoming an irrelevance in global trade. Developing countries would then face the demands of rich countries through bilateral and regional trade agreements."

The rice trade is regarded as a particular problem, because it is the staple food for more than half of the world's population, and rice-producing developing countries are being pressured to lower their tariffs, while rich nations continue to dump their excess produce at below cost price.

According to Oxfam, between 2000 and 2003, USA dumped its excess rice production at 34 per cent below its true cost. "US rice would not be competitive without massive state subsidies," Bloomer says. "It is scandalous that poor countries are forced to compete with the U.S."

American agro business is the real winner from the combination of subsidies and rapid trade liberalisation in developing countries, the report concludes.

Today, actor Colin Firth will meet WTO Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi to discuss the Oxfam report and present a petition with 7 million signatures on behalf of Oxfam, calling for a more fair treatment of the poor countries.

"Trade could be a powerful force for poverty reduction but unless the rules are changed this will not happen", said Mr Jo Fox, who is coordinating the petition for the aid group.

With this, we do not disagree, and never let it be said that we are not even-handed on this issue. In terms of farm subsidies and protectionism, the US is probably as venal as the EU - or nearly. All the more reason, we believe, why the UK – with its still close links with Commonwealth countries and its global trading perspective – should break away from the EU bloc.

Allied to third world producers and combines such as the Cairns Group, the UK could lead a "third force" in world trade negotiations, breaking up the often sterile confrontation between the EU – dominated by France – and the US.

This is one of those many examples where, within the EU, we lack influence, bound as we are by the "common position" which invariably favours French interests. Outside this stultifying, restrictive grouping, we could be a powerful force in the world, fighting for rather than against, the interests of the developing world – and better trade deals for Britain.

Vile bodies

We cannot pretend we are surprised but, even then, the sheer hypocrisy of it sticks in your craw.

According to The Sunday Times, MEPs will this week "come under renewed pressure" to allow auditing of payments into their private pension scheme after criticism that the system is open to abuse.

The "concern" – more like disgust - centres on a £2,653 monthly allowance paid to each of the 732 MEPs to cover constituency office costs such as rent, postage and telephone bills. At present they also pay their £652 monthly pension contributions out of the fund, and are then meant to pay back the money out of their own pockets.

However, there are no checks whatsoever on whether they do so and all previous attempts to bring transparency and accountability into the system have been defeated by MEPs, particularly in France and Germany. Therefore, it is a "racing certainty" that many MEPs simply use their allowances to pay their pensions.

The pension, introduced in 1990, is in addition to the retirement packages that MEPs in Britain and most other countries receive from their national governments.

The parliament pays £2 into the fund for every £1 contributed by each member and, with the supposedly "contributory" element also being paid out of public funds, MEPs are able to build up a very nice little nest-egg at our expense.

That "nest-egg" ranges from £10,000 a year after one five year term, to just over £42,000 a year after 20 years of membership, paid from the age of 60 years on – a package worth up to £1 million for the lucky beneficiary.

Yet these are the people who also make our laws and are so quick to moralise about how we should or should not behave. They really are vile bodies.

Scaredy cats

The other day I went to the Institute of Economic Affairs to hear Gerald Frost, editor of eurofacts talk about the way the government is trying to skew the referendum vote.

Mr Frost’s point, of which he has written at length is that the Government has fiddled about with the proposed referendum question, relying on focus groups and the advice of the invaluable (from their point of view) Bob Worcester, and produced a question that was inaccurate in its wording and biased in the way it is intended to influence the public.

It is quite true that Britain seems to be the only country where the question will deal with a “Constitution for the European Union” rather than a “Constitution for Europe”, thus implying that this is a document that is somehow distant from us and does not affect our own lives.

On the whole, I am not certain this is right, since if it were that distant we would not have a referendum but we cannot tell until the campaign starts in real earnest.

Gerry Frost’s other and more important point is that by using the word “approve” the Government is trying to play, against all the rules outlined by the Electoral Commission, on people’s positive, affirmative attitudes.

In Mr Frost’s opinion the Conservative Party and UKIP should have made a fuss of it but did not. Not all is lost, however, as the European Union Bill is one of those that died with Parliament being dissolved and will have to be brought back in the same or different form in the next Parliament. Fuss about the wording of the referendum question can be raised then.

For what it’s worth, this blog thinks that the actual wording is relatively unimportant as the referendum and the preceding campaign is not going to be about the actual Constitution but various matters around it and the European Union.

Indeed, during the formal discussion I expressed the opinion that while the europhile side, from Margot Wallström downwards, is gearing up to a campaign about the manifold virtues of the European Union, the eurosceptics are getting bogged down in niggling detail about the Constitution and how to present it, not to mention idiocies like the yes-no campaign (of whom we have not heard for some time).

Gerry Frost and I agree to differ on detail as we are at one on the substance of the campaign. The title “scaredy cats” refers to something else.

During the informal part of the evening, I was accosted by a lady who may have imbibed a little too freely or, maybe, she always spoke like that. She informed me that she was europhile and came to listen to the other side. Very admirable, I thought, and asked her whether she supported the Constitution.

After all, not all europhiles do support this monstrous document, Gisela Stuart being simply the best known opponent among those who continue to believe in the project.

Alas, the lady I was speaking to was not as clear as all that what it was I wanted to know and told me with a good deal of vim that the United States of Europe held no terrors for her and she would rather be ruled by that entity than the United States of America.

The obvious response to that is that presumably there is no absolute necessity in either development. I took a different tack and asked her in what way she thought we were ruled by the United States of America, then cutting across her babblings about Mr Blair getting into bed with Mr Bush by asking who she though legislated in this country.

That stumped her. What did I mean by legislated? Well, I said, who made the laws? Did I mean European laws? No, I replied, the ordinary, common or garden laws that we had to obey. Where did they come from?

The lady became somewhat agitated and wondered aloud what was wrong with us having the same laws as Europeans. At this point the discussion became general with people bringing in examples of ridiculous European legislation.

It is, however, worth thinking about the whole conversation. In the first place, fear of America and American control will be used a good deal by the yes side in the referendum campaign. I have already heard Professor Stephen Haseler of the Federal Trust produce that argument.

The reason that can work and will work with many people is the widespread ignorance and lack of understanding of what is actually meant by having power or control.

Thus, American influence on a small part of Britain’s foreign policy, based on the fact that the US is the strongest country in the western alliance, is built up to mean that British affairs are somehow run by the American President. (An added piece of ignorance there is the assumption that somehow Bush is going to be President for ever and ever instead of only till 2008.)

The fact that the European Union is actually responsible for half of the major pieces of legislation and 80 per cent of all legislation in this country (and that, presumably, does not include the many rules and regulations that never go through Parliament at all but are implemented by agencies such as the Food Standards Agency) passes people by.

Once the referendum campaign starts in real earnest we shall be faced with that argument often and each time we shall have to knock it down. Unfortnately, it will mean continuous and very dull lectures on the EU and its legislative powers. But there is no way round that. People must understand the difference between vague concepts of influence and direct, enforceable legislation that cannot be rejected.

Booker

The first story in the column today illustrates that which we knew already – that we do not need the EU to create a total bureaucratic shambles. Zanu-Labour Party ministers and their tame civil servants are well capable of doing this all by themselves.

This time, the Zanu-LP minister is Tessa Jowell who, with her officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are doing their best to bring an end to one of the West Country's most spectacular traditions - the vast processions of brightly-lit carnival floats which parade each autumn through the streets of many Somerset towns, raising hundreds of thousands of pounds for charity.

We cannot blame the EU for this and, knowing the carnival tradition in France, Spain, Malta and elsewhere, any commissioner who tried it would probably get lynched.

Nor indeed can we blame the EU for the next outrage which Booker report, although this has an EU dimension and left even Europhile peers shocked.

The cause of their distress was the apparent contempt with which a government minister, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, told them that, in relation to the EU, they are no longer considered part of the UK Parliament.

This arose when Tory peer Lord Marlesford questioned an obscure passage of the Government's European Union Bill, relating to the EU constitution. The issue was the so-called "passerelle" clauses which permit the European Council to abolish the few surviving national vetoes, on issues such as taxation and defence, and allow them to be decided by qualified majority voting.

However, any such decision can be vetoed by national parliaments within six months of being notified (for example Art 444) and, in relation to this, came the revelation that the Bill puts this veto into the hands of the Commons alone.

Then came an extraordinary declaration by Baroness Ashton, a junior minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, who explained that "since 25 nations are involved in the European Union, it is important that, if decisions are to be made on the voting system, 25 parliaments should make the decision, but not 25 parliaments plus 12 second houses".

The Lords, in other words, being only a "second house" - and "wholly unelected", as Lady Ashton emphasised - is no longer part of our Parliament. Or at least, not in the eyes of our own Government - which added this disqualification of our Upper House to the legislation of its own accord.

Writes Booker, if this weird constitutional innovation in itself undermines the prime minister's insistence that taxation is one of his few remaining "red lines", it was further eroded last week when the European Court of Justice prepared to declare illegal a Treasury rule that companies cannot offsets losses in one EU country against their profits in another for tax purposes.

The tax repayments that companies such as Marks & Spencer, BT and Vodafone will be able to claim are so huge that, according to some tax experts, Gordon Brown could have to hand back up to £20 billion within a year or two - equivalent to 8p on income tax - blowing a further massive hole in the nation's finances.

But have no fear, he adds, in a sideswipe at the Conservatives. Knowing how reluctant the Tories are to mention "Europe", and following the Howard Flight debacle, it is most unlikely that any Tory spokesman would dare raise such explosive issues in this election. Unfortunately, he may be right.

This brings Booker to his third story and again we have a situation where Zanu-NL is using EU law as a basis for causing chaos to British enterprise.

There has, writes Booker, been a further twist to the bizarre "war" being waged by local officials of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) against the Hastings fishermen who operate the largest surviving beach-launched fishing fleet in Europe.

This time it is fisherman Richard Adams. Last December, his small fishing boat broke its propeller shaft when returning to shore. When this stopped Adams going back to collect his nets - worth thousands of pounds - he called on the assistance of his son Michael, who owns an even smaller boat used by sea anglers.

After recovering two sets of nets, containing five fish which they gave to a helper on shore, they were told by a Defra official, Andrew Newlands, that they had committed a criminal offence by fishing from "an unlicensed vessel".

In vain did they protest, in somewhat vivid language, that the law only applies when fish are caught to be sold. Forbidden to fetch his remaining nets, Richard Adams lost them when a storm blew up. The two men were charged with four offences, including "harassing a fisheries officer" by using strong language.

This case follows one Booker reported in January when two other Hastings fishermen, Paul Joy and Graham Bossom, were fined £10,000 with £5,000 costs for catching more cod than they were allowed by their "monthly quota allocation", despite producing a letter from Franz Fischler, then the Brussels fisheries commissioner, confirming that "under 10 metre boats" such as theirs are not covered by quota rules.

So totally irrational is this current case that, next Thursday Michael Foster, a local solicitor, will take time off from campaigning to hold the seat he won in 1997 as Hastings's first-ever Labour MP, to appear in court, free of charge, defending the latest fishermen to face prosecution.

Foster had argued in vain with the fisheries minister Ben Bradshaw that his officials appeared to be prosecuting the two men for an offence which did not exist.

But when he tried to get Mr Bradshaw to persuade his officials to take a more reasonable line over Richard and Michael Adams, the minister refused to intervene. Mr Foster is so concerned by Defra's conduct towards the Hastings fishermen that he has offered, whether or not he is re-elected, to represent the two men until their case is concluded.

That really does tell you something about the state of Zanu-LP.

To conclude, Booker adds a contrasting piece which, in the context, was irresistible. Defra may seem to be doing all it can to destroy our fishing and farming industries, he writes, but at least it has at heart the interests of one group in the countryside.

Hundreds of posters have been sent out by Prof Ian Rivers, of Leeds University's social inclusion unit, appealing for participants in "a research project focusing on the needs and experiences of lesbians, gay men and bisexual men and women living in rural communities". The "Rural LGB Project," Prof Rivers proudly explains, "is supported by Defra".

Frankly, at times, it really is quite hard working out which is worse – the EU or our own government. The only thing in favour of the latter is that we can get rid of it. Let us hope enough people agree that it is time that we did so.

Plan B is Plan A

"Europe is fast heading towards a denouement," writes Bill Jamieson in The Business and, in the even of the constitution being rejected, asks if there is a "Plan B", what is it, and who's got it?

Answering his own question, he ponders whether there is a need for a formalised alternative Plan B? We have, after all, been here before with "crisis in Europe", he adds, continuing:

And at all previous points of "crisis", a miraculous last-minute formula has appeared, an escape hatch opened or solution found. The cause of EU integration is akin to the robotic monster in those violent Terminator films: no matter how much punishment it takes, no matter that its arms have been chopped off and the legs shattered, the robot keeps getting up and moving on through.

The cause of European integration is akin to this Nice in 2001 saw a crisis bulldozed through. EU budget scandals and fraud exposures make no difference. French intransigence over the services directive is seen as "just one of those things" that won't stand in the way of greater political integration.

The resilience of the EU project, its ability to recover from each successive failure and carry on, should not be under-estimated. Setbacks make no difference. Indeed, they only feed the rhetorical clamour for redoubled advance. So, even if the EU Constitution is rejected in the next two months, is a Plan B really necessary? Why not just carry on with Plan A as if nothing had happened?

Now it just so happens that Dave, over at North Sea Diaries Blog has spotted an absolute corker in a recent EU parliament report, produced by MEP, Elmar Brok member of the European Peoples' Party (EPP).

Responding to the European Council's annual report on defence and security, this report expresses the view that the spirit (and substance) of the provisions of the constitution regarding CFSP:

...should be applied as of now, as has already been done with the setting-up of the European Defence Agency, the "Battle Group" concept, the establishment of the developed EU Neighbourhood Policy, which should be far more significant than the present Neighbourhood Policy, and the application of the Solidarity Clause to counter terrorist threats or attacks.

He goes on to elaborate on this in the explanatory note, stating that, "From the rapporteur's point of view therefore most, if not, all, of the above-mentioned improvements both in the CFSP and ESDP field should, as from now, be already taking effect, at least in political terms, without waiting for the formal ratification of the Constitutional Treaty."

In other words, Plan B, in the event that the constitution is not ratified, is to carry on as if it had been ratified. Plan B is Plan A.

Horses for courses

My colleague does not know it yet but he has been nominated to be the blog’s election correspondent. That is because he finds it genuinely interesting. But being a man of many talents and interests, he has also written about the fragrant Commissar’s day job.

As our readers will recall, the great Margot explained that, although the Constitution is the same for every part of the European Union, the way of selling it has to be different as one size cannot fit all.

This does raise the question of why is it only in propaganda that one size cannot fit all, not in important matters like economic, fiscal or regulatory policy. One presumes the fragrant Commissar, does not really believe that one size not fitting all business, but realizes that at certain level she has to communicate with people, who, alas, do not have her superior wisdom in understanding the beauties of the project.

It seems the Commission, as a whole, shares the Commissar’s concerns. So worried are they about the way the EU is being presented in France (and they do realize that the vote is not going to be on the Constitution alone) that they have decided to postpone discussion of a crucial policy paper.

The paper was to discuss reform of the state aid system, a point of many clashes between the EU and France, who is given to bailing out large companies that are on the skids. The names, Alstom, Bull, France Télècom spring to mind.

There are several problems. First off is the wretched Lisbon Agenda, that is supposed to produce that dynamic European economy by 2010, clearly an impossible proposition while large amounts of taxpayers’ money flows into failing “dinosaurs”. On the other hand, Chirac has already promised even more money to help national “winners”.

Then there is the question of the Single Market, something everybody is terribly keen on, until it comes to real competition.

Thirdly, there is the position and attitude of “Nickel” Neelie Kroes, brought into the Commission, theoretically, to shake up the whole system of competition and state aid.

However, all these laudable aims are being put on hold. The French are not happy with what they see as a “neo-liberal, Anglo-Saxon” development in the EU (if only!). And they may, in their disgust at the thought of not being able to use large amounts of various taxpayers’ dosh to prop up ailing parts of their economy, vote non to the referendum.

That is the problem. And the solution? We shall abandon all those ideas of single market, free market, competitiveness and not even discuss anything like a reform of the state aid system.

Anything to get that Constitution through.

Time to get real

The editorial in The Business this week is written by Andrew Neil, former editor of The Sunday Times, and no political lightweight.

His piece is powerful and compelling and has major implications for the Eurosceptic movement, and for the fate of the EU constitution.

Headed "Banana republic Britain", Neil's thesis is that, for the first time since 1992, the outcome of the British general election on 5 May is not a foregone conclusion. The Tories are back in the game and, while an overall Labour majority remains the most likely result, the British general election of 2005 will be a real contest.

But, writes Neil, the current shift in public opinion against the government will not be properly reflected in the House of Commons after 5 May. Britain's voting mechanics are now so fundamentally biased against the Tories that, in a close contest, the legitimacy of the election itself could be compromised.

Amazingly, if on 5 May, Labour and Tories get exactly the same share of the popular vote, such is the bizarre electoral arithmetic of the British voting system that Labour would still end up with 140 more MPs than the Tories - a result would compromise the democratic legitimacy of the election.

Add to that the increase in postal voting, which has made mass fraud a distinct possibility, in constituencies where the result is close, postal vote fiddles could determine the result.

Then there is the so-called West Lothian question, whereby Scottish MPs (who are predominantly Labour) are allowed to vote on English domestic matters. English MPs now have no say on purely Scottish domestic matters but we could find ourselves in a situation where England votes Tory but Labour still forms the British government because its Scottish and Welsh lobby fodder give it an overall majority. In that case England would be ruled by a government which did not have the consent of the English people.

To pick up new seats, the Tories need a huge swing in their favour. In 2001, Labour with 42 percent of vote (against 33 percent for the Tories, 19 percent for the Liberal Democrats), won a landslide 167-seat majority. Suppose that the Tory and Labour shares of the vote were inverted on 5 May (i.e. the Tories get 42 percent): astonishingly, the Tories would barely scrape into power with a tiny and unstable majority of four.

On 5 May the Tories will need an 11.5 percentage point lead over Labour merely to win by a whisker; an 11.5 point lead over the Tories would give Labour another stratospheric majority. Even if the Tories have a 1.2 percentage point lead in the popular vote on 5 May, Labour would still have an overall majority of MPs.

The British electoral system has not been so undemocratic since women were denied the vote, concludes Neil. The threat to British democracy is grave - and the closer the election result the bigger the danger to the election's legitimacy.

Now, in my view, this scenario completely changes election calculations, but above all else, its implications for the EU referendum are profound. And, in addressing this issue, there are two questions genuine Eurosceptics need to ask themselves:

1. Given the possibility of a French "no" vote, is there any guarantee that Labour, if elected, to government, will hold a referendum on the EU constitution?

2. If a referendum is actually held, would the chances of a successful "no" vote be enhanced by the election of a Labour government?

If the answer to both questions are "no" and you feel that there should be a referendum the UK, and you want the outcome to be a "no" vote, you then have to ask yourself how your own personal voting strategy will best bring this about.

Whether your own personal answer, the one thing that is certain is that there is no room for gesture politics. With the system so heavily weighted against the Conservatives – which have committed to a referendum and will campaign for a "no" vote - there is no room for any activity that will make a Conservative victory more difficult to achieve.

Under these circumstances, it is time to get real.

A modicum of strategic thinking

Quick off the mark, the Scotsman has posted on its website the Press Association report on "UKIP's offer to Eurosceptic candidates" made by Nigel Farage on the BBC Breakfast with Frost show this morning.

According to the report, Farage said the party would not run against any candidates from the major parties who publicly stated their intention to seek Britain's withdrawal from the EU's political structures.

UKIP would be willing to step back and make way for any Conservative or Labour candidate who announced that they wanted an "amicable divorce" from the EU and a return to a free-trade relationship with the continent, said Farage.

"In those circumstances, I can't envisage that UKIP would run a candidate against anyone saying that," he added, then remarking: "But none of them are."

His offer, we are told, will be seen as an appeal particularly to Eurosceptic Conservative MPs who are fearful of seeing their support squeezed on 5 May if there is a repeat of UKIP’s strong showing in last June's European Parliament elections, when it took 16 percent of the vote.

However, as Farage well knows, no Conservative candidate can deliver a pledge which runs in the face of declared party policy, especially after the Howard Flight debacle, where even such a senior luminary of the party was ousted without a second thought.

What UKIP needs to do though, is think through its own policy (there is a first time for everything). Given that the French do not vote "no" in their referendum, bringing the constitution crashing to a halt, immediately after the election we will be confronting a major referendum campaign in which the Conservatives are committed to the "no" camp.

UKIP, therefore, needs to consider whether its activities will hinder the return of MPs who are prepared to support the "no" side or whether they will aid the election of MPs who will be working for the "yes" camp.

It is all very well to take a purist line, and demand from candidates a commitment to leave the EU, but that will never happen. Even those sitting MPs who are totally committed to withdrawal are not prepared to say so publicly, and it would be unwise of them to do so.

But, in many respects, even to ask them to do so is naïve. Support for the "project" was built in the UK by MPs working within the system, many of them never openly declaring the end point, or their part in it. If we are successfully to disengage, equally, we need MPs working within the system to that end. To ask them to declare their hand is absurd.

On this basis, UKIP's best tactic would be to target, first and foremost, known Europhile MPs, including most Labour and virtually all LibDems, as well as Ken Clarke, David Curry and his ilk.

Furthermore, it does not behove Farage to talk down the Conservative's declared intention to renegotiate aspects of EU policy, such as the Common Fisheries Policy – as he did on the Frost programme, saying that it was "not going to happen", especially as his own party's attempts to deliver an alternative policy have proved so childishly amateurish.

Either Farage believes in the supremacy of Parliament – it which case repatriation of policies is perfectly feasible – or he does not, in which case the game is already over: we cannot leave. He might as well pack his bags and emigrate.

A more sensible stance would be to applaud moves made in the right direction, giving credit where credit is due. If UKIP uniformly condemns everything the Conservatives do, advocates of change with the Party will find it harder to push their agenda. All in all, therefore, a modicum of strategic thinking would be welcome.

The dominoes are falling

With the UK and the Czech Republic solidly against, France having moved into the "no" camp and Holland now opposed, Denmark is also veering closer to rejection.

The December Eurobarometer poll registered 44 percent in favour, 26 against and 30 percent "don't knows" and although, in the New Year, the "yes" vote dropped to 38 percent, those opposed also dropped, registering 23.4 and 22.3 percent in March and February, respectively.

But now, according to an opinion poll conducted by Greens Analyseinstitut [Greens Institute] and published by Business daily Boersen on Friday [8 April] the "no" camp is gaining ground, having turned out nearly 28 percent.

The survey of 1,229 interviewees between last Monday and Wednesday [4-6 April] put the "no" camp at 27.6 percent. The percentage of voters in favour of the constitution remains steady, at 38 percent but the figure for those still undecided fell to 34.4 percent.

With the referendum date now having been declared for 27 September, it seems that more voters have made up their minds and the indications are that they are joining the "no" camp.

If the trend continues, Denmark could also be one of the countries to reject the constitution, whence it could end up isolated in Europe, just like the UK, the Czech Republic, France, Holland…

Dutch apathy deals another blow to EU poll

Although the headline grabs attention – which is what it is supposed to do, after all – I am not sure it's right.

The line in question comes from The Independent today, over the by-line of Stephen Castle in Brussels, who claims that "yes" campaigners on the EU referendum in the Netherlands face a battle in their poll against massive apathy.

Despite an official campaign launch this week of the Netherlands' first referendum for two centuries, Castle writes, the constitution has inspired almost no debate. And, while polling evidence is mixed, an Interview-NSS/Nova survey suggests that 66 percent of voters would stay at home instead of casting a ballot.

That poll puts support for the treaty at 11 percent, as opposed to 8 percent against, although another Maurice De Hond/NOS poll suggests that 30 percent are in favour, 38 percent are against and 32 per cent don't know.

The results, however, suggest that something more than apathy is involved, the showing being equally compatibly with indifference – the population opting out of a project that they consider "belongs" to the political élites which, as in other member states, are in favour of the constitution.

If it is indifference, though, it is spreading. Lousewies van der Laan, deputy leader of the D66 social liberal party and a supporter of the constitution, is worried that "the government is doing nothing, the business community is doing nothing. Everybody is waiting for everybody else, which means there is no debate."

With some similarities to the UK therefore, the "no" campaign is getting a great deal of exposure. Says van der Laan, "They are well-organised and have lots of money, and the yes campaigners are lagging. Often if you can define the terms of a referendum, you tend to win it."

Interesting comment that last one. That is where we need to be.

Woops… France in the merde

Although the Amnesty International report on French police violence seems to have been ignored by the British media, Le Monde, to its credit, did give a fair degree of prominence to the story, with the headline: "Amnesty critique le traitement des violences policières".

A day later, with awful symmetry, police brutality was back in the headlines, when heavily-armed CRS riot police waded into groups of high school demonstrators in Lille and Paris, conducting a peaceful sit-in in protest against education reforms, the so-called "Fillon law".

In full view of TV cameras, making the main slot on the TV news that day, the CRS laid into the pupils with batons, as well as kicking those sitting on the ground.

Nor is this the only questionable activity of the police in relation to student demonstrations against the Fillon law. In Paris on 15 February, a thousand "agitators" violently attacked demonstrating high-school pupils while the police stood by passively and watched.

These incidents have provoked a stern editorial from Le Monde, which has drawn a parallel with France’s protests against police violence in Istanbul against women on International Womens' Day, noting that while France criticises Turkey's membership application to EU, it should set a good example for Turkey in terms of individual freedoms.

The lesson has not been lost on the Turks, whose on-line journal, Zaman.com, has picked up the Le Monde commentary with the headline: "France Must Show Good Example before Criticising Turkey".

It forbore to mention that, while its human rights record is being invoked as a reason for excluding Turkey from the EU, if the tables were reversed and France was applying to join the EU, on current performance it probably would not qualify.

The "unknown" law enforcers

Just as this Blog is its own little microcosm, with its own (expanding) community of readers and commenters, so indeed – as we have been wont to remark – are the business pages of The Daily Telegraph.

Today, they are host to a piece by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, headed Rise of the unknown law enforcer, which really ought to be compulsory reading for every voter in the land. It really is far too good a piece, and much too important, to be confined to the ghetto of the business news pages.

Ambrose's thesis is that, "almost unknown to citizens" (but not to the readers of this Blog), the European Court of Justice has become the silent driving force behind the EU's push for greater economic control and tax harmonisation.

This week's far-reaching opinion by the court's advocate general on Marks & Spencer, he writes, is just the latest in a long string of cases that limit the power of national treasuries. Indeed, that much we have remarked on this Blog many times, not least in this post, which has links to other pieces.

However, the points made cannot be repeated too often and so it is that Ambrose remarks that, while Britain retains an iron-clad veto over EU tax legislation - one of the few areas of economic policy that has not yet switched to majority voting – our fiscal sovereignty is gradually being eroded thrpough the activities of the European court of Justice.

To expand his theme, Ambrose cites Martin Howe QC, a constitutional lawyer, who claims that the ECJ is now circumventing the veto by stretching the "extremely broad and vague" anti-discrimination principles governing the single market to strike down national laws and force changes in policy.

"Tax harmonisation has been blocked at a political level, so the European Court has enthusiastically been making up for the lack of progress. Between 80 and 90 percent of tax cases which have gone to the ECJ have resulted in national tax measures being outlawed," he says.

Adding detail to the M&S case, Ambrose reports that this was unusual in that the ECJ dared to sweep aside pleadings by Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland as well as Britain, angering all the main paymaster states of the EU budget - perhaps unwisely.

Like Britain, these countries feared that the case could set off a flood of rebate demands and cost billions in revenue, but they also argued that the M&S; case posed a threat to self-government.

Something I did not know – but do now – is that the advocate general, Miguel Poiares Maduro, who delivered the M&S opinion, happens to be a diehard European federalist and outspoken critic of US policy in Iraq. This man, therefore, is clearly a political judge with his own agenda.

It was he that has reminded member states that they had signed away their powers long ago, telling them that: "Under Community law fiscal sovereignty cannot be construed as meaning 'fiscal autarchy'. By subscribing to the Treaty, the member states agreed to submit to the regime of freedom of movement of persons; this gives rise to specific constraints."

And, as one of our readers points out, what is “fiscal autarchy” other than another term for "fiscal sovereignty", the word "autarchy" (and yes, I did have to look it up in the dictionary) meaning "absolute power".

As to the bias of the ECJ, the honourable and learned Mr Howe (as MPs who are also lawyers are rather arcanely described in the House of Commons – not that Howe is an MP) tells us the court may claim to be a foe of market barriers but many of its rulings have been restrictive - most notoriously in insisting that grated parmesan cheese could only carry the Parma label when actually grated in the city. As a result, freshly grated parmesan is hard to come by.

"Their basic mental furniture tends towards Fortress Europe, rather than global free trade," he says.

The question now, writes Ambrose, is whether the court's ideology will evolve as the new judges from eastern Europe settle into their jobs. Most new members are appointed by low-tax, free-market governments with little sympathy for Rheinland corporatism. These states are jealous of their newly won freedoms and remain wary of EU moves to push integration by the back door. He continues:

The Polish judge, Jerzy Makarczyk, cut his teeth negotiating the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Polish soil at the end of the war. The 25-strong court sits as a full "Grand Chamber" of 13 judges in big cases, or in chambers of five or three.

The ECJ asserted the primacy of EU law over national law in 1964, and although the German and French top courts have challenged this absolute claim, Berlin and Paris have acquiesced as a day to day matter. Under the EU's new constitution the ECJ will acquire jurisdiction over all EU law for the first time.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become a legally binding text, giving the judges the final say on a raft of social and economic rights that do not now exist in EU law - ranging from a right to strike to a right to good housing and health care.

The CBI employers' organisation fears it could in effect roll back the Thatcher revolution. The judges will also have the last say on the meaning of Article I-14, which stipulates that the Union "shall adopt measures to ensure the co-ordination of economic policies of the member states".

The concern is that as arbiter of the EU constitution, it could all too easily become an "imperial court" along the lines of the US Supreme Court in the activist era of the 1970s.

If US judges were creative enough to discern a hitherto invisible right to abortion in the "penumbras" of the US constitution, euro-judges could conceivably do anything they please. Their judgment will be final, and beyond appeal. They answer to nobody.

Those last two sentences are the most chilling of all. We have, unwittingly, allowed into the English constitution an alien supreme court, superior to all, including our own House of Lords and even Parliament. That is dangerous. We owe it to ourselves to make sure that it does not remain "unknown".

Another federal power grab

A nice little spat is developing in Brussels, where the overarching ambitions of Jacques "Wheel" Barrot's Transport directorate have proved too much even for the generally acquiescent member states.

Centre-state is the commission proposal for a directive on port security, published in February of last year. This aims to require member state governments to survey their ports for security threats and set up systems for dealing with possible terrorist incursions.

That much the governments have agreed to do, but the commission is not satisfied with this. It wants to set up its own corps of inspectors, to visit each of the ports and to "verify implementation of the national plans adopted pursuant to the directive."

The commission proposes that ports will be inspected every three years, with approximately 84 inspection visits carried out each year, at an estimated cost of €150 000 per port.

Now the member states, through the Transport Council, are threatening to block the whole directive, arguing that inspectors from Brussels are not necessary because they are capable of checking security arrangements with their own -personnel.

With the proposal about to go to the EU parliament for its first reading, the issue has also pitted the council of ministers against the parliament, with MEPs siding with the commission – now there's a surprise.

Member states want to restrict Brussels to a "screening" role, entailing the checking of documents with no physical presence in ports. The Luxembourg presidency, however, has drafted a compromise proposal requiring governments to set up systems ensuring adequate and regular supervision of the port security plans and their implementation, submitting to the commission status reports every three years.

The commission is already recruiting port inspectors to ensure compliance with a separate security Bill, the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, which was adopted into EU law last year.

That team is expected to begin deployment this year, a development which is worrying the European Sea Ports Organisation.. "We have mixed feelings on this one," says its spokesman, Patrick Verhoeven. "We do not mind commission inspectors if they help to ensure a level playing field, but we are concerned about having a multitude of inspectors which could lead to a situation where you have an inspector from the commission one day, from the member state the next day and from the US the following day."

For the commission, though, this represents a golden opportunity to extend its remit beyond merely legislating and into law enforcement – as we have seen with the fisheries agency - thus acquiring more and more of the functions of a federal government.

Whether the member states buy this, or back off, will be interesting to see, but at least there are no surprises with the EU parliament, which is consistently a cheer-leader for the commission in extending its federal powers.

A rather muddled bunny

We admit it. We have been so entranced by the Wallström Blog that we forgot that the fragrant one also has a day job or two. One of them is preparing a communications strategy for the Barroso commission.

Originally due out in May of this year, little Margot seems to have been so busy blogging (and dining out) that her timetable has already slipped to June.

However, that has not stopped the Kommisar for truth and reconciliation talking about her cunning plans to a tame interviewer from EurActiv.

But even in a cosy little tête-à-tête, with no nasty questions being asked, it seems that Margot still cannot help getting it wrong. For instance, she tells us that her "benchmark" by which she will measure her success at the job is "by improving the figures of the number of people who claim to have heard of the European Union. To see that it is going upwards, not downwards."

Not a lot for five year's work at £180,000 a year, but there you go.

But her most egregious comments come when she is asked whether she or someone else in her department had looked "into the attitudes and got the feelings of people, how they actually feel and what are their strong and weak attachments to Europe?"

Candidly, she tells us that this has been done though focus groups and it has also been done at member state level, with the Constitution as being a sort of case study for this. Then says the fragrant one:

We are moving in that direction to look at every relevant viewpoint and there are differences between member states. You couldn't, for example, compare the debate on the constitution in Spain with the one in Ireland. They are totally different with completely contrasting sentiments. So you have to adapt and have one strategy in Spain and another in Ireland. It does not work with "one size fits all" policies.

So let me get this straight. We have one constitution for Europe, with exactly the same words, but you have to give a different message in each member state. And whatever else, you cannot have a "one size fits all" policy.

Funny, I thought the "one size fits all" policy was what the EU was all about. Do we have a rather muddled bunny here?

Should we join the civil society?

Among the many items in the Financial Framework for 2007 – 2013 presented by the Commission and generally referred to as the Budget there is one rather curious one.

(By the way, the heading for the Financial Framework is Investing in our future and the first sentence is quite ineffable in its silliness:

“The future belongs to all of us and we need to plan for it.”

What is this, an insurance firm?)

Anyway, back to the curious item: the Commission proposes to spend €207 million - £142m of our money “for a new citizens for Europe programme to encourage more public participation to bridge the gap between the institutions and the public”.

Gosh, I thought, maybe this blog should apply for the funds. After all, what else do we do with my colleague but encourage more public participation, trying to bridge that gap (oh dear, now I have remembered an advertising slogan) between the institutions and our readers, who must qualify as the public on some level, surely.

Fired with enthusiasm I decided to explore the programme and found in the first place that

“This new programme will provide the Union with instruments to promote active European citizenship, put citizens in the centre and offers them the opportunity to fully assume their responsibility as European citizens.

It responds to the need to improve their participation in the construction of Europe and will encourage cooperation between citizens and their organisations form different countries in order to meet, act together and develop their own ideas in a European environment which goes beyond a national vision, respecting their diversity.”

Well, none so diverse as people on this blog but I do rather worry about all that putting citizens at the centre and offering them opportunity to fully assume their responsibility. What is that responsibility and do we really want to assume it? Furthermore, what is all this putting at the centre? Who decides where the centre is and who should be put there?

We are back to that age-old division between those who believe politics and political action comes from the people and those who believe it comes from the state in whatever form.
After all, the best way for citizens to be at the centre of events is by having the political and constitutional structures be accountable to them. This, however, does not seem to figure high in the scheme of things.

Well, how could it, with budgets, I mean financial frameworks, I mean investment frameworks … well, what do I mean exactly? … being set for the seven years after the next two years, thus making it quite clear that such piffling things as elections and possible changes of government are of no significance whatsoever.

Anyway, the good news is that there are all sorts of application forms and consultations and guidelines and two different Community Action Programmes to support bodies working in the field of Active European Citizenship. One of them would surely be the right one, I thought.

One of them was clearly the wrong one because it gave money to projects done by “Our Europe House” or “Jean Monnet House” or “Robert Schuman House”. Now, we could rename the blog “Our Europe House” but, somehow, I suspect that is not quite what the would-be creators of the European civil society had in mind.

The second lot of guidelines was much more promising or would have been if I could understand what the general objective of the exercise was:

“The Decision 2004/100/CE establishes “a Community action Programme to support bodies working in the field of active European citizenship and to promote actions in this field”. (Article 1)

The general objective of the Programme is “to support work in the field of active European citizenship by promoting the actions and operation of bodies working in this field. This support takes the form of an operating grant to co-finance expenditure associated with the permanent programme of a body which pursues an aim of general European interest in the field of active European citizenship or an objective forming part of the European Union’s activities in this area”. (Annex of the Decision, paragraph 1)”

I cannot help thinking that there is a certain repetitiveness about this text but let us plough on. It is euro-dosh we are after and there can be no gain with no pain.

These are the specific objectives:

“In this context, an annual operating grant may be awarded to support the conduct of the permanent work programme of such a body.

This may relate to:

— a non-profit body working to assist citizens active in these bodies,

— a European multiplier network of non-profit bodies active in the States participating in the programme and promoting the principles and policies contributing to the objectives in this area,
— a body pursuing an objective forming part of the European Union's policy in the field of active citizenship.

This programme also covers the Commission's actions relating to the creation, promotion and management of the think tanks operating in the field of active citizenship and European integration and the organisation of related events.”

Having got this far, I decided to consult my colleague. After all, the euro-dosh is for both of us. He, needless to say, noted another aspect of the programme. Surely, he said, if we are working in “the field of active European citizenship”, we would come under the CAP.

Well, blow me down. I hadn’t even thought of that, and there I am with a back garden that could easily get a grant for set-aside land. Just shows the importance of active interconnected citizenship.
Anyway, just in case, I did have a look at the list of organizations that were awarded grants (which do have to have matching funds) last year and the year before. I noted that very few received any money in Britain, the TUC being one of them and a completely unknown Women’s Network another.

The others in the various countries, presumably, exist simply in order to collect money from the EU and raise matching funds from their own governments.

This is all part of a policy laid down in the White Paper produced by the Commission in 2000 that outlined the need to create a civil society, by which they mean a network of organizations that may seem to be outside the state but are actually controlled by it.

The prototype of it was created by Bolshevik Party, once it consolidated its power in Russia. It abolished all genuinely voluntary organizations and substituted its own, often imprisoning, exiling or shooting the leaders of the original ones.

In 1923 it was proclaimed that trade unions existed in order to be channels of communication between the government and the workers. It was a two-way channel but that is still a long way from what we think of as trade unions. One may add that the leader of the new trade union movement, Tomsky, was forced to commit suicide in 1938. One wonders what his last thoughts were.

The same happened with women’s organizations, co-operatives and all aspects of real civil life. The EU does not feel the need to imprison or shoot anybody. They try to bribe their way out of a free society into an organized civil one.

So far, the success rate is only so-so. None of the “independent” organizations whose task it is to promote active European citizenship have achieved anything except for themselves and their members.

There is time yet. They could give a grant to this blog and watch a real campaign for active European citizenship. Unfortunately, it will involve the active dismantling of the European Union and its institutions. Will that do, please, and can I have some of the euro-dosh?

The Dutch join the fight

The Dutch government has made it clear that it is having serious thoughts about the referendum. In particular, they have suggested, there will be no need for one in the Netherlands if the result of the French one on May 29 is a resounding or even a whispering non.

That leaves open the question of what will happen if the French oui scrapes through à la Maastricht. Well, then the Dutch government will have to fight the battle and in not very auspicious circumstances. The pan-European malaise of disgust with an establishment that seems to have lost any contact with the reality of life as it is lived by the vast majority of the people, has overwhelmed much of Holland as well, particularly after the murder of film-maker Theo van Gogh.

Now they have something else to worry about. A new Vote-No campaign has been launched in the Netherlands and this is a serious one. My colleague and I are very proud of being among those on its advisory board. We intend to give it all the support we can and urge our readers to do the same.

Looking at its website, even our rudimentary knowledge of Dutch (helped by a separate e-mail from one of the leading lights of the organization) informs us that the campaign will revolve round ten basic issues:

1. Loss of national sovereignty

2. Incomprehensible constitution (the French, as we know, have as good as acknowledged this officially)

3. Greater abuse of power

4. Even less democracy

5. Loss of veto rights

6. More bEUrocracy (clever, that)

7. More money into bottomless pits (the Dutch is fairly clear: Meer geld in bodemloze putten)

8. More terrorism

9. One European army

10. All power moving to France and Germany

We wish them luck and shall do our best to help. We shall also keep our readers informed about further developments.

On the road to tax harmonisation

Maintaining its reputation for being the grown-up part of the newspaper, The Daily Telegraph business section deals at length with the Marks & Spencer decision, trailed yesterday.

Under the headline, "Losses made abroad do count in UK, rules Euro court", Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that "the Treasury could lose billions of pounds in tax revenue" following the ECJ opinion, and he also notes – as we have done before – that this "strikes a blow against the fiscal sovereignty of EU states."

That is based on the opinion of the advocate general, Portugal's Miguel Poiares Maduro, who declares that national control over tax had its limits. "Under Community law," he says, "fiscal sovereignty cannot be construed as meaning 'fiscal autarchy'. By subscribing to the treaty the member states agreed to submit to the regime of freedom of movement of persons; this gives rise to specific constraints." He said Britain's treatment of M&S; breached EU single market law by creating a cross-border barrier.

It is The Scotsman, however, that paints the most lurid picture, its headline claiming "EU loss ruling leaves Government facing £20bn bill", making an interesting contrast with The Guardian which tells us that the ruling could (only) cost the Treasury £1bn.

Playing down the implications definitely seems to be a trend in the Europhile media because The Independent does not even go that far. Acknowledging that the "tax victory" could “open floodgates for claims”, it simply states that "a host of British businesses could be in line for a multi-million pound tax windfall".

Bucking this trend, though, the BBC website comes clean and admits that "the decision could cost the UK Treasury billions in taxes" and cites Sean Finn, a tax partner at law firm Lovells, stating that "The Treasury hasn't issued any official figures, but it's safe to say that the sums involved are really in the billions rather than the hundreds of millions."

That matches the The Times report, which suggests that the case could lead to an avalanche of tax demands and call into question the Chancellor's long-term budget forecasts. This paper cites Nick Farmer, a tax partner at Menzies chartered accountants, saying: "The amount of tax at stake in the UK is in the billions. It could amount to anywhere from £5 billion to £20 billion."

Adding to the confusion, though, The Telegraph also cites Sean Finn, only this time it has him saying that "This opinion raises lots of questions without giving any answers, though it will inevitably create more litigation.” In the small print, it seems there is a question of "retroactivity", which means that the ECJ has the option to waive backdated liabilities, in which case the net loss to the Treasury could be very small.

However, that aside, it is the Telegraph's City Comment which takes the most trenchant view, arguing that the decision is "the stuff of nightmares for the eurocrats."

"Whatever the Advocate General, Miguel Poiares Maduro, opined it was going to cause trouble", it says, "and his recommendation that the court find for M&S; has opened a box which many would have preferred to see stay closed."

As it stands, the decision suits the agenda of the integrationists just fine with Poiares stating that fiscal sovereignty among EU members has its limits. In his eyes, "setting your own tax rules is a sovereign claim too far." The problem, though, is that this communautaire argument opens the door to what europhiles might describe as unfair tax competition. If a company can aggregate its EU income for tax purposes, it's likely to choose to do so in a country where the rates are low, even if he appears to limit their right to go "loss-shopping" in high tax countries.

The net result would be a massive transfer of wealth from national exchequers to corporate coffers, says the Telegraph. There's much to be said for such an outcome - it would do wonders for European company competitiveness, and force governments to tax consumers rather than producers - but it could destroy delicately balanced budget calculations.

The Germans are already flapping that tens of billions of euros of their revenue is at stake, and even our own dear Gordon cannot be viewing the prospect with equanimity. Against such opposition, the court is in a real quandary. It will be fascinating, says The Telegraph, to see how it resolves things without causing a fiscal euro-earthquake.

The Reuters newsagency confirms that any earthquake – if it happens – will not be confined to the UK. It points out that the case is worrying many other EU countries, reporting that most or all of the member state governments risk losing potentially billions of euros in tax income.

But the last word should perhaps go to Mr Finn, cited by the BBC, who suggests that member states might have to "bite the bullet" and embrace the possibility of having cross-border taxes. So much for Mr Blair’s "red lines" on taxation. We are on the road to tax harmonisation.

Rover

I think I'm more or less with Tim Worstall on this one.

However, in late February, we did draw attention to a report in The Times which questioned whether the UK government could support the Rover-Shanghai Motors deal without falling foul of EU state aid rules, and observed that whatever deal was made, it would have to be approved by the EU commission.

It seems to us that the role of the commission and EU law in general might have paid a much larger part in the demise of Rover than is acknowledged.

Also, although one would expect the media to focus on the demise of the last British volume car producer, we still remain puzzled as to why so little attention was paid to the decision by the government to buy German Trucks for the British Army.

Not only did this reduce the employment prospects for British workers – many of whom might have been based in the Midlands – but it means that the UK has completely abandoned the military truck manufacturing industry. Not least, that also means that we have foregone any export opportunities our participation in the industry might have brought.

As always, it seems, concerns are very selective.

Our gallant allies

A report produced by Amnesty International this week is entitled: "France – The Search for Justice".

The subtitle gives a little more away: "The effective impunity of law enforcement officers in cases of shootings, deaths in custody or torture and ill treatment".

According to the authors, the criminal justice system in France is failing to provide victims of human rights violations with the right to redress and to obtain reparations.

More seriously, there is good evidence that a significant number of French Police officers have systematically murdered, tortured, ill treated and abused members of (mainly) ethnic communities. Prisoners have been refused medical care, contact with relatives and in some cases not informed of their rights. In many cases, access to lawyers has been refused.

Interview rules have been ignored, custody records have been doctored and prisoners blackmailed into signing them, on threat of extended detention. Police routinely refuse to record complaints. Those attempting to complain are often charged with insulting officers or resisting arrest (outrage ou rébellion) (a system clearly modelled on that used by West Yorkshire Police). Some have been charged and detained for "offences" that do not exist in the penal code.

Many cases of suspicious deaths at the hands of police officers have been reported, but these are rarely investigated by the judiciary and, even when they are, there are glaring examples of no action having been taken, or action delayed until families of the deceased have taken their own civil actions.

Prosecutors often act for the police officers in court, asking for acquittals. Even where officers have been found guilty of causing unlawful death, they are most often given suspended sentences, in some cases with no criminal record entered against them so that they can resume their careers as police officers.

All this is happening in a country which has adopted the European Charter of Human Rights, is a member of the European Union which subscribes to the Charter and which is urging its population to sign up to an EU constitution which incorporates the Charter. Yet it is also a country of which even Le Monde was moved to report: "Justice is at a special tariff for police officers: they are never seriously punished."

And this is a country with which the UK government wishes to co-operate and Justice and Home Affairs, and to which it is quite happy to cede powers under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant, while allowing its officers, within the structure of Europol, to take a direct part in British policing.

Perhaps Blair, as leader of the Zanu-Labour Party, should have got the French police in to investigate the allegations of electoral fraud in Birmingham. But then, possibly, he will next time.

A hole in Gordon Brown's pocket

As correctly forecast by The Times on Monday, Marks & Spencer has cleared the first hurdle in its bid to overturn a ruling by the UK tax authorities after the advocate general at the ECJ today issued an opinion in its favour.

The case could cost the Treasury an estimated £5 billion in tax relief if, as is widely expected, the full court agrees with the advocate. Says the Financial Times, it could also have ripple effects across all EU governments to harmonise the tax treatment of losses at domestic and foreign subsidiaries.

In his opinion, advocate general, Poiares Maduro, wrote: "A group relief scheme which does not allow a parent company to deduct the losses of its subsidiaries established abroad under any circumstances is incompatible with community law."

The advocate general also wrote that the refusal of a tax advantage that could be enjoyed by a parent company operating solely within the UK to a parent company that wished to operate overseas subsidiaries had the effect of obstructing a company freedom of establishment in other member states.

The case was passed up to the ECJ by the High Court, which was hearing M&S; appeal against a ruling made by the Special Commissioners tribunal, the starting point for all direct tax challenges.

Double vision

Not everyone sees the discussions about the budget quite as clearly as my colleague does. For instance, Graham Bowley, of the International Herald Tribune, thinks of the rather sordid little log-rolling exercise as a grand clash of two different visions.

In one corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have the Commission, backed by a number of member states (all of them net recipients of funds), making a pitch

“… for a well-funded union, one that has enough money to dole out development aid to its poorer backwaters, to fight crime and illegal immigration, stimulate a high-tech future and run its federal institutions well”.

A rag-bag of political aims, one might say, some good, some bad and some plain ridiculous.

“In this vision, Europe is without borders, run more and more from Brussels – one, according to José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, that has ‘has the means to match its ambitions’.”

The truth is that no organization could have the means to match the EU’s ambitions either territorially or politically. What President “free-marketeer” Barroso means is a Europe that he and his colleagues that include the “free-marketeer” East Europeans can run as a centralized, redistributionist mega-state. (Please note my avoidance of the word superstate that seems to offend so many people.)

So that is one vision but it does not, alas, occupy the field unopposed. There are those mean-minded representatives of donor countries, who do not think that any more money should be handed over to the EU, particularly as a large proportion of it is never properly accounted for.

“The difference in billions of euros between these two positions are not large, especially when compared with the size of national economies.

At one level, the debate is about politicians playing to national galleries,
engineering disputes to deliver victories down the line.

But there is also a more substantive clash between those whose vision of Europe is one where national barriers fall and where economies of scale are best served and cross-border problems are best solved by working together – on the environment, transport, crime, immigration, even defence – and those who are resisting the transfer from national capitals of money, and power, to Europe’s centre.”

We do have to be so very careful, as Superintendent Bell used to say in the Reggie Fortune stories (we are nothing if not erudite on this blog). Analyses like Mr Bowley’s are very insidious.

On the one hand we have people like President Barroso or Budget Commissar Grybauskaite, who want to introduce all these wonderful ideas like international co-operation, economy of size and high-tech economy.

On the other hand we have those mean little national politicians, who just play up to their gallery at home and refuse to hand over any more money to “Europe’s centre”.

Dear, dear. Where shall we start? Perhaps by pointing out that we are not talking about Europe’s centre which is anywhere between Berlin and Vilnius but the self-appointed capital of the European Union.

Then, perhaps we should point out that playing up to the national gallery could also be interpreted as being held accountable by the people who elect you, which could, perhaps, be called democracy, not something that encumbers our various Commissioners and euro-apparatchiks.

Above all, though, the two sides Mr Bowley and, let’s face it, not only he, put up in opposition are nothing of the kind.

Environmental problems are either global or, much more likely, local, best solved by the local areas without the heavy-handed ideological intervention of “Europe’s centre”. The words waste disposal and landfill spring to mind.

Economies of size are best achieved by individual firms through agreements. Whenever they are imposed by “Europe’s centre” (and the word eurofighter springs to mind here) they are not only not efficient, they are not even economical.

Then there is the problem of all those parts of the economy that have been handed over to “Europe’s centre” like fisheries and agriculture.

It is important to remember that the arguments for the increased budget produced by the “free-marketeer” President Barroso and his minions have nothing to do with economic or any other development and everything to do with further integration, more centralized power, unaccountable to the elector or the taxpayer, and redistribution of funds in an old-fashioned socialist way.

EU budget - in for a hard time

So obsessed are the media with the general election that, almost to a man (or person), they could find neither time nor space to review events across the channel today, and look to see what our real government is doing in Brussels.

The single exception was The Times business section which did at least notice that the commission yesterday unveiled its new budget proposals, offering the headline: "EU to triple R&D; spend in attempt to rival US and Japan".

The spending plans are provisional and show the Commission’s ambitions as it heads into negotiations with EU member states. Overall, it has asked for a budget of 1.26 per cent of EU GDP

Anthony Browne, the Brussels correspondent, tells the story, outlining how the commission aims to "triple spending on research and development, transport and education in an effort to create jobs and revitalise the EU's struggling economy."

The €132.7 billion (£90.8 billion) pitch to raise competitiveness is, we are told, aimed at making the commission’s €1,025 billion spending plans for the years 2007 to 2013 more palatable to member governments, many of which have attacked them as too costly.

The budget also includes proposals to nearly quadruple spending on "culture, youth media and citizenship" to €2.5 billion over the seven-year period. This includes €207 million for a "citizens for Europe" programme to "foster co-operation between citizens and organisations from different countries who will meet to develop their own ideas and act in a European environment".

The EU also intends to more than triple spending on "freedom, security and justice" to €8.3 billion. The plans include a new EU border management agency, programmes to help illegal immigrants — such as "counselling for unsuccessful asylum seekers" (the only issues dealt with by The Daily Telegraph) — and a new fundamental rights agency.

Spending on health and consumer protection will be nearly tripled to €1.8 billion. The Commission is desperate to use its budget to show that it is no longer focused on the post-war problem of boosting agriculture but is helping to make Europe the world's leading "knowledge-based" economy.

The Times, also reports that total spending on agricultural subsidies, through the CAP, will decrease by three per cent. Nevertheless, this remains the single biggest area of expenditure, totalling €301 billion by 2013. However, because of the overall increase in the budget, agricultural spending will drop from about half the EU budget to less than a third.

Dalia Grybauskaite, the budget commissioner, is quoted, saying: "Today's proposals clearly reflect a shift towards growth and employment with a focus on knowledge-based activities such as research and innovation. The proposals offer a real added value for EU citizens and represent a good use of taxpayers' money."

José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission, said: "The Commission's blueprint for investing in Europe’s future is complete. Europe must have the means to match its ambitions."

More can be found in the commission press release, which sets out the details in a helpful chart.

The commission has also set up its own dedicated website, which clearly borrows from Zanu-Labour, rejoicing under the title as it does, "Investing in our future".

"The future belongs to all of us and we need to plan for it," says the site. "In order to safeguard the way of life that European citizens are now accustomed to, it is necessary not only to think about which projects should be continued or started, but also how they will be financed."

What the commission is not saying, however – and neither is anyone else – is that we are seeing a subtle change of strategy in the commission's thinking.

Like everyone else – except the French – the commission is sick to the back teeth of being held to ransom over CAP spending. Thus, moving money over to research and transport (the two growth areas), is more than just the commission pushing for "more employment".

It is no coincidence that most of the greatest beneficiaries of EU R&D; and transport spending – like Galileo and the ITER project (if it goes to Europe) – are the French.

What is happening here is a slow transition away from the CAP funding, into other areas of spending where the French will be equal or greater beneficiaries, in the hope that they can eventually be bribed into dropping opposition to CAP "reform".

Not content with just that, though, Grybauskaite is upping the ante, according to EurActiv, warning anyone who will listen of the consequences of a late agreement on the budget.

So concerned is the commission that it has even set out these consequences on its website, complaining that the commission presented its proposals in good time - two and a half years before the start of the next budget period. "The Council's multi-annual programme foresees political agreement this June. We must stick to this," it declares.

The chances of this happening, however, are next to nil and the commission is in for a hard time. But then, so is Tony Blair. The UK presidency is going to have to deal with the issue and he is going to be in the hot seat.

Incoherent text

There have been "red faces" in France, according to AFP, as 160,000 copies of the EU constitution have had to be pulped after the words "incoherent text" were found to have been mysteriously added to one of the articles.

The copies were to be distributed in town-halls and libraries around France and the words were missed by proof-readers of the 232-page document. They failed to spot that the phrase had been added in print to Article 1-33 which concerns "legal acts of the Union".

"It was a note at the bottom of the page which was invisible on the screen when the text was being put on computer," said an official at the state publisher Documentation Francaise.

What totally amazes us is that anyone spotted the words after the thing had been printed. After all, the whole damn text is incoherent.

A message from Zanu-Labour Party

A long begging e-mail signed by John O'Farrell, "Author and Broadcaster", concludes with the PS: "Oh and if you know any Tories, pretend that Labour is only accepting Euros, that'll really wind them up!"

Funny, I thought they might have preferred Zimbabwean dollars - or bananas?

Postal voting is still safe system

Tony Blair refused yesterday to accept the conclusions of the High Court judge who ruled that the postal voting system was "wide open to fraud".

The prime minister declared: "Overall, the postal voting system is no more prone to fraud than other electoral systems."

Of course, that rather depends on the other electoral systems with which he was making the comparison.

Nevertheless, there is absolutely no truth in the rumour that L'escroc is sending observers over to the UK election - to pick up tips. And his spokeshomme definitely did not say that the French authorities already had enough experience of rigging referendums and had nothing to learn from the Zanu Labour Party.

UPDATE

Robert Mugabe has been allowed to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II, despite an EU ban on travelling to EU states, imposed after accusations of vote-rigging in the disputed presidential election of 2002.

Presumably, Tony Blair is being allowed to attend on the same basis.

Panics, defiance and laughs

One of the reasons, it seems, why the Dutch government is planning to abandon its own EU referendum (news brought to us first by England Expects) is that Dutch voters are being heavily influenced by events in the French referendum.

The government fears that if the French vote "no", the chances are that their increasingly disillusioned electorate will follow suit in their referendum two days later, on 1 June, leaving them with a situation that is hard to reverse.

The immediate analysis, that the Dutch government was about to treat a French vote as the end of the constitution might, therefore, be over-optimistic. Rather, the political élites are not prepared to accept that a French "non" will be the last word. It would, therefore, be much easier to deal with the French situation, if it arose, before turning to the Dutch electorate to ask for their verdict.

In an attempt to turn the tide, the government has launched a campaign to promote the constitution, with full-page advertisements in the leading Dutch dailies urging voters to participate in the referendum and learn more about the treaty from a free "constitution newspaper" to be published next week. One hopes that this paper is better informed than the fragrant Margot.

Meanwhile, Italy has become what AFP describes as "the first major power" to ratify the constitution. Whether Spain is that happy to be thus relegated remains to be seen but, whereas Spain at least went through the motions of consulting its peoples, no such luxury was afforded to the Italians.

The constitution was submitted only to the parliament, and approved by parliament's lower Chamber of Deputies in January, and now to the Senate, where it was passed by 217 votes to 16.

That brings to four the countries which have completed the ratification process, the other three being Lithuania, Hungary and Slovenia. Technically, Spain has not yet approved the treaty as the referendum decision on 20 February must still be rubber-stamped by parliament – on which grounds perhaps AFP can be forgiven.

The next country in line is Germany, with Herr Schröder having brought forward the ratification schedule to 12 May, when the constitution will appear before the Bundestag, with the Bundesrat following a few weeks later, all timed to give the French government a boost.

Unlike German politicos, Czech president Vaclav Klaus is demanding a referendum in his country, describing the constitution as "a revolutionary document which will change everyone's lives". Prime minister Stanislav Gross is agreeable, scheduling a poll to coincide with a general election in June 2006. That possibly makes the Czech Republic the last to hold a referendum.

Klaus has launched a book critical of the constitution and declared at the launch that "People must decide freely, even if some will order them to shut up." "We are free citizens and we should not be afraid or feel any pressure how to vote. We should not agonise over it if the Czech Republic became the only country not to support the constitution," he says.

But if the Czechs get the last vote, it may be France's Le Pen who gets the last laugh. In an exclusive interview for Newsweek, he conveys his immense amusement at L’escroc’s discomfiture

Asked about Chirac's involvement in the campaign, Le Pen notes that the president is not respected. "I think that if he declares himself openly and firmly in favor of the constitution, it will be what is called in bullfighting 'the strike of descabello' - when the bull is in agony and the matador strikes its nape, killing it instantly," he says. "So, I'm waiting for Jacques Chirac to finish off a faltering 'yes' vote by openly supporting it," he adds.

"What happens if the 'no' wins, then, for Chirac?" he is asked. "Ah, I don't know!", Le Pen responds, adding, with a laugh, "That's the great uncertainty of the sport. Maybe he'll put a bullet in his head." To Le Pen, "voting for the constitution is high treason." I kind of like this man.

And he has the perfect answer to the claim that a "no" vote will lead to isolation: "That's classical reasoning", he argues:

When I was running for office in Nice, my adversaries said that if I were elected the sea would recede, the palm trees would die, the tourists would leave and everybody would fall down sick. And so if the "no" wins, well, the constitution is rejected, and we'll have to accept the consequences. They have to stop lying to the French people... They go through all of this parliamentary theatre to make the French believe that the laws made in Brussels are then submitted to elected French officials who can modify them. No, we can only approve them. That's all... They want us to acquiesce to suicide. Well, no - we don't want to die. They will have to take notice and deal with it. And I think it might provoke new elections - presidential, legislative and others.

You can't really add to that. Over to you Margot - bet you can't either.

The defence debate

Although I included defence in my lighthearted "fantasy politics" post yesterday, I by no means jest when I declare that defence should be higher up on the list of those issues discussed in the general election campaign.

Certainly, to judge from the number of comments posted in response to my two most recent forays into the area, on Michael Howard’s speech and on the MoD decision to buy German trucks, defence is something our readers take very seriously indeed.

As regards the election, The Telegraph provides as good a starting point as any, with the following summary of the main parties (I have ignored the LibDems – they are irrelevant):

Labour: Press ahead with Army restructuring plans to reduce the number of battalions by four and merge or abolish some historic regiments, as part of wider plans to create a more up-to-date, flexible army. Resist privatisation of the Met Office and other MoD support agencies.

Conservative: A Conservative Government would spend £2.7 billion more on frontline defence than the amount planned by Labour. The regiments being lined up for abolition would be saved. Three Type 23 frigates that Labour wants to cut would be retained.

Taking this at face value, the central issue is the reorganisation of the Army, and that is probably the issue of most concern. For sure, there are other issues, such as the fate of the carrier force, the Joint Strike Fighter and the scale of the Tranche II Eurofighter purchases, to name but a few, but we tend to agree that it is the Army reorganisation that is the most politically contentious.

In this context, what Labour is promising are "wider plans to create a more up-to-date, flexible army", while the Conservatives are promising to retain the traditional regiments, and to increase front-line spending, but is stopping short of specifying what the Army would look like, and how it would be equipped, under a Conservative government.

In the absence of detail from the Conservatives, we cannot judge their policy, but, with the benefits of the many comments from readers of this Blog and the continuous research we ourselves have conducted, the one thing of which we are now certain is that the Labour plans for the Army are wrong, dangerous, and expensive.

We have written of these plans many times, identifying the concept with which the government have been toying, as the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), about which we wrote first last July when we asked whether the government was making another blunder of Eurofighter proportions

To recap briefly, what the government is proposing is to re-equip the spearhead formations of the Army around a family of medium-weight, wheeled armoured vehicles, suitable for airborne deployment anywhere in the world, as part of a rapid reaction force.

Inevitably, although this has not been clearly set out, this is part of the overall plan to harmonise with the European Defence Identity and to enable Britain to contribute to what are known as the "Berlin Plus" Headline Goals.

But even in July, we were expressing our reservations about the wisdom of deploying lightly armoured vehicles in high-threat environments, not least because of the widespread availability of hand-held anti-tank weapons (RPG 7s, and the like).

Later in July, we also explored the political implications and by early August were concerned that the government was mortgaging existing capacity to fund a future project of uncertain validity, citing Gerald Howarth, the Conservative shadow defence minister for procurement, who observed that: "We are cutting today's proven capability for jam tomorrow – when we don't even know what the ingredients are or how to cook it".

Our own analysis of the Fallujah battle further reinforced our doubts on the wisdom of running down our conventional forces – and in particular our heavy armour – and then, courtesy of one of our readers, we came across an extraordinary document (long - 166 pages), which largely confirmed our fears.

In particular, the US is already testing the concept on which FRES is based, with the use of wheeled armoured vehicles known as the Stryker, and all objective reports indicate that equipment is flawed, both in concept and in execution – as well as being extremely expensive.

However, if FRES is not the answer, then Labour plans are in disarray. If they are committed to global expeditionary warfare, working as an integral part of the European Rapid Reactionary Force, they have no alternative – no "plan B". They are committed to massive expenditure for something that almost certainly will not work.

The problem for the UK – and also for the Europeans – is that shifting complete formations by air to world trouble spots is not a feasible option. In any serious campaign, there will continue to be a need for heavy armour, and that will require specialist shipping, air support, and a massive logistic train.

That requires more money that the European are prepared to expend, as evidenced from the German defence plans and the more general European attitude towards defence.

In effect, the defence ambitions of the Europeans are "smoke and mirrors" and the Labour government is falling in with them, re-equipping the Army not only for a job it cannot do, but for a job that cannot be done.

That then leaves the central questions – what can the Army do, and what should it do? Beyond its traditional tasks of Home Defence and support of the civil authorities, do we want to participate in expeditionary warfare and if so, are we prepared to pay the price to maintain an independent capability, or will we work only with one or more allies?

Almost certainly, we cannot – or will not – afford an independent capability, in which case our choices and policy options are constrained by the objectives of potential allies, and their own commitment to this kind of warfare. In essence, that boils down to a choice between working with the ill-equipped and wholly inadequate Europeans, or working with the more capable US forces.

However, they also have their own limitations and faults and while we have commonalities of interests with the US, we also have our differences, which means that the "special relationship" must be reviewed in the context of our own national interest.

The general issue of the special relationship I raised in October, as going to the heart of our defence planning, about which, we have observed, there has been all too little debate.

With a general election campaign now on, we should be having that debate. Somehow, I suspect that this Blog is the only place where we will get any serious input. But then, I could be wrong.

She's back

No, not Cruella, this time but the fragrant Margot, a far less elegant personality if her own description of herself is anything to go by.

It seems there is to be no explanation as to why a personal blog that was to be updated twice a week lapsed to once a week and then to a fortnight. Apparently the poor thing was unwinding from a stressful job.

Well, I guess it is quite stressful to be Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation but I also think that she might have used the time quite profitably to find out what she is talking about.

This blog is businesslike in a fluffy sort of way (fluffiness being the hallmark of this particular blog), apart from her last line with a laughably trite attempt at philosophical musing:

“And springtime seems to bring out the best or the depression of people – buy a new skirt or a shot gun?”

Presumably that is not an either-or situation but, in any case, if the fragrant Commissar wants to muse on the contradictions inherent in spring, she could look at very many examples of literary writing that put it all much more cogently and profoundly. Start with Chaucer and T. S. Eliot, Ms Wallström, both writing about April and looking at the month in very different ways.

The bulk of the posting is to do with the Constitution, her highly paid job being the explication and advocation of it. Alas, she does keep getting things wrong.

At this point I should mention, à la Margot, that I had to have a cup or so of strong coffee to clear my head in order to understand what the fragrant Commissar is actually trying to say. (I also read a chapter or two of a Mrs Pollifax novel but that did not help, merely underlining the sheer silliness of the Margot blog.)

So, here we go. It seems that there are three aspects to the Constitution: symbolic, institutional and policy. The last is of no importance, according to the fragrant Commissar, because very little has changed in most policy areas, a fact that some (presumably including Vice-President Wallström) regret.

As a matter of fact there are quite a few changes, especially in the justice and security areas as well as the abolition of the national veto in more areas, but, hey, who’s counting.

What about the other two aspects?

“From a SYMBOLIC point of view it is fundamental – because it describes the values and objectives of the European Union, it strengthens the European citizenship and gives explicit rights to all of us and it even establishes common symbols like a flag and an anthem (which of course complements the national ones).”

Ahem, who exactly is Commissar Wallström to give us explicit rights? Here we can see the crucial difference between the two world views: there are those (and we on this blog are among them) who think that rights come from the people either as individuals or as a nation, and are handed to the state by agreement for a certain purpose.

Then there are those, and Commissar Wallstöm is among them, who think that rights are something the state can grandly bestow on the people.

“From an INSTITUTIONAL point of view it is very important – because it explains that the EU can only do what member states confers upon it, it explains how decisions will be taken in a more effective way and it gives more power to the national parliaments and citizens, who can oppose or propose an initiative supported by new provisions in the text.”

This statement is known technically as a lie. Well, all right, an untruth. Let us be courteous. The Constitution does not explain “that the EU can only do what member states confers upon it” (let us disregard the curious grammar there as presumably the fragrant Commissar’s secretary did not have time to check it).

On the contrary the Constitution explains that after it had been adopted the superior status of European legislation will be rooted in the Constitution itself. Furthermore, it explains that the EU will decide whether national governments will be allowed to legislate on matters it will generously leave to them.

As for the “more power to the national parliaments and citizens …” – well, you do wonder whether the lady has actually read this document.

In the first place how is it that we do not have the power to control our legislation? In the second place, by what method can citizens or national parliaments propose or oppose and where does the text give anything remotely resembling an explanation?

In the third place, the Protocol that deals with the role of the national parliaments explains that they can, indeed, object to certain legislation and if enough of them do, the Commission is duty bound to pay attention.

It is not, however, bound in any way to do anything about that objection. So, where is this great power?

One thing has not changed. The fragrant Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation may have had an invigorating holiday and may have come back full pep and vim. But she is still not replying to any of the comments on her blog.

As transparent as a black box

One almost warms to the judge advocate of the European Court of Justice in announcing his ruling on the food supplements directive, describing it, according to The Daily Telegraph "as transparent as a black box".

But two issues not rehearsed by the Telegraph piece should be borne in mind. Firstly, while our Europhile MEPs keep telling us what a wonderful job they do in the parliament, revising legislation, improving it, and keeping the commission on its toes, this law, described – rightly – by Peter Aldis of Holland and Barret as "a shoddy piece of legislation", went right through the system virtually unscathed.

At the time the law was going through parliament, it was subject to one of the most sustained public lobbying campaigns in the history of the institution, which was loftily dismissed as being "organised", and ignored completely. This affair, therefore, represents a major failing of the parliament to do its own job properly, even in its own terms.

Secondly, it must also be remembered that big business was in favour of this law. As we reported from the Independent in January:

Some large chains, such as Boots, have already reformulated their products to meet the new EU rules and say their customers will see no difference when the directive comes into force… "Consumers won't see a huge change," a spokeswoman said. "We fully support this EU directive."

This speaks volumes for big business, which often benefits from regulation as a mechanism which drives smaller competition out of business and enables it to increase its market share (and prices). Compared with, say, the cost of a major advertising campaign, regulatory compliance costs which achieve the same effect, are often considered a bargain.

This is why you can rarely rely on industry to do the decent thing and oppose regulations in principle. Often, it is more interested in seeking a competitive advantage rather than address the issues, in which context – to put it crudely – the commission and industry are often pissing in the same pot.

For industry now to oppose the REACH directive, therefore, must indicate how bad indeed this legislation must be.

Selling arms to dictators

China is not the only one. Spain has just announced that as a gesture of good will it will sell 10 C-295 transport planes, 2 CN-235 ocean surveillance planes and 8 patrol boats in a deal valued at €1.3 billion (c. £890 million) to that great liberal politician, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.

Not only is President Chávez’s preferred method of dealing with those who oppose or criticize him is arrest and torture but he is also believed to be stocking up military tension in various parts of South America.

Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero has argued that that planes and ships will be used to fight terrorism and illegal drug trade while contributing to regional security and democracy.

This is rather hard to understand. President Chávez is arming Venezuela, buying arms not only from Spain but from Russia and Brazil. He is also believed to be supporting the Communist-inclined narcoterrorists FARC as well as a number of other terrorist and insurgent organizations.

At the same time, Spain is also selling C-212 cargo planes and is discussing the sales of military helicopters and patrol boats to Colombia. Perhaps, this is to aid the fight against drug smuggling, but the big worry in that part of the world is the potentially explosive situation between those two countries.

There is, inevitably, a more general aspect. Chávez, hero of the Marxist left in Europe, is known as Fidelito (the little Fidel) in the United States and other South American countries. In fact, he has recently had a public love-in with the old tyrant, almost as if the mantle of old-fashioned left wing tyranny and international terrorism was being handed on.

Chávez has proclaimed himself to be the leader of the anti-US struggle, supposedly supported by the peoples of the world. In reality, of course, his greatest supporters are the Euro-elite. Pursuing his “struggle” he has threatened to cut off the sale of oil to the USA, signing deals with China instead. He may, of course, find himself on the receiving end of China’s notorious unreliability in deals.

His other efforts are detailed by a paper recently produced by the Heritage Foundation:

“Chavez is rumored to be supporting the FARC, letting it use the Colombian-Venezuelan border area to recuperate and resupply.

Elsewhere, Chavez is mentoring Bolivian revolutionary Evo Morales,whose comrades recently tried to force President Carlos Mesa's resignation in an effort to take control of the National Assembly.

In Peru, it's been alleged that Chavez bankrolled the rogue army officer who tried to incite December's rebellion against President Alejandro Toledo. Chavez denies all of this, of course.”

In true Marxist style, he is threatening to export the Venezuelan revolution, that is, disastrous socialist policies and political repression to other South American countries.

The American government is working on a policy to isolate the man in South America without inflaming the situation in Venezuela itself. The last thing needed at this point is a strutting European politician proclaiming that, of course, he wants to be on good terms with the American government but that will not stop him from selling arms to America’s enemies, even if it destabilizes the situation in another part of the world.

Zapatero maintains that he is signing these deals to provide work at home. Well, maybe. But if he (together with Chirac and Schröder) is so worried about the Spanish arms industry, there is an excellent solution at hand.

Why not arm the Europeans? After all, the EU is always proclaiming its readiness to be a military power that rivals the United States. Well, it cannot be done without arms. So, there you are: sell one, buy one, as Thomas L. Friedman wrote on March 7 in the International Herald Tribune.

Done and dusted

Given the volatility of the French electorate, it was still anyone's guess as to which way they would vote in the 29 May EU referendum – despite the polls.

But not any more.

According to The Times today, the French have just concluded a national vote on the "greatest Frenchman of all time".

And was it Napoleon? Was it Joan of Arc? Nope. They didn't even make it into the final. The winner was none other than Charles de Gaulle, the man who at one time was so hated that he held the record for greatest number of assassination attempts against a Head of State.

This is the man, though, who said of the Elysée Treaty after it had been emasculated by the Bundesrat: "Treaties are like maidens and roses, they each have their day".

If this is the man with whom the French now most identify, the EU constitution hasn’t got a chance.

Fantasy politics

WE are not alone, by any means, in dreading the next thirty days – days of utter tedium as the main political parties try to foist their limited agendas on a disinterested public in what passes for political discourse, to be rewarded with what promises to be one of the lowest turnouts in history.

Yes, we already know that schools'n'hospitals are going to be an "important battleground", that public services are the defining issue, that Gordon Brown is going to talk up his custodianship of the economy, etc, etc, etc – while we stifle the yawns and look to the programme guide to see what else is on.

In the manner of "fantasy football", therefore, wouldn't it be fun to draw up a "fantasy campaign", setting out those issues you would like to see the politicians fight over, instead of having to listen to them telling you what they thought was important.

Number one in our campaign, we would of course have the politicians set out their stalls on "Europe", if for no other reason than to have them tell us how they would achieve their own domestic agendas when so much of what they want to do is already circumscribed by "Brussels".

But here, there is already "clear blue water" between the Conservatives and the other two main parties, in that the Conservatives alone oppose the EU constitution. Thus, the "no" campaign's best chance of have a Conservative government – which in itself justifies casting a vote for that party.

Another area where there is "clear blue water" is in defence, where the Conservatives are committed to saving the regiments, and to a modest increase in defence spending, but it would be nice to have all parties come strongly and clearly on what their defence polices were, and how they see the armed forces being structured over the next few decades.

Alongside that is the vexed question of foreign policy. What fun it would be to hear from all the parties a declaration of where the national interest lay, which issues were going to take priority and whether, for the first time in its history, the Foreign Office was going to represent Britain.

From the sublime to the ridiculous, there is also "clear blue water" on fishing policy, with a clear undertaking from Michael Howard in person to repatriate the Common Fisheries Policy and to restore national and local control. We could enjoy this being a high-profile issue and watch the LibLems and NuLab squirm.

That neatly brings us on to agriculture, where our favoured policy is the gradual but complete extermination of all farmers – something that NuLab seems to be doing quite successfully.

We are of course joking – at least, I am (about us favouring this policy) - but I have long held that, inasmuch as you cannot have a common policy for the frozen wastes of Finland, the mountains of North Greece, the Rhineland basin and the plains of Andalusia, you cannot have a common policy for the diverse regions of the UK. Thus, the next best thing to exterminating farmers to exterminate farming policy, and let the Counties have it back.

Another area where we would also have problems with all parties is in energy, where we would cheerfully ditch Kyoto and all that is stood for, ritually blow up every single wind farm in the county, and then embark on a rapid programme of building nuclear power stations – preferably with surplus capacity to generate hydrogen for mass transport undertakings, powering trains and busses.

On the vexed issue of transport, I would like to see some serious work or travel minimisation. With the advent of modern communications – the internet, etc - there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who could do some or all of their work at home, without having to travel and I am sure there is room for an imaginative tax regime where people who do work at home qualify for substantial tax relief.

And on tax, the central issue for me is to abolish council tax – I have spent more nights in a Police cell than I ever cared to – and, while we are about it, VAT, replacing both with a local sales tax.

Number ten on the list is to destroy all speed cameras – adding them to the same pile as wind turbines – and with them, parking clamps. I have never understood the logic of clamping cars in order to make the traffic flow more freely. Increasing the motorway speed limit (three lanes and more) to at least 90 mph (for BMW drivers) would also be very acceptable.

Then, for the final item for my "fantasy campaign", something silly: tax exemption on bird seed. The little darlings in the garden are costing us a fortune.

And what eleven would you choose?

Waiting for MargGodot

In a script that could so easily have been written by Samuel Beckett, we are still waiting for the most fragrant one (or her secretary) to put up a new posting on her Blog - devoid of entries since 22 March.

But then, I suppose, the whole point of Beckett's play was that Godot – oops, Margot – never comes.

A message from your leader

Plucked from the obscurity of my "spam" folder:

If you have been keeping up with the news, you may already know that I went to the Palace a few minutes ago to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament.

I wanted to get this message out to you straight away about what's at stake at the election and how you can help. This will be a tough campaign and we will have to fight for every seat and every vote.

We're going to need the help of every Labour supporter - to distribute the leaflets, to talk to voters on the doorsteps and get on those phones.

If you've never volunteered to help Labour's campaign before, make this your first time. If you're an old hand, we need you now more than ever.

For what's at stake on May 5 is the future direction of our country - whether it goes forward or back. Labour hasn't, by any means, achieved all we want yet. And you may not agree with every decision I have made. But there's been real progress in communities up and down the land. Our country is fairer, more modern and successful than it was eight years ago.

And May 5 will decide whether we can build on - and accelerate - the progress made in spreading opportunity and prosperity. Or whether the Tories can succeed in taking Britain back to the failed and risky policies of cuts, charges and economic mismanagement.

Over the next five weeks, I will be out and about across the country spelling out that choice. And so will all my colleagues.

I hope to see you on the campaign trail. But if you have a question for me, you can visit the website and let me know.

I can't promise to answer them all. But I'll answer as many as I can throughout the campaign. It's less than five weeks now to polling day. Five weeks in which the future of our country is in our hands.

We have a good story to tell. Let's go out and tell it.

(signed)

Tony Blair.

The fight is on - now where's that vote factory?

EU observers?

Richard Mawrey , QC, the deputy High Court judge sitting as an election commissioner, was obstructed by the Labour Party at every turn.

A lone star, he has had to pick his way through scenes that would have astonished a sheriff in a frontier town. The councillors found by police in the warehouse at midnight on the eve of the election in Birmingham's Aston ward, surrounded by unsealed postal ballots; the box containing postal votes all in the same hand and same ink, and all for Labour; witnesses refusing to give evidence fearing for their children's lives; a lawless Wild West in which the number of postal ballots had mushroomed from 24,000 to 70,000 in one year. The city's returning officer agreed that the overwhelming number of ballots made it more difficult to spot fraud.

Time to call in EU election observers?

Business as usual

Despite the outcry, despite the opposition of most of the leading industries in Europe, despite the clear evidence of its damaging effect, not least to small and speciality businesses, the EU commission has decided to press ahead with its controversial REACH directive.

If approved, this will mean that chemical manufacturers and formulators will be required to carry out laborious "safety checks" on an estimated 30,000 chemicals used in products ranging from household cleaners to car parts, at costs upwards of €20,000 a time.

This marks the commission's response to the growing divide between jobs and industry on the one hand, and the environmental lobby on the other, with the Greenies still on the ascendancy. And despite entreaties from industry to withdraw the proposal, EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas was uncompromisingly blunt: "We are not going to do that," he said.

"There was speculation that the commission plans to withdraw the proposal, to rewrite it and resubmit it to the legislators. This speculation was unfounded," he added. "I am convinced that the commission's proposal already strikes the right balance between environmental and health protection, on the one hand, and the needs of a competitive industry on the other."

"Current chemicals legislation has failed to provide the necessary level of protection for human health and the environment," was his parting shot. "The competitiveness of the European industry will not change for the worse with REACH."

As we know, this is cloud-cuckoo land. Anyone who is under any illusions that the Barroso is running a "business-friendly" liberalising commission had better think again. For the commission, it is very much business as usual.

Passing of a great man

There are worse ways of going than sinking gently during Easter week, surrounded by caring people and knowing that you have achieved much and that the world outside will be mourning your passing.

The Polish Pope is not, as it happens, the last of the twentieth century giants to go. People have mentioned Queen Elizabeth II, who is a very great lady and who has served her country and her people well. But her virtues have been largely negative.

Just listen to what the same people say: she has never put a wrong; not a shadow of a scandal; never upset anyone. All very admirable but all rather negative. It is her constitutional position and, more to the point, her training and the fact that she succeeded to the throne at such an early age, that have created her particular public personality.

In the fight against the second monstrous regime of the twentieth century we can name at least three people at the top and one of them is a British Prime Minister. Does nobody remember the role Margaret Thatcher played? The third is, of course, President Ronald Reagan.

Interestingly, all three, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Prime Minister Thatcher, survived assassination attempts, in itself a sign of their importance. Who would bother to go after any Commission President or, for that matter, Prime Minister Blair, whose personal security far surpasses anybody else’s in this country or, possibly, the entire western world?

There is an apocryphal story about Stalin. Soon after the Second World War someone wondered out loud what the Pope will say about something or other, to which old Joseph Vissarionovich is said to have replied: “How many divisions has the Pope?”

This crude and entirely characteristic comment (even if it was never made) has been quoted ad nauseam. But the truth is that the Polish Pope turned out to have had far more divisions than Stalin’s successors.

Many of us remember the surge of hope that went through people who lived under Communist dictatorships and those, who, in the West, had been trying unsuccessfully to tell the leaders about that evil system on that October day in 1978 when the white smoke went up and the announcement was made: the new Pope was to be Cardinal Karol Woytyła. Those hopes were not disappointed.

Cardinal Woytyła had, in his youth, opposed Nazism, was friends with Jewish writers and thinkers, had stood firm against Communism while many of his colleagues were making various deals and was also, importantly, a writer and a poet himself and a man who had been so enamoured of the theatre that he had even contemplated becoming an actor. Despite all the later controversies, he was a man for all seasons and a man for our season.

There is no question about the role Pope John Paul II played in the destruction of Communism and revival of true Europeanism in many countries of the former Soviet Empire.

He was also the man who went to the Holy Land, who spoke to Jews as a friend (not that common among Popes in the history of the Catholic Church), reached out to Muslims, worked tirelessly and, one must add, apparently fruitlessly, towards religious reconciliation.

It is interesting to read the various tributes paid to Pope John Paul II. President Bush extolled his commitment to freedom while SecGen Annan talked of his love of peace, forgetting as is his wont, about freedom.

The Queen, as behoves the Head of the Anglican Church, spoke of his work in trying to bring the two denominations together. Prime Minister Blair and President Chirac waffled on about social justice, a meaningless concept.

Michael Howard, who seems to have made his statement before Blair did, spoke of the Pope’s support for freedom and opposition to totalitarianism. Unexpectedly for a practising Jew, he also spoke of him as a man who upheld Christian values, something that Blair and Chirac ought to have laid more emphasis on.

As in 1978, so in 2005: reactions to the Polish Pope tell you all you need to know about the speakers.

John Paul II’s achievement went further even than strong support for people who were fighting totalitarianism. When he became the Pontiff it was fashionable to say, as it is now in Europe newly enamoured with the ideology of empty secularism, that churches no longer mattered, spiritual and religious values were a thing of the past, the papacy was a historical relic.

Is that so, one wonders. The Polish Pope filled his position with real and urgent meaning; he reaffirmed the importance of spiritual values. In his wake a British Prime Minister and an American President announced firmly that there were certain inalienable truths they believed in. Instead of making unnecessary deals with the enemy, they fought the battles and won.

In death the Pope has served people one more time, by showing up the empty futility of the various politicians and, above all, the meaningless posturing of the eurocrats with their “European values”, which may be a source of great feelings of superiority to them, but are of little interest to the rest of the world (Europe including) whose eyes are once again fixed on the Vatican and will go on being fixed on a certain chimney, waiting for the smoke.

I hold no brief for those who say that Christianity should have been mentioned in the European constitution. It is probably no secret that I do not think there should have been a constitution at all. But, even if for some bizarre reason I thought that there was nothing wrong with that ghastly document, I would still maintain that religion should play no part in it. (But then, neither should detailed rules for the economy or the environment be part of a constitutional document.)

On the other hand, “European values” without religious and historical underpinning are meaningless and sway with the wind of fashion. This truth Pope John Paul II proved most triumphantly with his life and work.

Think of the supercilious “European” and, I am sorry to say, British reaction to the Terri Schiavo case, as convoluted a problem as anyone could imagine. I have no desire to go into the rights and wrongs of it and hereby warn our readers that I shall ignore all comments on the case itself.

However, I was rather shocked to see respectable commentators in the media sneer at those Americans who maintained that Ms Schiavo’s feeding tubes should not be removed and she should not be allowed to die of hunger and thirst.

Instead of arguing the various medical and philosophical pros and cons, newspapers such as the Financial Times, a great upholder of “European values”, proclaimed that only in the United States, land of the bug-eyed religious fanatics, could people maintain that human life is sacred whether its owner is severely disabled or not.

So, um, let me get this straight: European values mean opposition to capital punishment even if the person in question is a mass murderer or has tortured and murdered children but they also mean a clear understanding that severely disabled people can be put to death on the medical profession’s say-so?

That is the logic of all those pronouncements and that is the sort of thinking that many people find difficult and why Pope John Paul II, with all the controversial statements, has remained a man to be admired.

So what of the future? Nobody can even pretend that the Pope’s death and the choice of his successor are matters of little import outside the Vatican. Indeed, even John Paul II’s admirers have been somewhat nauseated by the amount of mawkish and sentimental coverage his life and death have received in the British media. If it were not in bad taste, I could call this the Dianafication of the Pontiff.

Still, we can take comfort from the fact that Blair’s dreary election spin will have to be muted for a while. (Did I, incidentally, really see Gordon Brown announcing that education was going to be at the heart of the putative next Labour government’s policies? Do I hear the words day and groundhog?)

We can take further comfort that the equally dreary eurocrat spin on the constitution will be semi-muted for a while.

But what of the next Pontiff? Clearly, we can make no predictions. There is talk, as my colleague has pointed out, of an African Pope. That would make sense. Just as in 1978 the battle lines were in eastern Europe where the church was both persecuted and strengthened by the persecution, so it is Africa where much of this happens now. And the battle lines go beyond the church itself.

The Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, who is being mentioned as a possible candidate, is an expert on Islam. The Polish Pope knew all about Communism. There is an inescapable logic here.

Furthermore, many of the problems John Paul’s successor will inherit do have to do with the developing countries and, particularly, with Africa. An African Pope will be able to turn his attention to them with a greater confidence and will be able to contribute more than any number of Commissions for Africa and reports thereof.

There are other arguments and the Vatican will have its own logic. One point that has been mentioned is that while Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular are strong in many parts of the world, it is Europe with all its “European values” where people feel rudderless. That would indicate the need for a European Pope, though what he might be able to do is hard to see at this stage.

In the meantime, we can speak, for once without a hint of sarcasm, of the passing of a great and good man. May his successor continue and enhance his work.

Abuse of powers?

With the announcement of the general election now expected tomorrow, with the date widely predicted for 5 May, Philip Johnston in today's Telegraph is complaining that Tony Blair is abusing his electoral powers.

Do we need a general election, Johnston asks. The government has a three-figure majority in the Commons; there is no great crisis facing the country; and there is no obvious reason for Mr Blair to seek a fresh mandate now when Parliament can lawfully continue for another 12 months.

With the greatest respect to Mr Johnson, he clearly has not thought this through. On 1 July, the UK assumes the rotating presidency of the EU and for six months, considerable government effort will be devoted to managing the affairs of the Community, with the thousands of meetings that entails. During that period, it would be inconceivable that there could also be a general election campaign.

Then, into next year, there will be the EU constitution referendum to deal with, and it would not be acceptable for the government to run both a referendum and a general election campaign together.

The only option Blair would have would be to run the referendum now and leave the general election to next year, but since he has reserved the presidency period for talking up the benefits of the EU – however forlorn that might be – that is not a practical option.

On that basis, there is only one practical slot for the general election, and that is this Spring. So yes, Mr Johnston, I am afraid we do need a general election now. Abuse or not, Blair really has no option.

Now here's some real surprises

The scale of EU fraud is "difficult to calculate". So says the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. According to a report in The Telegraph today.

The committee then goes on to say that the EU's reputation has been "seriously damaged" by the high levels of fraud thought to exist within its financial arrangements, with the European Court of Auditors having failed to sign off the EU’s accounts for 10 years.

Furthermore, in 2003 member states reported irregularities, including alleged fraud, valued at £630 million. While this was 20 per cent lower than in 2002, it was higher than in 1999, when the anti-fraud office was created.

Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: "The task of achieving strong audit and accountability arrangements in the European Union is one Sisyphus himself, endlessly pushing his huge stone to the top of the mountain, would not envy. Little has changed because of institutional inertia."

And as if this was not bad enough, nothing has changed on the scrutiny front, with the Telegraph also retailing complaints by the CBI that Britain's early-warning system for scrutinising proposed European Union rules and regulations is "badly flawed, failing to spot bad ideas early enough to head them off".

About half of all legislation imposing burdens on British business originates in Brussels but both politicians and Whitehall bureaucrats fail to devote enough time to monitoring it, a CBI pamphlet claims.

Sir Digby Jones, the CBI's director general, pins equal blame on the "shocking ignorance" of many British voters about the EU, and on their MPs, who "seem to have neither the time nor the inclination to keep abreast of events across the Channel".

"Measures that will affect millions of people and cost millions of pounds pass through UK formalities, en route to being implemented into UK law, whilst barely causing a ripple," Sir Digby writes in the pamphlet, for the Foreign Policy Centre, a think-tank.

In theory, all EU legislation is scrutinised by special committees in the House of Commons and House of Lords, assisted by special standing committees. But service on a European standing committee is seen as a specialist interest at best, and a dreary backwater at worst.

The scrutiny work, according to Sir Digby, often comes too late. By the time Westminster received EU papers outlining planned rules, the ideas may have gained unstoppable political momentum.

But then, readers of this Blog knew that already.

We have become more powerful XI

"And for all of those that say, if you look at the last thirty years, we have lost power to Brussels, actually it isn't true. In the last, certainly in the last eight years, as we, the Labour government, have been more involved in Europe, so we have become more powerful and more prosperous, better able, literally to implement a patriotic case for the European Union."

Jack Straw
Foreign Secretary
BBC Today Programme, 9 February 2005

This week lawyers are confidently forecasting that the European Court of Justice will force the Treasury to repay billions to a group of companies that have claimed the UK corporation tax system breaches the EU law.

As a result, according to Gabriel Rozenberg, writing in The Times business section, this means that the ECJ is set to blow a billion-pound hole in the government's finances.

This is the case brought by Marks & Spencer in an attempt to reclaim £30 million paid in tax, which we reported on in an earlier post, and tax experts believe that an advocate-general of the court will confirm that the law is incompatible with EU treaties.

Behind M&S; stand another seventy companies, including BT, InterContinental Hotels, Pilkington and First Choice Holidays, all of which are now pursuing a class-action claim in the High Court on similar grounds to M&S.;

The amounts at stake have been kept confidential, but a recent report from Morgan Stanley, the investment bank, suggested BT could make a claim of up to £400 million. BT would confirm only that its claim was larger than M&S;’s.

The report added that the biggest beneficiary could be Vodafone, which has not so far registered a claim, but which the report said might be able to make a claim for £2 billion. Sean Finn, tax partner in Lovells, the law firm, said that the total sum the Revenue might be forced to pay could reach £5 billion.

So there you have the equivalent of nearly 3p on income tax, wiped out by the EU, a body that successive ranks of politicians, those faceless, grey apologists for the "project", those ghastly, self-serving ranks of MEPs and all the other dregs which pollute this earth, have constantly assured us has absolutely no power over our tax system.

In fact, as we have reported before, we are looking at the slow death of fiscal sovereignty, and there is precious little anyone can do about it as long as we remain members of the EU.

Thus, in the week that the general election is to be kicked off, you can bet your sweet life that none of the main parties is going to be too keen to flag this one. And what is the betting that the BBC does not even report it?

Come to think of it, why is it being reported only in the business section of The Times? Hey folks, £5 billion is a hell of a lot of money – a massive amount of money, a truly gigantic slug of money, an amount of money that it is almost impossible to visualise and no single mortal could conceive of spending.

This, dear readers, should be on the front page of every newspaper and lead item on all the news broadcasts, with the hacks telling us that, this week, the EU is going to take action which, in the fullness of time, will cost us £5 billion.

Of course, this won't happen. That would make it too difficult for Mr Jack-the-lad Straw and his odious claque who keep telling us how much more powerful we have become since the Labour government became more involved in Europe.

Spot the similarities

What do these two trans-national organisations – the European Union and the United Nations – have in common?

Well, it would appear that if you are a whistleblower in the European Union, you get fired. And if you are a whistleblower in the United Nations? Oh… you get fired.

That is the thrust of the story recounted by Philip Sherwell in today's Sunday Telegraph, headed: "The man who tried to blow the whistle on the UN oil-for-food scandal".

The story is about 39-year-old Pakistani-American Rehan Mullick who, for four months in late 2002, repeatedly tried to explain to high-ranking officials at the United Nations how Saddam Hussein had infiltrated and manipulated the $65 billion oil-for-food programme with the collusion of UN staff. No one would listen and two years later he finally received a response - he was fired.

In the Sunday Times, the UN also gets a bashing, but the story is different, focusing on "'Cover-up' row on report clearing Annan", something on which my colleague commented.

Says The Sunday Times, a report that "exonerated" Kofi Annan of knowing about his son's alleged links to the Iraqi oil for food affair has been called into question by a key witness, Pierre Mouselli, a French former business partner of Annan's son Kojo. Documents seen by paper show that the witness's evidence was downgraded in the report on the eve of publication by the committee charged with investigating Annan’s role.

Here, there is another similarity between the UN and EU and it is Anne Applebaum, in the Sunday Telegraph, who provides the clue.

In a comment piece on the UN, she points out that, "because it is accountable to no one, such an international organisation is never going to be good at managing large, long-term projects involving a lot of money, such as the oil-for-food programme."

"Because it is not beholden to a democratic government," she continues, "it will never be the right choice for a major military operation. However comforting, consensual and 'international' it may sound, a decision to 'send in the United Nations" is never going to be the complete solution to any problem.'"

Does that not sound like the EU? "Accountable to no one… not beholden to a democratic government"? Once again, though, Helen got there first.

Accountability, though, is the key word. And, oddly enough, this is the theme of the Booker column today, in a piece that for once eschews comment on the EU to recount how: "HM Customs is a force 'above the law'".

What Booker describes is horrific, but the broader issue is how a government can go completely off the rails and, to press, seems accountable to no one, despite the appalling injustice occasioned by its officials.

This perhaps underlines a point that many would not expect me to make – that the EU is not the fount of all evil. Our own government – and its agencies - is just as capable of acting in a manner redolent of the worst behaviour of the tranzies, demonstrating that the EU is only part of the problem.

However, there may be a greater similarity here, in that we are seeing throughout the West many instances of where governments – democratic in name – are ceasing to function in many respects like democracies. There is a thought that stems from this that the EU is not so much the problem but a symptom of a larger problem, where the very idea of democracy has gone off the rails.

One thing for sure, though, while the problems in the different structures may have their similarities, the solution is not more of the same.

Six down and still "non"

In the sixth consecutive opinion poll on the French EU referendum since 17 March, the "nons" come out once again as the clear winners. Fifty-five percent of those polled have declared their intention to vote "no", against 45 percent who intend to vote "yes".

This is according to an Ifop poll for the Journal du Dimanche newspaper conducted on 31 March and 1 April, which shows a two percentage point rise in the "no" vote from 24 March when the same company carried out a survey for Paris-Match. As with previous polls, though, just over a third of those questioned said they could change their view.

In an interview with Le Figaro, former EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy professed to express no surprise at the results at this stage of the campaign, given the "uncertainty, the ignorance of the issues and confusion" in the face of this "unknown object" on the table: the European constitutional draft treaty.

He is relying on the large proportion of "undecideds" and declared that: "It is time that a 'serious' debate began."

However, Lamy and his colleagues may be over-optimistic in believing that "ignorance" is the major factor in the "no" sentiment. According to a report on the BBC website, the EU constitution has become a surprise bestseller in France with La Chaine Info TV claiming that 200,000 copies of the constitution had sold in four months.

"The number of sales is quite unusual for a topic related to political science or even economics," bookseller Jeanne-Marie Alluin. "Not many books sell so well."

Foreign minister Michel Barnier, nevertheless, is stepping up the government campaign to promote the constitution, sending off a team of campaign buses on a month-long "Tour de France" to inform people about the treaty. If sales of the constitution continue at their present rate, he may find that their efforts are wasted as experience would suggest that the more people know about the constitution, the less they like it.

Furthermore, with the death of Pope John Paul II (about which Helen will be writing), the government may find it has to suspend active campaigning for a period. Altogether, things do not look good for the project.

Damn them…

Just occasionally I get really angry and stand at risk of losing any sense of objectivity. This is one of those times.

Tucked into the news in brief in the Telegraph business section is a 13-line item, headed "Army order" confirming what we expected, that the government has given the order for the entire replacement fleet of British Army trucks to the German MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge firm.

This is outrageous… not because for the first time in its history, the British Army will be driving around in German trucks but, because, by any account, these are sub-standard vehicles and the purchase is being made for political rather than operational reasons.

We have rehearsed the issues in previous postings, when the preferred bidder status was announced, and remarked then how little interest the media was taking in this important decision, which involves a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money and has a serious impact on the operational efficiency of the Army.

Now, history repeats itself, with virtually no coverage given to the decision. I don't know if the government did it purposely, announcing the decision yesterday but, in the manner of this Labour government, yesterday was surely a good time to "bury bad news", knowing that the media would be totally focused on the Pope's condition.

But even without that, as we observed recently, as with Michael Howard’s speech the media have shown a dismal regard for defence issues and have reported them extremely badly.

The only excption in the case is The Scotsman which has at least retailed the Conservative response with the headline: "German Truck Deal Is Bad for Army".

"The Conservatives today," goes the piece, "criticised aspects of £1 billion deal by the Ministry of Defence to buy a fleet of new trucks from a German-based company."

The MoD is saying that the deal, announced by defence procurement minister Lord Bach, "would involve equipping the armed services with over 5,000 'modern, versatile and robust' support vehicles… used to transport large quantities of bulk equipment to front-line troops wherever they are operating."

It adds that the deal would create hundreds of jobs at assembly sites across the UK – not saying, incidentally, that the British-American consortiums which also bid for the contract, with superior products, would have created more work in Britain.

However, the Scotsman piece has as the Conservative’s main criticisms that the government is "short-changing" the armed forces, claiming that the MoD had originally intended to buy almost 8,700 vehicles instead of the 5,000 announced.

Conservative defence spokesman Gerald Howarth is cited saying: "Buying fewer trucks than planned is bad for the Armed Forces. Buying them for political rather than commercial reasons is bad for the taxpayer. Building them in Austria is bad for British workers."

The piece does not specify what is meant by "political reasons" but the fact is that the alternatives were superior and the suspicion is that the government is buying in not only to a truck fleet built by a German manufacturer but also the computer logistics system that goes with the trucks.

This has considerable implications for the whole of the Army for the logistics system is an integral part of any modern military system and must be fully integrated with the battlefield electronics. Thus, the chances are that the truck contract is the first stage in a larger contract for the FRES battlefield concept, which, in order to mesh with the logistics system, will also have to be placed with European manufacturers.

What we are seeing, therefore, is not only a bad decision, but the possible precursor to an Army equipped with European equipment. This will, by its very nature, not be compatible with US equipment, paving the way to the full integration of the Army into the EU defence structure and preventing the British Army working alongside the Americans.

These are important issues and, while one might expect this disreputable government to attempt to bury the bad news, that is no excuse for the media falling in with it. Once again the media have failed to do their job. Damn them.

An odd symmetry

As the life of a courageous man draws to its close, Poland is both mourning and celebrating the life of one of its most famous sons.

Karol Wojtyla, the junior of the two Polish cardinals when John Paul I died after a mere 33 days in office in 1978, was to become catapulted to fame as John Paul II, the first non-Italian to occupy St Peter's seat since Adrian VI, a Dutchman, between 1522 and 1523.

But, by what would be an odd twist of fate, Poland could well keep its position as the motherland of a world leader, if talks currently underway with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski come to fruition.

Kwasniewski has been sounded out as a replacement for the current UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, due to step down in 2006, and has expressed a willingness to be considered if the organisation "was to transform into a body equipped with a bigger political mandate and more active".

Under an informal rotation system, the job should go to an Asian after Annan, an African, ends his second five-year term. But observers are suggesting that it remains unclear whether Asian countries will be able to agree on a single candidate. Should they be unable to do so, a European could be next in the line.

Kwasniewski, 50, a former Communist turned liberal Social Democrat, has won respect in the West for his role in Poland's transformation from a Soviet satellite into a NATO and European Union member, and is slated as a friend of the United States.

However, if Kwasniewski, the Pole, replaced Kofi Annan - known in some circles as the "secular pope" - it could create an odd symmetry: Pope Paul II, the Pole, is widely tipped to be succeeded by a black African, the first in the history of the Papacy.

Eurotrash

Followers of the daily cartoon in the Telegraph business section will readily empathise with Alex who has been lumbered with a "Eurotrash" graduate trainee.

With a German father, Spanish mother, who grew up in France and went to university in Italy, the creepy Christian speaks five languages and attracts total hostility from Alex. He confides with Clive that anyone from abroad wishing to come here for work should be made to take a rigorous test on their linguistic ability and professional qualifications… and should not be let in if they speak more than four languages or "have a blasted MBA".

That example of "Eurotrash" could well have come from one of the Euro-schools featured in an article run by the Telegraph today, which reports on how the UK is challenging their subsidy.

The government, it seems, is also fed up with Eurotrash and is preparing for a showdown with its EU partners over the more than £14 million that Britain spends every year subsidising this network of elite schools set up to service the progeny of EU bureaucrats.

These are the "European Schools", established by the six original member states of the EEC in Luxembourg on 12 April 1957. They are official educational establishments controlled jointly by the governments of the member states of the EU, tasked to provide a free "multicultural, multilingual and multi-denominational" education for nursery, primary and secondary level pupils.

There are currently twelve Schools (Alicante, Uccle, Woluwé, Ixelles, Mol, Bergen, Frankfurt-am-Main, Karlsruhe, Munich, Varese, Culham & Luxembourg), in seven countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain and Luxembourg), with a total of over 16,000 pupils, costing up to £8,000 each per year.

The system is defended strongly by the EU which argues that the availability of high-quality, multi-lingual free schooling "has made it easier for [EU] institutions to recruit experienced, highly qualified staff", confirming the status of the schools as the spawning ground for what is effectively becoming a hereditary caste of Eurocrats.

The trouble is – as always – that Britain spends proportionally more than any other nation on funding the schools, whose overall budget this year is £160 million.

Our government pays the salaries of British teachers seconded to the schools, who comprise about 240 of the 1,400 full-time staff – thanks to a growing demand for native English-speaking instructors. And the teachers do not come cheap, being paid salaries of up to £62,000 a year.

In 2004-5, the Government spent just under £9 million on direct subsidies to the schools and, through British contributions to the EU's overall budget, an additional £5 million of UK taxpayers' money was channelled to them by the EU commission.

Now the funding is to come up for debate next month at a meeting of the board of governors, where the British government is looking for substantial cost-savings. In particular, it objects to the current system of "effectively open-ended EU funding" which "has not provided adequate incentives for better resource management".

Still, it is rather fitting that the Eurotrash should learn the basics of profligate, unaccountable spending, right from the very start of their academic careers, ready to put those skills into use in their professional lives.

Why are we waiting?

It seems the fragrant Margot Wallström, the EU commissioner for truth and reconciliation, might have gone AWOL.

Her Blog, normally updated twice-weekly, has not seen an entry since 22 March which, even accounting for Easter, means that we are missing at least two of her breathless, girlie posts. Has she done a runner, or what?

So you reckon there is no connection?

Word reaches us from another blogiste-confrère that there might be an interesting development in the career of one Franz-Hermann Brüner, at present Director-General of OLAF, the Commission’s own anti-fraud unit, that has been embroiled in more scandals than Enron.

Its most recent achievement was a report, which we shall cover in more detail, that showed beyond any possible doubt (well, errm, beyond any doubt that members of OLAF might have) that the millions of euros handed over to the Palestinian Authority over the years could not possibly have gone to any terrorist organization.

Mind you, they have no idea where it did go and for some reason none of it actually went to the Palestinian people, but that has not stopped OLAF from pronouncing on the subject.

So where do you think Franz-Herman Brüner might be going? Give up? I’ll tell you.

You may have noticed that there has been a certain flap in that holy of holies, the United Nations. Among other things the Volcker Report mentioned was the fact that Dileep Nair, who heads the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services, had hired an assistant using money from the oil-for-food programme.

So what you might ask. A busy man like Mr Nair needs assistants. Unfortunately, this one did no work for the programme. No-one seems to be able to establish whether said assistant did any work at all.

Nair is about to come to the end of his five year term, so this report has not come at a particularly good time. Not only is he being charged with violations of UN staff regulations but there is a strong possibility of old charges that had been dismissed with a contemptuous shrug resurfacing. These, needless to say, have to do with sexual harassment (are they all at it?) and hiring favouritism on the basis of nationality (yes, they are all at it).

So, Fred Eckhard, UN chief spokesman (there’s a job I would not want for all the tea in China) has produced a short list of possible successors. And who heads the list? Yup, that’s right. Our own Herr Brüner.

And there are still people out there, who think there is no connection between all these organizations and the tranzi staff that fill them?

Normal service resumes

It is well after midday and time to catch up with the “saintly” Kofi Annan (father of Kojo, described in an Australian newspaper as one of the “international bratpack”).

It seems that the cheerleaders, such as the entirely impartial BBC (stop sniggering) are a little premature. The actual investigators are not all that convinced that SecGen Annan has been exonerated.

In fact, one of them, Mark Pieth, a professor of criminal law and criminology at the University of Basel, made his views very plain, indeed:

“We did not exonerate Kofi Annan. We should not brush this off. A certain mea culpa would have been appropriate.”

Professor Pieth also made it clear that Cotecna, the Swiss firm at the heart of the Annan personal imbroglio, has not been entirely forthcoming with its evidence or accounts (both financial and historical):

“It’s a continuous history of us confronting them, them owning up to something and then backtracking.”

For instance, there was the discrepancy of how much Kojo Annan was paid and for how long. An even more interesting discrepancy that involves the SecGen personally is the number of times he met representatives of Cotecna and the length of time those meetings took.

He says once (or maybe once or twice) very briefly; they say at least twice at length in private sessions. Well, as they say, you pays your money and you takes your choice or in the case of the UN SecGen, you pays somebody else’s money.

We must wait for the various Congressional reports and the final one from the Vocker Commission, due in mid-summer. Mr Vocker, himself something of a UN cheer leader, remains up-beat. His reports will help to bring about:

“a reformed UN, a UN capable of commanding and maintainint the support of its member states and the public at large”.

Well, make up your mind, which of those supports are you interested in?

In the circumstances I found it very interesting to go back to a chapter John Bolton, incoming US ambassador to the UN, wrote about that institution and its relationship with the United States, almost ten years ago in a volume published by Cato Institute.

Entitled The Creation, Fall, Rise, and Fall of the United Nations, the chapter defines the need for the United States to establish and maintain its relationship with the UN (whose largest contributor the country is) on a basis that puts American interests first.

Mr Bolton attacks the Clinton administration’s obsession with the need to submit American interests to some form of nebulous concept of multilateralism and the disasters (for instance in Somalia and the Balkans) that resulted from it.

“But more is at stake here than just wasting American tax dollars, although that is bad enough. By the Clinton administration’s own admission, it has deceived the American public about UN reform for the last four years. During testimony before congressional committees, in public speeches, and in private conversations, the Clinton team argued repeatedly that Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was committed to major administrative and management reform.

They made those claims even after the American under secretary-general for management and administration, selected by the Clinton administration, was fired for being unsuited for the job. They made those claims even after the first Office of UN Inspector General was exposed as a toothless watchdog. And they even made those claims while the secretary-general was recalling and shredding the comprehensive report on UN reform by former under secretary general Richard Thornburgh.”

Well, well, Sounds familiar?

Eventually, the Clinton administration abandoned Boutros-Ghali as being surplus to requirement but agreed to be manoueuvred into supporting the candidacy of Kofi Annan. In case any of our readers have forgotten, he, too, came in on the reform ticket (well, no, since you ask, he was not elected).

This is what John Bolton wrote in 1996:

“The winner, Kofi Annan, was certainly preferable to Salim [then head of the Organization of African Unity]. Virtually all of Annan’s career has been within the UN system, frequently in management and personnel positions. Few know ‘‘the system’’ better than Annan. He is, therefore, in the best possible position to deliver on reform, for bureaucratic trials, jargon, and obfuscation are not likely to distract him if he is truly engaged. From January 1, 1997, forward, the world can judge his performance—and his will.”

Quite so. The world is judging him, his performance, his will and, if that is not an oxymoron, his sense of honour.

Stakeholders at the ready

The beloved EU commission president José Manuel Durao Barroso is back in his home country today to receive the "personality of the year" award from the foreign media corps.

Addressing the fawning journos, he bestowed upon them his considered comments on the "French situation", saying that there were "reasons for the EU to be concerned" about a victory of the "no" vote in the French referendum.

Nevertheless, José Manuel Durao Barroso remained optimistic, declaring that the French would "live up to the great French tradition" - France being "essential to this whole major European project".

Portuguese foreign minister Diogo Freitas do Amaral then joined in the love-fest with his own declaration of optimism, stating that if the "no" wins in France, it will not mean the end of the European project. "There is no need to make a big drama. There will be other ways to move forward," he said.

In many ways, it seems, the project is rather like Count Dracula. You not only have to kill it – you have to drive a stake through its heart as well. Presumably, that is why we need all these stakeholders.

On this day…

We take it all back. Margot Wallström's blog is wonderful. The Commission is a paradigm of virtue, the EU is a thoroughly democratic organisation and we fully support the EU constitution.

And by the way, Kofi Annan is a saint.

That's enough foolery - ed.

Blogs away!

For personal reasons I find it impossible not to add a short post-script to my colleague’s posting on blogs. As luck would have it, today’s opinion piece from the Ludwig von Mises Institute was also partly about blogs.

Written by Tibor Machan, whose writings I find endlessly entertaining and informative, it was entitled The Alleged Dangers of Progress.

Mr Machan hit out at all the people who bemoan technological progress, allegedly because it is always put to bad purpose by a few users but really because much of it gives individuals more freedom to make decisions for themselves.

He referred back to some conference of journalists, reported in Newsweek, where there was a ritual moaning about blogs.

“But instead of saying outright, "We are worried about our jobs," the journalists whose concerns were reported couched their beef in terms of politics and social justice. The problem you see is, some of them cried: most bloggers are white and male. So, clearly, the forum is biased in the most horrible way:it discriminates against minorities. Or perhaps not.”

The point, Mr Machan explains, is that blogs express an endless variety of opinions and who writes them specifically is not important. In fact, one could argue that it is one of the advantage of blogs that nobody really knows anything about the people who write them (except for those silly on-line diaries).

And it is here that the political became almost personal for me. Mr Machan said, quite rightly:

“Why is it so important to track whether women, blacks, those of Italian or Hungarian background choose to blog? What should matter, if anything, is whether people with different things to say take advantage of the medium.”

Maybe it is not important, I said, but hey, two out of four ain't bad. Thank you Mr Machan.