Back in my student days I used to read about the pre-revolutionary regimes in France and Russia in the 1780s and the 1910s respectively, I used to wonder how it is that people in a position of authority or, at least, some knowledge, could be so blind as to what is happening.
Well, autres temps, autres moeurs. But here we are faced with the Ancien Règime again. The world is shaking around them and they still cannot understand what is going on.
It could be President Chirac rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, Lord Patten (formerly Commissioner Chris Patten) telling us that we must not gloat over the French (who is gloating – we are all congratulating them) or Bob Geldof bringing out his superannuated rock singers for a reprise of the Live Aid Concert of twenty years ago, that, even on his own account helped not one single starving Ethiopian.
But yes, there he is again, telling us in soulful tones that we must have make one more effort, double the aid, not let people starve. It is all wrong, he sobs.
What is all wrong? Trade apparently is all wrong, because it undermines people’s income.
Why are we listening to these people? They know nothing and understand nothing. They know no history, no economics, no sociology. Who in their right mind considers Bob Geldof or Kate Moss an authority on anything whatsoever?
Well, the Ancien Règime does. They do not hear the people telling them that they have had enough. They have had enough of the drive towards transnational organizations and ridiculous self-important international trashy celebs.
The people of Europe are beginning to say no to further integration.
More and more people in Africa and other developing countries are saying that they do not want “trade justice”, which leaves them in poverty but provides well-off westerners with a self-satisfied glow; they do not want their debts written off because that does not help the countries, merely the governments who have created the problems; they want trade, they want investment, they want real money not aid that is stolen, embezzled, spent on guns, prisons, terrorism and endless palaces for the leaders.
But hey, that’s only the people talking. The Ancien Règime knows better. “C’est une révolte? Non, Sire, c’est une revolution.”
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
L’Ancien Règime
Posted by
Helen
at
19:37
Printable Version
Print
Man of the people
So the people have spoken and, as we predicted, Raffarin is toast. And what does L'Escroc do? He appoints Dominique de Villepin, former diplomat, intellectual, poet and member of the élite, who has never had to face the electorate.
Nice one Jacques.
Posted by
Richard
at
17:45
Printable Version
Print
Out on a limb
Not for the first time, this Blog is swimming against the tide. But, to make sure there is no misunderstanding, we are saying unequivocally that there will be a British referendum.
Be under no misunderstanding, the decision to carry on with the ratification process is not one that can be made by any member state. Even Chirac knew that. It is "owned" by the European Council, which will meet on 16/17 June and then make its formal announcement.
As it stands, 24 of the 25 member states – the one exception being the UK – has already committed to continuing with ratification. And, as Thatcher found to her cost at Milan in 1985, a Council vote is carried by a simple majority.
On that basis, Blair will not submit himself to the humiliation of being outvoted and being instructed by the "colleagues" to continue with his referendum plans. He will therefore declare that it is his decision to carry on, in the "interests of democracy".
That, in effect, will give him the moral high ground, because he will have decided to "listen to the people". It will give him "ownership" of the referendum, backfooting the Tories who have been calling for it to be abandoned.
Furthermore, as we have argued in our previous posting, a referendum on these terms could be winnable. Blair would simply say that, with the French out of the way, Britain could take the leadership of Europe. "Vote 'yes' for reform", would be the strong, and persuasive message.
Perversely, that could also bring the French back on-side. Under a new president in 2007, the message could be that the "Anglo Saxons are capturing Europe – we must get back in to rescue it".
For the moment, though, the colleagues are looking to buy time, and the only option available to them, short of conceding defeat – which they cannot and will not do - is to continue with the ratification. That is why, even despite the expected Dutch "no" – which has already been discounted - they will take this course of action. And that is why, on 16 or 17 June, if not before, Blair will announce that the referendum will go ahead.
Then the injunction given by Blair on 20 April 2004 to the House of Commons - as he announced his intention to hold a referendum - will really come alive: "Let the issue be put and let the battle be joined".
We are ready.
Posted by
Richard
at
16:03
Printable Version
Print
The final betrayal
From a purely domestic standpoint, the most interesting piece in the torrent of media coverage today on matters EU is the inside page-piece in The Daily Telegraph headed: Clarke urged to stand as leader.
Although this headline does not suggest that the story is about "Europe", that is indeed what it is about. The text tells us that Kenneth Clarke is being urged by "Tory moderates" to stand for the party leadership "as the Government prepares to abandon plans for a referendum on the European Union constitution."
The word is, according to The Telegraph that the Europhile Clarke was now in a strong position to lead a "grand coalition" of moderates against the favourite, David Davis, who is from the centre-Right, with the way opened up for the Europhile Mr Clarke because the French "no" vote meant Europe would not be such a divisive issue in the leadership campaign later this year.
This story swept Westminster yesterday and is undoubtedly true. It reflects the "don’t mention Europe" paranoia of the Tory "modernisers, which drove the environment and farming shadow minister to do a whole interview about farming without mentioning the EU once.
This also explains Liam Fox's barely concealed delight that the French referendum result might mean the cancellation of the British referendum, and his insistence that it should be called off. He is cited in today's Telegraph as saying that it was time to pronounce the treaty dead: "It does not do what the people of Europe want and I think it should be put to rest."
The real message, of course, is that, with no referendum, the Tory "modernisers" can kick the whole embarrassing subject of the EU into the long grass and concentrate on their "schools 'n' hospitals" agenda – even if that current stance is a major U-turn. In the general election, Howard promised that, if a Conservative government were elected, he would name the day for a referendum the moment he walked into Downing Street.
Thus, at a time when the EU is, at last, at the centre of debate and people want leadership on one of the most important political issue of our time, it seems the certain Tories are pushing hard to remove it from the agenda altogether.
Given that the Party took us into the EEC in the first place – and give us the Single European Act and Maastricht – this would represent the final betrayal.
Posted by
Richard
at
11:53
Printable Version
Print
The voice of bitter experience
In the letters column of The Daily Telegraph today, Mr Jonathan Wilson of Dublin writes:
Your editorial (30 May) is correct: the French Non will not stop the EU or even make it think again. The hallmark of the EU is its contempt for democracy and the will of the people, which are viewed as inconvenient. The EU will push ahead regardless.Despite all the whiffle in today's press, I suspect Mr Wilson may be right. As we have observed, the fat lady hasn't sung yet.
When we in Ireland previously voted No, we were, in effect, sent to bed without any supper and told to vote the correct way the next time, which, to our shame, we did.
Posted by
Richard
at
11:09
Printable Version
Print
Life goes on
Well, it does in Germany anyway. The Christian Democrats, fresh from their various triumphs in länder elections, particularly that of North Rhine-Westphalia, are preparing for battle.
They, together with the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (their sister party), have elected Angela Merkel to be their leader in the forthcoming election that Chancellor Schröder has called for September.
The Social-Democrats are especially weak at the moment and this could be the Christian-Democrats’ chance to regain power and, perhaps, to introduce some genuine reforms in the German social and economic system.
There is no particular sign that the party has changed its attitude to the European project, as each German leader so far, no matter of what political allegiance, has been associated with European integration.
However, the times they are a’changin’. As the Second World War and its immediate aftermath slips further and further into history (this year’s anniversary is the last one at which any sizeable number of people who can remember what happened will be present) fewer and fewer Germans will accept that they are for ever to be branded as the evildoers of Europe.
With the East Europeans demanding more and more loudly that Communism should be seen in its proper light as an evil totalitarian tyranny, attention on the Nazism will be diluted.
The Germans will be able to say, as many of them do, that twelve years of horror do not invalidate the rest of history; that youngsters whose parents were not born till afterwards should not be punished for the sins of their grand and great-grand fathers; that life and history must go on.
The “beautiful moment” of post-war corporatism and French supremacy ought to have been abandoned with Chancellor Schröder, the first leader of the post-war generation. Unfortunately, his weak internal position meant that he continued to trail in the wake of President Chirac.
If Angela Merkel becomes the next Chancellor, she may well find herself in a position to assert German policy instead of feebly repeating the need for a European (for which read French) point of view. And that will be all to the good.
Posted by
Helen
at
09:56
Printable Version
Print
And here's one I lost earlier
This blog is by no means alone in predicting dire consequences for referendums, the pollsters currently having a field day on the Dutch referendum.
A poll conducted by Maurice de Hond for Dutch TV on Saturday showed 57 percent of voters were against the constitution and the latest shows a clear majority for the "nee" camp of 59 percent.
Trailing along in the wake of Chirac, it is now Jan-Peter Balkenende's turn, as prime minister of the next lamb to the slaughter to issue "an urgent appeal to voters", this time imploring them to ignore the French result and make up their own minds.
However, Balkenende has perhaps left it a bit late to make his appeals, which seem to be having very little, if any, effect. He might have been better advised to have read a report published ten months ago, which we featured in this Blog.
Headed: "Why European citizens will reject the EU constitution", it was written by a Dutch academic, Claes H. de Vreese, who attempted to impose a rigid scientific discipline on referendum predictions.
In so doing, he carried out a complex statistical analysis of existing data, in order to isolate the most important issues that determine a result. He came up with three key variables which influence voting behaviour. These were: attitudes on immigration; economic outlook; and sentiments towards the national government.
Basically, those who express negative views on immigration; who are pessimistic about economic prospects; and/or do not support their current government, are more likely to vote "no" in a referendum. Of the three issues, it seems that "immigration" is the most important.
Putting these factors together, de Vreese wrote that the constitutional referendums "will result in a 'no' outcome under conditions of high levels of anti-immigration sentiments, pessimistic economic outlooks, and/or unpopularity of a government" - exactly the conditions which prevail in The Netherlands.
He thus concluded that any government calling for a referendum "must be very popular to compensate for the negative impact of economic pessimism and anti-immigration sentiments" in order to win the vote.
At the time the paper was published, I wrote that it was "essential reading for referendum campaigners". From all the current indications, however, it does not look as if Balkenende read it – otherwise, without even looking at the polls, he would have known he was going to lose.
In this context, I suppose, the prime minister can mark down his referendum on Wednesday – in the matter of a television chef – as "one I lost earlier".
Posted by
Richard
at
01:01
Printable Version
Print
Monday, May 30, 2005
How Britain could lose the referendum
It may or may not have percolated the brains of those still celebrating the French "victory" on the EU constitution that the leaders of all but one of the members states which have planned referendums have decided to continue with their plans. The only exception is Tony Blair who has neither confirmed nor denied that the referendum will go ahead.
As time passes, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the reaction of the "colleagues" is to continue with the ratification process and it becomes more and more likely that Blair will be forced to continue with the British referendum – that is, if he does not decide to go voluntarily.
In the latter context, there is every reason why he should wish to proceed. Not only will this be necessary to keep "on-side" with the colleagues, but there is every reason for him to believe that the French referendum has changed the situation so much that he could actually win the contest.
These issues have been rehearsed in a previous post and, used imaginatively, could prove powerful weapons in a "yes" campaign.
Firstly, there is the argument that the very fact of a French rejection itself proves that the constitution is "good for Britain", as both the prime minister and his foreign secretary have been asserting. Secondly, the fact that France – albeit temporarily – is out of the running in the ratification stakes – means that a case can be made for Britain assuming the leadership of "Europe", alongside perhaps Germany.
By employing these arguments, the referendum could be positioned as both an opportunity to "kick the French in the teeth" and to "get one over them", either or both having considerable appeal to large sections of the British population.
Alongside these issues, there is another powerful weapon at the disposal of the "yes" campaign which, perversely, exploits the unpopularity of Blair. As we have seen with France, at least an element of the “no” vote was a vote against the deadly duo of Chirac and Raffarin, and conventional wisdom suggests that a segment of the British "no" vote could similarly be an anti-Blair vote.
However, if Blair let it be known that he intends to step down from the premiership in the event of a successful "yes" vote – and only in that event – the potential anti-Blair sentiment could be converted into a "yes" vote, as a means of getting rid of him. It would also have the beneficial side-effect of tying in the Brownites into the "yes" alliance, as the most assured way of getting their leader into power.
Another factor that could assist Blair is the ineptitude of the established no campaign which, on current form, can be virtually guaranteed to do and say the wrong things.
In this, Blair has been offered another unexpected gift – the Conservative leadership contest. While the prime minister will be using the EU presidency to "make the case for Europe", the Conservatives will be navel-gazing, their key players looking for personal advantage rather than focusing on the the forthcoming referendum campaign.
Tied in with that is the "Clarke effect", the disproportionate grip the former Tory chancellor has over the Tory hierarchy, and his ability to keep "Europe" off the agenda. Already, on the World at One today, he opined that the French "no" vote should mean that Europe will not be a major issue in the leadership contest.
Even without Clarke, it is almost certain that the "moderniser" faction in the Party will readily conspire to keep the issue low key. This means that any contribution that the Conservative Party makes to the "no" campaign when the referendum goes into high gear will be late, low key and minimalist. There is a risk, therefore, that - as with the NE regional assembly referendum – the Conservatives will only make a token effort.
Putting all this together, the great "victory" of the French referendum may in fact turn out to be a "poison pill" presenting the Eurosceptics with a major challenge and the best opportunity Blair is ever likely to get to win the referendum - a referendum that we could actually lose.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:22
Printable Version
Print
The things they say
It would be a serious error to suspend the process of ratification, now it is necessary to raise the question with the other countries. France decides only for France, even if it is an important country.
Josep Borrell, president of the EU parliament
The battle continues. We respect the result of this democratic vote… But in voting "no", French voters voted against the opportunity to create better Europe.
Socialist Group leader Martin Schulz
The EU is composed of 450 million citizens and its future cannot be decided by voters in one EU member state.
Graham Watson, leader of the ALDE
The rejection of the Constitution is not the end of the world, the EU will continue under the aegis of the Treaty of Nice. The true tragedy is that the French lost exactly that to which they aspired: a true democracy and European solidarity - the creation of a European Republic.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Co-president of Greens/EFA
He stresses the importance of continuing the process of ratification in the remainder of the Member States.
Elmar Brok, MEP
...a refusal of the European Constitution by one country does not mean the Constitution's end. The ratification process continues until all 25 member states have spoken out on this historic project.
Josef Leinen, chairman of the EP constitution committee
29 May is a very, very sad day for France and also for Europe but the rumours of the death of the European Constitution are highly exaggerated.
Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, president of the European Socialist Party
Nine countries have said "Yes" and one has said "No". We must take account of the democratic will of the majority as well as the minority in finding a solution. Every EU country has a right to have a say. France alone cannot decide for the whole of Europe.
Richard Corbett, MEP
Posted by
Richard
at
17:15
Printable Version
Print
With one bound, they will be free
The morning after, it looks like the end of a Dick Tracy episode. The hero is bound and gagged, facing a certain, horribly violent death - and the credits start rolling. The next episode, you just know something will happen – however implausible – and, with one bound, our hero will be free.
So it is with the EU constitution. It may look as if it faces certain death but, as we indicated in our earlier post, the game is very far from over.
The reason it isn't over is because, when push comes to shove, there really isn't a "plan B". The European Union only has one policy and one objective – political integration. It does not know anything else and cannot do anything else, so it will continue with the only thing it knows how to do.
In this, the Daily Telegraph leader comes closest to divining the reality, declaring that: "Mere democracy won't stop the EU machine." The project was never meant to be democratic, it says.
From the first, the EU's founding fathers understood that it needed to be immune to public opinion. The genius of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman was to design a system in which supreme power was wielded by unelected officials, and in which the peoples were presented with a series of faits accomplis. When, in 1992, they got their first No vote in Denmark's referendum on Maastricht, our masters were too set in their ways to consider respecting the result, and so pushed on regardless. They will do the same thing today.And, if you listen to the voices above the blather of mindless hacks and ill-informed commentators, the strategy of the "colleagues" is already clear. Sticking firmly to the script, Blair has responded with the same words uttered by his foreign secretary, saying it was "too early to decide whether or not Britain will hold a referendum on the EU constitution." What we need, he said, is "time for reflection".
It is too late to affect the result of the Netherlands vote, and that has already been discounted, but the action will then move to Brussels and the European Council on 16/17 June. There, you can predict with certainty the arguments that will be raised. It would be "unfair" to allow just a few countries to dictate the future of Europe – every country must have a chance to express its opinion on the constitution.
The view of Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker, currently holding the EU presidency, will then prevail. "The process of ratification must continue in the other countries," he has said. The "colleagues" will therefore agree that, "in the interests of democracy", the process of ratification should continue, with a review of the situation once it is completed.
That buys time until late 2006, and might even get them through into 2007, when the French presidency election will be held. Interestingly, it gets Blair off the hook for the British EU presidency, as the issue is sidelined until the following year.
In the meantime, Denmark will become the new battlefield, and you will see the "colleagues" pull out all the stops in an attempt to stem the tide of noes. Perversely, they will look to the Eurosceptic Danes to save le projet.
Then it will be on to the British referendum. And already you can see the new line emerging. The very fact that France has rejected the constitution reinforces the idea that it is "good for Britain", with the secondary line that the French "no" gives Britain an opportunity to take the lead in Europe. With the full weight of the establishment behind that message, there is no guarantee that the country would not deliver a "yes".
In their dreams, the "colleagues" could then envisage resubmitting the question to the French, under a new president, perhaps with the addition of an "explanatory declaration" appended to the constitution, emphasising the "social values" of the treaty.
All that is for the future, but there is no question that the "colleagues" will not let their treasured project die - they cannot. All too soon, we will see the next episode and, with one bound, they will be free.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:28
Printable Version
Print
The fat lady hasn't sung yet
It may have been a delicious evening. No, correction. It was a delicious evening, watching all those Euro-luvvies squirm.
Apparently, according to the Financial Times, a tattered European Union flag had been lowered to half mast in the heart of the Brussels' EU quarter even before the French polls closed at 10pm last night. That says something: flags should be struck before dusk, so it should not have been flying anyway.
But, if the Euro-luvvies get their way, the flag won't be at half-mast for long. Already, they have crafted their response, and it seems to be very much along the lines suggested by the Instituto Affari Internazionali.
Both Juncker and Barroso at the press conference after the result was declared, made reference to Declaration 30, stating that the ratification process should continue. Nothing, at least in the immediate future, must undermine the Dutch referendum.
Over the coming days, reports The Financial Times, Juncker will then meet 24 fellow European leaders, including Blair, some of whom will express severe doubts about whether they can ratify a treaty so decisively rejected by France.
Some "prominent 'yes' campaigners" in Britain, including Lib-dim Sir Menzies Campbell, are being more forthright. This one says it was "frankly silly" for Britain to proceed with its referendum. Even Nigel Farage, on Sky TV, declared the treaty "dead" and called for a broader referendum on Britain's relationship with Europe.
Liam Fox, Conservative shadow foreign minister, also piled in, calling for Blair to state whether Britain would now abandon attempts to ratify, in which case, said Fox, there would be no need to call a referendum – barely concealing his relief at the prospect of avoiding a contest that can only split the Tories.
But what all these erudite spokespersons failed to take into account is that member states cannot call a halt to the ratification process. Collectively, all 25 have committed themselves to seek ratification in their own countries. A decision to suspend or abandon the process can only be done collegially, in the European Council.
Thus, it was Chirac who got it right. Having avoided the temptation to throw his toys out of the pram, he referred in his guarded statement to the European Council meeting of 16 June. "There," he said, "I shall defend the positions of our country, while keeping in mind the message given by French men and women. But let us make no mistake, France's decision inevitably creates a difficult context for the defence of our interests in Europe."
It is at the European Council that the decision is going to be made and, on current evidence, the indications are that the "colleagues" will decide - by majority vote if need be - to continue the ratification process. Even now, some are also talking about asking France to conduct another vote, but that is for the future. At the moment, the imperative is to buy time, and continuing as before will do just that.
Straw, our own foreign secretary, gives the game away, sticking to the crafted line, that the French rejection of the treaty should be followed by "a period of reflection". What then will happen remains anybody’s guess, but the best minds of the Commission and the foreign ministries of the member states will be working on the problem.
But it was Jacques "Wheel" Barrot, the French transport commissioner, who, quoted by The Times, gives a clue. "It (the French rejection)", he said, "reminds me of the rejection of the European defence policy (by France in 1954)." And, as we reminded you recently on this Blog, from the wreckage of that rejection, three years later emerged the Treaty of Rome.
Throughout its history, the "project" has shown a remarkable ability to recover from what at the time seemed terminal disasters. So, as always, it is worth remembering that it ain't over until the fat lady sings – and she hasn't sung yet.
Posted by
Richard
at
01:01
Printable Version
Print
Labels: Liam Fox
Sunday, May 29, 2005
This was their finest hour
I was only going to use this if the "oui" camp had won the referendum, but hey! I couldn't resist the temptation, so here it is anyway:
The Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'W S Churchill, 18 June 1940, in a speech to the House of Commons.
Posted by
Richard
at
23:37
Printable Version
Print
Actually, we won
"Many of those who voted 'no' were voting for more Europe. If some of their votes are added to the ‘yes’ vote, we have won."
Jean-Claude Juncker, president-of-Europe-for-not-very-much-longer, explaining to a press conference how the "yes" camp actually won the referendum.
Posted by
Richard
at
23:19
Printable Version
Print
83 percent of votes counted
Corrected score now stands at 57 percent NO - 42 percent YES, with 83 percent of the votes counted. Chirac, says Caroline Wyatt of BBC Radio 4, "has been dealt a humiliating blow".
Posted by
Richard
at
22:00
Printable Version
Print
Banality rampant
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest the fragrant Margot has reduced her blog to a banality that is almost stupendous. As several of the comments said, the only interesting part of the whole exercise is reading other people’s comments.
I particularly like to read the objections to her fluffy bunny silliness raised by various more or less angry people across Europe. There is for instance the reader who has been trying to get an answer to a perfectly ordinary question: how does she square her boo-hooing about the Holocaust with the fact that the Commission authorizes payment to Palestinian broadcasting groups that spread vicious anti-Semitic propaganda?
There is no answer to this, partly because the fragrant Commissar together with her colleagues is unable to connect two separate concepts: Holocaust and anti-Semitism. The Holocaust is something bad that happened in vacuum in the strange world that these people live in.
What is there in the posting? Well, the fragrant Commissar rejoices because it is summer, just as she rejoiced because it was spring, though she also thought of buying a shotgun.
She rejoices that Kuwaiti women now have the vote though seems entirely unfazed by the fact that Swedish women, or German women or various other women and men are not allowed to vote on the European Constitution.
In fact, she is still unhappy about the referendums as these show that it is difficult to put complex points into simple questions. And, of course, if you ask the people, you might not get the answer you want. As by now, the fragrant one must have realized.
And she worries about the Amazon rainforest. Several rather caustic comments were made on the blog about the fact that it is not her highly paid job to worry about the rain forest, particularly as she seems to know next to nothing about it, beyond the fact that some tribes still live there. Wow!
She will keep us posted, she says. More freebies for the fragrant Commissar, methinks. Should she not sit around trying to rescue the situation with the European Constitution? After all, she was supposed to “sell” it to the people.
Posted by
Helen
at
21:51
Printable Version
Print
As France votes and Netherlands watches
It is no longer the “peripheral” countries like Britain or the Scandinavians, let alone the new East European members that cause or are likely to cause problems. The rot is there at the heart of the project in a way that has astonished the euro-elite.
A couple of days ago I took part in a short discussion on Sky News about the French referendum with Baroness Ludford MEP. (I have maintained for some time that the broadcasters do no favours to the yes side by inviting MEPs and other official beneficiaries of the system. Perhaps, nobody else will agree to take part. But who is going to listen to someone who spends her life dashing from the European Parliament to the House of Lords, travelling 1st class on the Eurostar at the taxpayers’ expense?)
Baroness Ludford was not too happy. She tried all the usual arguments about streamlining the rules, defining roles and giving various rights to parliaments. But she could not get round the fact that a 400-plus page document is not precisely streamlining or, my final argument, that the project has trundled on for years, as one of the political elite. Now the people are finally speaking up and they do not like it.
The good baroness flounced out of the studio, muttering about the many thousands of pages that the British constitution consists of but not waiting for any replies.
It has always been clear in the minds of the founding fathers, like Monnet, that the European project must be pushed forward without any inconvenient intervention by the people of Europe. And how right they were. If only Giscard d’Estaing had not come up with his grandiose plans for a Constitution, this treaty, too, might have slipped in with nothing much more than a bit of grumbling on the periphery.
Indeed, that was expected with some disdain. In January at a conference in Vienna, I debated with Aurore Wanlin, a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform. Her arguments, pronounced with a charming French accent were that the Constitution was making the EU more democratic because it was introducing more layers in the structure.
Mine were much simpler: if there is no accountability there is no democracy. But the funniest discussion, in retrospect was about the possibility of Britain voting no. Well, she said primly, France will be quite happy if Britain simply leaves the EU. I asked whether France would be quite so happy to lose Britain’s financial contributions and answer came there none.
A couple of months later I noticed that Ms Wanlin published an article in which she explained that the success of the French no campaign showed that the EU had lost touch with the people of Europe. Amazing what one can find out in two or three months.
The Centre for European Reform, an erstwhile perestroika europhile think-tank, now a flag-waving, cheer-leading supporter of the project (with young Mark Leonard as its foreign affairs director), seems to be brooding on the possibility of no votes in France and the Netherlands.
They are a wonderful institution and their papers appear to be solid, well researched and carefully argued in a balanced sort of way. Except for the fact that there is no possibility envisaged of the project not being the best thing since sliced bread.
The two recent papers on the possibility of a French no and the probability of a Dutch one are carefully given to a discussion of what to do, how to salvage the treaty in that dire situation.
One solution would be to save parts of the treaty and effectively introduce them in a more surreptitious fashion.
“Of course, such attempts to save parts of the constitutional treaty – either through informal application or a mini-IGC – would be highly controversial.Eurosceptics in Britain, France and elsewhere would complain that once again political elites were arrogantly strenghtening the EU behind the backs of the people. If a single EU government felt weak-kneed at the prospect of incurring eurosceptic wrath, such attempt could not work. Both the informal application of parts of the treaty and a mini-IGC would require the unanimous support of every member-state.”Note, please, the reference to that inconvenient aspect of the whole process, the people, now known as the source of “eurosceptic wrath” to be overcome by the wise and strong-minded governments.
And what if the Dutch vote nee? Well, surely, says the Centre for European Reform, we have been here before. After all, the Danish and Irish governments managed to persuade their countries to vote yes the second time round.
It seems quite extraordinary, but these people actually do not understand what it is they are saying.
In the meantime, let me remind our readers of one of the most glorious if seriously ridiculous scenes in cinema history. The film: Casablanca, the place: Rick’s Bar. German officers start singing the Horst Wessel Song when Viktor László, the leader of the Czech resistance, for some reason bearing a Hungarian name, takes over and instructs the band to play the Marseillaise.
They do so and one by one all the staff and customers join in, till the entire bar resounds to the words:
Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos battaillons!
Marchons, marchons!
Qu’un sang impure
Abbreuve nos sillons!
Posted by
Helen
at
21:31
Printable Version
Print
Un petit grand "non"!
Yeeehaaaaaaaaaaaa! FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT Noooooooooooooooon!!!!
That is the poll prediction, based on a balanced sample of early votes counted. Looks good to me. Raffarin is toast, with Chirac to follow!
Joy, joy and double joy!
Posted by
Richard
at
21:01
Printable Version
Print
Rumours
According to a, French site, rumours are circulating that the “non” vote may be 54-55 percent, with a turnout at 70.5 percent.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:52
Printable Version
Print
Too close to call?
According to a Brussels source, private exit polling is suggesting that the result is too close to call, with a number or regions giving a small "yes" and others a more substantial "no" – up to ten percent.
From our Swedish correspondent, it appears that Swedish TV news, in the least hour, broadcast details of three exit polls which gave show 52, 50.8 and 49.6 for the "no" campaign – i.e., one poll showed a slim win for "yes".
That, however, was from one of the overseas Departement: Guyana. Some of the Wayampi must have read the constitution before they used it for wrapping tapir meat and lighting fires – or perhaps not.
The final turnout looks to be large - somewhere between 70 and 80 percent - with the interior ministry reporting 66.24 percent by 7 pm (Paris time). Nevertheless, at this stage, the result is still anybody's guess. Chirac's vote factories must be working overtime.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:28
Printable Version
Print
No means: "full steam ahead"
Pending announcement of the French result, this Blog has received an intriguing document produced by the Instituto Affari Internazionali, entitled "The European Constitution: How to proceed if France or the Netherlands votes 'no'".
In short, the authors conclude that, in the event of one or both countries voting "no", the ratification process should be neither suspended nor abandoned. They assert that all member states have expressed a commitment to proceed with ratification by virtue of Declaration 30, appended to the Constitutional Treaty. Member states cannot unilaterally or collectively decide to change the ratification process.
Thus, member states which have not already ratified should continue with the process whence, once 20 members have done so, the matter should be referred to the European Council.
In the meantime, the authors caution that "the European Union must not remain paralysed". Rather, they say, "it must continue and intensify its efforts to relaunch its policies, even by implementing in advance, where possible, the provisions of the Treaty that do not meet with open opposition".
Thus, the considered response in the event of a rejection of the constitution should be "full steam ahead". Member states should implement it even faster than they are doing already.
So what, precisely, do we have to do to stop this thing?
Posted by
Richard
at
16:21
Printable Version
Print
French referendum update
Courtesy of Le Monde - brought to our attention by a vigilant reader – some details on the French referendum are trickling in.
The turnout has been reported to be 25.08 percent at midday – with the turnout in Paris at 18.2 percent - compared with 20.39 percent at the same time during the Maastricht referendum on 20 September 1992.
By contrast, there have been reported "massive abstentions" in the overseas Departements. These reached 77.79 percent in Guadeloupe, 71.63 percent in Martinique, the French West Indies, and 76.85 percent in Guyana. However, even this low turnout was higher than that recorded in the Maastricht referendum, by about five points.
As to mainland France, in the Euro-elections on 13 June last, only 13.56 percent of registered voters had gone to the ballot boxes by midday. In many Departements, the turnout has been reported as exceeding 30 percent although, in some, a small decline has been noted.
The weather is reckoned to have a crucial effect on the overall turnout, with good weather tending to increase the abstentions, and while the weather is currently good, rain and storms are predicted in Atlantic northern France later today.
Political analysts remained cautious about the implications of a strong turnout, with both sides claiming it will favour them.
In total, nearly 42 million are eligible to vote and the polling stations will stay open until 8 pm in the provinces (7 pm our time) with an extension to 10 pm (9 pm our time) in Paris and Lyon. By law, the first estimates of results cannot be announced before 10pm.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:55
Printable Version
Print
Stop it!
One must not laugh… it is totally puerile. But I would really have difficulty standing on a platform alongside this man, and keeping a straight face.
Perhaps this is the reason for Europe's demographic problem…?
Posted by
Richard
at
13:00
Printable Version
Print
Let the voters speak
Amid the welter of news, comment and opinion on the French referendum today, The Scotsman is one of several newspapers demanding that the British referendum should go ahead, irrespective of what the French say.
In an opinion piece headed: "Europe must heed voice of democracy", it confronts the possibility of a French "no" vote giving Blair to excuse to abandon the British referendum. Articulating the views of many, it declares:
The Prime Minister must not be allowed to shelve, for his political convenience, the crucial consultation he has promised the public - the first vote on Europe in this country for 30 years. Let the voters speak.That really must be the central message delivered by the British people, whatever the outcome of the French and the Dutch polls, and we may need to be quick off the mark if The Sunday Times has got it right. Its front-page story on the EU referendum announces that "Britain [is] ready to kill EU referendum", claiming that Foreign Office sources are saying that Britain is ready to drop its plans to hold a referendum if there is a no vote in France today.
Helpfully, the paper sets out all the possible outcomes – five in all – ranging from "big no votes in France and the Netherlands" and "France votes yes and the Netherlands votes no", to "both France and the Netherlands say yes". In only two of the five scenarios does Britain then definitely get a vote, which makes the leader all the more welcome, couched as it is in these terms:
For years Mr Blair has attended EU summits with a note of apology never far below the surface. He would love to play a fuller part but has been held back by his own electorate's reluctance. And he has been unable to campaign to turn round such opinions. Why not give him the chance? In the absence of a referendum on the constitution, let us have a vote - properly argued on all sides - on whether the British want more or less EU integration. We don't want the constitution and we certainly don't want ever closer union. We should be given a chance to say so.However, it appears that we may have little to worry about if the news in The Sunday Telegraph can be taken at face value.
This paper reports that French supporters of the constitution were taking fresh heart last night after an opinion poll appeared to show a last-minute surge in their favour. This poll, produced by TNS Sofres and published on Friday night, put the "no" vote only narrowly ahead, on 51 percent, with "yes" voters on 49 per cent. An earlier survey had given the "no" campaign a more comfortable 54 per cent polling.
That is possibily the only small crumb of comfort as the BVA polling institute also issued a poll. It showed that 53 percent of decided voters will cast their ballots to reject the treaty, against 47 percent who support it. But the key may still be in the "undecideds" in this poll registering nineteen percent of those asked.
Either way, it will be late tonight or early in the morning before we know the results and, unlike the French, we will then be able to study the results in our newspapers. In France, it appears that the newsagents are going on strike. Quelle surprise.
Posted by
Richard
at
11:00
Printable Version
Print
Booker
In the column this morning, Booker takes apart Malcolm Wicks, our new energy minister, who last week launched his crusade to build "2000 more wind turbines" across the UK.
Writes Booker, "he was guilty of such a stunning act of disinformation we can only believe he did so from ignorance." The story is accompanied by a stunning photgraph, which really brings home the impact of the renewables policy. Unfortunately, it has not been reproduced online so, to see it, you will have to go out and buy a copy of The Sunday Telegraph.
For his second story, Booker reminds us that, according to President Chirac, speaking to journalists in Paris on 28 April 2004, any country voting "no" to the constitution must leave the EU. He may not wish to be reminded of it today, but this was what just after Tony Blair announced that he was to hold a British referendum. Chirac, already under pressure to follow suit, was angry with Blair and said, as the Financial Times reported two days later, it was a matter of "ratify or quit". Booker continues:
As the unthinkable possibility now looms that it might be the people of France who face the "European project" with its most embarrassing setback in 50 years, the one thing certain is that every kind of pressure will be mounted to ensure that the "project" and its constitution remain on course. So single-minded are those behind it that they have long since jumped the gun by implementing various provisions of the constitution even before it is ratified.The third story is yet another account of the baleful effect of the implementation (and lack) of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. The story needs no elaboration:
These range from setting up the EU’s own worldwide diplomatic service and its police college in Hampshire, to co-ordinate EU-wide police training and procedures, to launching the EU's Galileo space programme and the European Defence Agency, to co-ordinate the ‘Union’s’ defence forces. At present all these are being pushed forward on an "intergovernmental" basis, because it is only when the constitution is ratified that they can become fully-fledged "Union’ institutions", paid for from the "Union" budget.
The project Brussels is particularly keen to see brought under its wing is the European Space Agency. This is because its Galileo satellite programme, unlike its US equivalent, will charge for its services, including a "tax" on all aircraft entering the "single European sky" and an EU-wide system of congestion charging and road tolls.
There is much the EU can get on with without the constitution. But without the ability to raise cash through Galileo, the ‘Union’ stands to lose billions of euros a year. Meanwhile we look forward to hearing President Chirac announce that France, which itself stands to earn billions from Galileo, largely a French project, is now obeying his own injunction to "ratify or quit".
Two items in Fishing News bring home the ongoing tragedy of Britain’s fisheries. In Yorkshire, two Bridlington fishermen, Peter and Bob Ibbotson, announced they are giving up fishing, after a lifetime in the industry, after Whitby magistrates imposed on them more than £5,000 in fines and costs for breaching EC fisheries regulations. Their crime, after 36 hours at sea with only two hours sleep, had been to enter Scarborough harbour without giving advance warning to ministry inspectors.Booker's fourth story has a go at that great doyen of science, Sir David King, appointed by Mr Blair as the government's chief scientist during the foot-and-mouth crisis. As it is not directly related to the EU, I will leave you to read it online, via the link provided.
Under EU rules, if a boat is carrying a ton of cod, a phone warning must be given, so it can be inspected. In fact the inspectors were already waiting when the Wayfarer arrived. They also found that, although the catch itself was wholly legal, the two men had not yet completed their extensive ministry paperwork. Peter Ibbotson, leaving court, said that "unworkable bureaucracy" now made it impossible for small fishermen to earn a living.
Elsewhere was reported the recent devastating onslaught of 10 large Russian trawlers on haddock stocks around Rockall. When Scottish fisheries inspectors boarded the Russian boats, they found each was carrying between 200 and 400 tons of haddock, whereas Brussels allows Scottish boats to catch only 562 tons in a year. The Russians were also using minute 50 millimetre mesh nets, allowing nothing to escape, whereas the Scottish boats use much larger mesh nets, allowing small fish to go free. It is good to know that European Commission officials later spent a "full day discussing the problem" with their Russian counterparts.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:58
Printable Version
Print
"Verweile doch / Du bist so schön"
A long article by Mark Steyn (almost the only journalist in the British media who writes with any accuracy about the European Union) in the week's Spectator leads one to ruminate yet again about the strange phenomenon of the europhile politicians and political commentators.
The quotation, as most of our readers, no doubt, recognized is from Goethe's Faust, one of the greatest creations of what is the true European culture.
The two lines are from the Faustian bargain that the benighted scholar strikes with Mephistopheles. He is allowed to do anything he wants, travel round the world and even in and out of historical moments; he is allowed to demand anything he likes from Mephistopheles; but as soon as he decides that one particular moment is so beautiful that he wants it to last for ever, his soul goes to perdition. Eternity is not man's to command.
Goethe had a fairly low opinion of politicians and it is possible that he had them in mind when he wrote those lines, though more probably he was meditating about grander human designs. However, an inability to see that the present is only one moment in the long march of history and, indeed, a refusal to acknowledge this obvious fact is a failing that is peculiarly strong among politicians.
In particular they, and their lackeys in the media, feel that way when events appear to be pleasant and acceptable. What is going on now must be right, since it is so much better than what was going on sixty years ago. Yes, but that, too, happened and other things will happen.
It would appear that the entire europhile elite has ignored the warnings of the Faustian pact. They do think that if they simply dissolve historical understanding into a completely vacuous prattle – the Holocaust, the war, lack of freedom – of meaningless abstractions, then they can carry on imposing their views on the rest of us and, indeed, on history.
Well, it ain't necessarily so. The truth is that European integration, partial, as envisaged in the early fifties (though as my colleague has explained it on numerous occasions, not invented then) of the countries that definitely won, that is western Europe, was already the wrong answer to the problems of the world.
War between France and Germany, the problem the project was supposed to solve was unthinkable and the enemy was larger, stronger and looming in the east. This was an enemy western Europe, integrated or not, could not even think of taking on.
So the myth and the reality parted company until the enemy was vanquished (and no thanks to the EEC/EC/EU) and new problems arose. New problems need new solutions but acknowledging that would mean acknowledging that this moment is no fairer than the last one or the next one. And that can never be – the euro-elite cannot be wrong.
Mark Steyn points to a more specific example of this curious attitude – Will Hutton, the erstwhile guru of Tony Blair and still one of the more articulate exponents of the supposedly superior Third Way, sometimes transmogrified into the European as opposed to American way. (The rest of the world matters little to these people.)
Indeed, just as the early nineties saw an obsessive discussion of the Maastricht Treaty as the Communist world in Europe fell apart, countries became independent and started on the road towards liberal democracy and Yugoslavia slid into a bloody war with the EU’s help, so we are now obsessively discussing our own superiority while big things are happening in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
This is all part of the need to stay with this particular moment, this beautiful moment in history. Whether perdition will come to these people or not, I cannot tell. But history will certainly pass them and, if we are not careful, us, by.
I do not entirely agree with Mark Steyn's assessment of Will Hutton. Certainly, I have no argument with the following analysis:
He's the master of the dead langauge of statism that distinguishes the complacent Europhile from a good percentage of Americans, not all of them Republicans.Nevertheless, Hutton is more cogent and articulate than most of the complacent Europhiles one encounters (all of them seem to be in a blue funk at the moment) and in itself that does us a service. He outlines the differences of what he sees the American way of politics (and what some political writers call the Anglospheric way) and the European one.
Needless to say, the European one, with its emphasis on the public good, defined, undoubtedly, by the great and the good like Will Hutton, is superior to that vulgar glorification of individual freedom and, as he clearly does not see it, individual responsibility.
Mr Hutton, it seems, still prefers the French Revolution to the American one and, presumably, the English one, because the first of these "promoted a social contract" and the supremacy of the "public good".
Some of us, who have looked a little more closely at recent history in Europe would argue that the supremacy of the "public good" and "the primacy of society" have produced some of those horrors of the twentieth century that are blithely referred to by the europhiles in abstraction as evils that can be swept away by the the supranational structure of the EU.
This sounds extremely unlikely as the EU is promulgating the very same ideas of “public good”, “primacy of society” and “subordination of individual freedom for the good of all”, not to mention the need to obey the wise and caring elite.
Will Hutton, it seems dislikes the idea of freedom of speech and feels that the government should regulate the media in order to ensure “that television and radio conform to public interest criteria”.
And who defines the public interest criteria? Well, I leave it to our readers to work that out. No wonder these people dislike the anarchy of the internet and the blogosphere. Individualism, rampant individualism, which apparently does not want to stay within the political parameters designed by the guardians of the public good.
It is inevitable with this sort of writing that completely asinine statements are made and Steyn gleefully picks them up, particularly Hutton’s pompous crocodile tears about the faults of the Founding Fathers (all that emphasis on individualism and the need to control the various institutions, not like our own beloved European Constitution):
Well, you never know. It may be the defects of America's Founders that help explain why the US has lagged so far behind France in technological innovation,economic growth, military performance, standard of living, etc. Entranced by his Euro-moment, Hutton insists that "all Western democracies subscribe to a broad family of ideas that are liberal or leftist". Given that New Hampshire has been a continuous democracy for two centuries longer than Germany, this seems a doubtful proposition. It would be more accurate to say that almost all European nations subscribe to a broad family of ideas that are statist. Or, as Hutton has it, "the European tradition is much more mindful that men and women are social animals and that individual liberty is only one of a spectrum of values that generate a good society."So there we have it, dear readers. The moment that is so beautiful, that must not be allowed to come to an end. The moment of perfect statism, that will overcome the fractious individualism of the no-longer existent past and will never develop into another future.
Or so the europhiles hope. How Mephistopheles must be laughing.
Posted by
Helen
at
00:01
Printable Version
Print
Saturday, May 28, 2005
The two faces of propaganda
This photograph from the New York Times rather illustrates the divide.
Posted by
Richard
at
16:43
Printable Version
Print
Cartoon physics
One of the more humourous features of the the Warner Brothers Road Runner cartoon series is the sight of the wily coyote forever running off the edge of a cliff, but only plunging to the ground when he notices that he has gone too far.
So stylised is this feature that it is known as Cartoon physics (and here), the principle elucidated being that: "When someone runs off a cliff, gravity has no effect until the character notices the error."
It appears, however, that this peculiar brand of physics applies not only to cartoons but also the fantasy world of the single currency – aka the euro – which has long departed from terra firma yet has still to plunge earthwards to destruction.
Part of the reason why this should be so is explained today in a long feature by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, published in the business section of The Daily Telegraph.
Headed "How long can the euro live as an orphan", in it Ambrose points out that the euro is a stateless currency, which will have difficulty surviving without the constitution which is intended to create a state to support it.
But the singular point he makes is in citing a "veteran" Eurocrat who complains that: "The trouble with the single currency is that it jams the warning signals when countries do stupid things, and then it seals the exit hatch. That's how you get an explosion."
The only trouble is that, unlike in cartoons, after the "explosion" the characters do not instantly reform themselves – they stay shattered. But, with the warning signals jammed, this shows why the first law of "cartoon physics" is having its effect and the euro has not yet crashed to earth.
Posted by
Richard
at
14:58
Printable Version
Print
A minor hiccup
How typical of the BBC in its Radio 4 programme "Any Questions" to front Bob Marshall Andrews, Timothy Garton Trash and Michael Gove as a representative line-up to deal with questions from the audience.
Thus, when it came to a question on the French referendum – the first as it happens – the Euro-luvvie tendency was to the fore, with only "moderniser" and soft-Europhile Gove there to put the "anti" side.
But what was particularly revealing was Garton-Trash saying that, if the French voted no, "we'll lose three of four years". Not a hint, then, of rethinking the "project", or listening to the people. Simply, a rejection by the people is minor hiccup, an irritation to be overcome.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:41
Printable Version
Print
Damage limitation
A French "non", followed by a Dutch "nee", would certainly be a shock to the system, but the indications are that EU leaders will respond by calling for the ratification process to continue – insisting that the outstanding referendums go ahead.
Certainly, if the Financial Times is any guide – and the paper usually has a good inside track record - the emphasis will be on downplaying any sense of crisis, with calls for a "cooling-off period".
Already scheduled is the June European Council, to be held on 16-17 June, and the likelihood is that there will be no formal decisions until then. Member state leaders, it appears, have been schooled to avoid alarmist rhetoric, and will reserve their comments for the Council.
By then, it is hoped that the "colleagues" will have been able to craft a common position, reflecting the line being offered by Juncker and Barroso that all other member states should have their say on the constitution.
The Commission's line is that: "The procedures have been completed in nine countries representing over 220m citizens - that is almost 49 per cent of the EU population," on which basis the ratification procedures should go forward.
That means the referendums in Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland and Poland should go ahead as planned. The next poll will be the Danes, scheduled for 27 September, with the whole ratification process continuing until November 2006. Only then would there be a special summit to discuss what to do with the refuseniks.
However, this carefully crafted exercise in damage limitation could be blown apart if there is a "Grand non" and Chirac throws his toys out of the pram, declaring the treaty dead in the water.
That apart, EU officials are still hoping that if most countries ratify the treaty, the refuseniks could be told to hold second referendums.
In France, presumably, this would be after Chirac had ditched Raffarin and put in a new prime minister, having blamed the "non" on the unpopularity of the previous government rather than with dissatisfaction over the treaty. It could even be held after the 2007 presidential elections, in which case L'escroc would be history as well, leaving his successor a clean slate.
All this, of course, is highly speculative. Although polls in Denmark currently favour the constitution, sentiment could – and is likely to - change as the referendum date approaches. The Danes could deliver a "no". Britain, on current form, will almost certainly say "no", and it would be a wise man (or even person) who made any predictions about Poland, Ireland and the Czech Republic.
By the end of 2006, the situation could be inestimably worse for the "colleagues". Not least, the "yes" campaigners in the remaining referendums may have been deprived for their most potent argument – that their countries will be "isolated in Europe" if they say "no". Thus, instead of two, the colleagues could be facing six "noes".
That said, the EU has in the past shown an extraordinary capacity for survival, weathering seemingly terminal crises. Therefore – Chirac apart – the chances are that the damage limitation exercise currently being constructed will buy time for the project, while the colleagues work out a more creative rescue plan.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:07
Printable Version
Print
Friday, May 27, 2005
A bodyguard of lies
"…truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Winston Churchill
That, clearly is driving force behind the putative "yes" campaign, another example of which comes from the egregious Robin Cook, former foreign minister - the man who waxed so indignant about government "lies" on WMD..
Interviewed by Jon Snow on this evening’s Channel 4 News on the outcome of a possble British referendum on the EU constitution, he exuded confidence. As soon as people realised that three million jobs and three-quarters of a million businesses depended on our membership of the EU, said Cook, they would come round.
The claim of "three milion jobs" is, of course, so transparently false that it is barely worth rebutting, but the second is less obvious.
This stems from a claim made by Gordon Brown in February 2000 on the relaunch of Britain in Europe, in support of the euro when, on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Brown made the startling assertion that "750,000 companies export from Britain to Europe". It took until lunchtime for the figure to be corrected, with the government's own figures showing that the true number was 18,000.
Yet still Cook and his fellow travellers trot out the same lies. That is the shape of the campaign to come. They will lie, lie and lie again, hoping that if they repeat the lies often enough, sufficient people will believe them to make the difference – either that or they will bore people to death.
As we have observed on this Blog before, just to make the campaign a little bit more interesting, it would be nice if they could change the bodyguard occasionally.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:31
Printable Version
Print
The things they say
"Chirac, his name in France is 'superliar'… we know that when he speaks, it is of course not true".
José Bové (anti-globalisation campaigner) on being told by Caroline Wyatt, BBC Paris correspondent, that Chirac had said there could be no renegotiation of the EU constitution in the event of a French "non".
And from an anonymous Dutch "nee" voter, contributing to a vox pop on the Dutch referendum:
"They screwed us with the euro, so they will screw us with other things...".
Posted by
Richard
at
17:57
Printable Version
Print
Inevitable really
Germany has done it - ratified the constitution.
Thus, following on from our recent posting, it seems the obedient Herrenvolk of the Bundesrat have knuckled under and given the "project" their support.
According to the AP report, posted on the Guardian website, the upper house overwhelmingly approved the treaty, with all but one of the 16 länder endorsing it - giving the constitution 66 of 69 possible votes, far more than the necessary two-thirds majority.
Apparently, the only dissenter was the eastern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. It abstained because the junior partner in its governing coalition, the ex-communist Party of Democratic Socialism, opposed the constitution.
Giscard d'Estaing was allowed to address the chamber before the vote, telling the Bundesrats: "The day after tomorrow, the French will - I hope with all my heart - ratify the constitution by means of a referendum," adding, "The double ratification in Germany and France would mark a historic passage for the future of the constitution and for Europe."
It looks like little Giscard may be disappointed, but who knows? What is certain from this result, though, is that we have already seen something historic – the Rat joining the sinking ship.
Posted by
Richard
at
16:11
Printable Version
Print
The creation of the European Republic
"If the French reject the constitution on Sunday, and there is a high probability that they will, the skies will not fall and the world will not stop turning. The EU will continue its business as usual, governed by the flawed Nice treaty. But the tragedy is that the French will lose the things that they really want: real European solidarity, a true European democracy; in short, the creation of the European Republic."
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, co-president of the Greens/EFA Group in the EU Parliament, writing in The International Herald Tribune.
And the name of this European Republic is?
Posted by
Richard
at
13:50
Printable Version
Print
We've been there before
Suddenly, everyone's an expert, not least Claire Balderdash on last night's BBC Radio 4 World Tonight who could not believe that the French might be about to reject the constitution. After all, she spluttered, the French have always been in favour of "Europe".
Actually, they haven't and this is not the first time that the French have put a spoke in the wheel of European integration.
The last time it happened was in the early 50s, shortly after the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community when its president, none other than Jean Monnet, was quick to describe his "High Authority" as the first "government of Europe". And so confident was he that the "project" was on its way that he told the Assembly:
We can never sufficiently emphasise that the six Community countries are the fore-runners of a broader, united Europe, whose bounds are set only by those who have not yet joined. Our Community is not a coal and steel producers' association: it is the beginning of Europe.For all his sense of triumphalism, however, events were catching up with M. Monnet. Having so far unfolded his plan so deftly, he now made a near-fatal mistake.
The cause of his near-nemesis was the Korean War, which had broken out on the Sunday after negotiations on the ECSC had opened. Monnet immediately feared that the pressure of this major new Cold War crisis, threatening possible Soviet aggression in Europe itself, might lead the Americans to strengthen their demands for German re-armament. This might reduce the attraction to Adenauer of the Schuman plan, as he might now be able to achieve this key objectives without having to place Germany's coal and steel under the control of the High Authority.
To regain the initiative, Monnet had decided that the original Schuman plan should be widened to include defence, and set about planning what was to emerge as a proposal for a European Defence Community (EDC). This provided for a European Army, run by a European minister of defence and a council of ministers, with a common budget and arms procurement. While all other members would be able to maintain separate forces, for colonial and other purposes, Germany would only be allowed to participate in the European Army.
For his advocate this time, Monnet by-passed Schuman, who was strongly opposed to German rearmament. Instead, he sought out a man who had been his assistant during his somewhat murky days as a merchant banker - Rene Pleven. He had also been with him in London in 1940 during that exciting time when he had put to Churchill the plan for Anglo-French union. Fortunately for Monnet, his old subordinate was now in a position of some authority: he had become France’s prime minister.
Thus, although the proposal was entirely Monnet's, he kept in the background and his idea became the "Pleven Plan". Pleven outlined it to the French Assembly on 24 October 1950, where it won approval by 343 votes to 220. Nevertheless, during the debates, Pleven made clear that negotiations would not start until the Coal and Steel Treaty had been concluded, thus safeguarding Monnet's original scheme.
Unlike the Schuman Plan, this plan was not well received abroad. The Germans, in particular, were highly suspicious, preferring their forces to be part of Nato. They had good reason for their suspicion. Monnet intended his EDC to be "a government capable of taking the supreme decisions in the name of all Europeans". Yet, for that very reason, the Italian premier, de Gasperi, supported the new plan, proclaiming that, "The European Army is not an end in itself; it is the instrument of a patriotic foreign policy. But European patriotism can develop only in a federal Europe".
Again, the Americans intervened, this time in the form of General Eisenhower, now the first supreme commander of Nato land forces. Meeting with Monnet on 21 June 1951, he agreed that Franco-German reconciliation could only be achieved through a European Army. The Korean War, following the intervention of Communist China, had entered a critical phase.
As anticipated, American pressure for German rearmament had intensified, giving Adenauer a powerful negotiating hand. He chose to exploit it, offering in return for his support of the EDC a "general treaty". This would recognise West German sovereignty, accept German contingents into the EDC on equal footing, allow West Germany into Nato, end the remnants of allied occupation of his country, and conclude a peace treaty. Ambitious though this proposal was, it was quickly agreed by the Allies and by the end of November 1951 a draft treaty was ready.
In the final stages of the treaty negotiations, the British government had changed. On 25 October 1951, after a general election, Labour had lost to the Conservatives. Churchill was again prime minister, with Anthony Eden as foreign secretary. But the new government was immediately plunged into a balance of payments crisis and economic disaster loomed.
Despite some initial hopes that the "pro-European" Churchill might reverse the Labour's view of the Six’s moves to integration, his view that Britain should remain aloof from direct European involvement remained intact. Britain, in Churchill's view, was still one of the international "Big Three", with her special relationship with America. Although anxious to co-operate with his European neighbours, his policy rested on "overlapping circles", whereby Britain remained between Europe and the USA.
In opposition Churchill had claimed to favour the idea of a "European Army", without ever spelling out what this might mean in practice. Back in power, however, orthodoxy re-asserted itself. Now the supranational element of the plan had become clear, he brushed aside any idea of a European army, calling it a "sludgy amalgam", adding, "What soldiers want to sing are their own marching songs". De Gaulle took a similar view.
On 28 November 1951, Eden told a press conference in Rome that no British formations would be available to the new army, but the new Conservative government nevertheless did its best to be constructive. At a meeting with Schuman in February 1952, Eden assured the French of a close association with the Defence Community. British forces on the continent would co-operate very closely with "European forces".
In a further effort to be helpful, Eden proposed in March 1952 that the two Communities of the Six should come under the aegis of the Council of Europe. Monnet, predictably, saw this as a challenge to his supranationalism.
Although nothing further came of Eden's initiative, the French themselves had considerable reservations about the idea of a European army. What most concerned them was the possibility of Germany seceding from the Defence Community, allowing the German units raised to be reconstituted as a national army. Paris therefore pressed for an Anglo-American guarantee against any member's secession. London’s response was obliging.
Under the 1948 Brussels treaty, Britain was already pledged to give assistance to France and the Benelux countries in the event of war. The Six now asked, on 14 March 1952, that she should extend that guarantee to West Germany and Italy. Responding in a broadcast on 5 April, Eden said it was the duty and intention of the British government to help the people of Europe towards the idea of a united Europe. Great Britain could not join an exclusive European federation, but she could give support and encouragement to both the Coal and Steel and the Defence Communities.
Ten days later, he followed this up with a firm proposal. In the event of an armed attack on any member of the European Defence Community, Britain would give full military and other aid in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This offer was well received by the Six. In Germany it was hailed as "one of the most important political developments of recent times".
However, this was not an Anglo-American guarantee. The Americans were still putting their faith in the EDC and refused to co-operate. As a result, on 19 May, it was announced that Washington and London were unable to provide a joint guarantee and would instead make a "declaration of intent". Talks then became bogged down in arguments about the German contribution to the European defence budget, until the French Cabinet, still dissatisfied by the lack of commitment from the British and Americans, against German withdrawal from the EDC, decided it would not sign the agreements.
Efforts were made to satisfy the French by re-wording the declaration of intent. The USA and Britain finally agreed to regard any action which threatened the integrity of the European Defence Community as a threat to their own security. It was enough. The European Defence Treaty was signed on 27 May 1952, along with a general treaty which effectively restored German sovereignty. This was far from what Monnet had envisaged, with the budget subject still to national veto. Even so, there was still so much opposition in France that her prime minister Antoine Pinay signed the treaty without intending to seek immediate ratification.
It was over ratification that Monnet's scheming began to unravel. Opposition in the French Assembly, far from diminishing, had been hardening. The Socialist group wanted a "more democratic" EDC, with a European Assembly elected by universal suffrage. This was to prompt Monnet's most daring initiative so far, in concert with the man who over the next few years would be his closest ally, Paul-Henri Spaak.
Spaak proposed setting up a European Political Community (EPC), as a "common political roof" over the Coal and Steel and the Defence Communities, creating "an indissoluble supranational political community based on the union of peoples". Schuman and Adenauer welcomed this, as did Italy's prime minister de Gasperi, who went even further, proposing that a future EDC assembly should prepare a draft European constitution.
In September 1952, Spaak's proposal was jointly endorsed by the foreign ministers of the Six, along with the assemblies of the ECSC and the Council of Europe, and the ECSC Assembly was asked to study the question of creating a "European Political Authority". The result, from an ad hoc committee under Spaak, was a "Draft Treaty Embodying the Statute of the European Community". This was nothing less than the first formal attempt to give Europe a constitution.
It was submitted by Spaak to the foreign ministers of the Six on 9 March 1953 and to the ECSC Assembly the following day, which approved it by 50 votes, with five abstentions. Introducing his draft "constitution" to the ECSC Council, Spaak began with the opening words of George Washington's address in presenting the American Constitution to Congress in 1787, going on to express his conviction that, "with the same audacity", Europe could hope for the same success.
This latest Monnet-Spaak initiative could go no further, however, while the EDC itself was still attracting opposition. Part of the plan was to apply supranational controls on any production of nuclear weapons, which caused the French Atomic Energy Commission, Gaullist in sympathy, to wake up to the implications, should France wish become a nuclear power. By October, deputies in the National Assembly were expressing concern that the treaty gave too many advantages to Germany, which would come to dominate the Community. Objections were also raised that the Treaty was presented as a fait accompli, to be accepted or rejected without alteration.
Thus, while the rest of the Six went on to ratify the Defence Treaty, French politics were to prevail. So great did opposition become among both Socialists and Gaullists that the Pinay government was brought down. A new government was formed under Rene Mayer, with Gaullist support, and the "Europe of Jean Monnet" became almost a term of political abuse. Then, after four months, Mayer was replaced by Joseph Laniel. In the despairing words of Monnet, he "did nothing". Despite intense pressure from the United States, with President Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles threatening to cut US aid, France's ratification process had come to a halt.
Outside Parliament, opposition was at least as strong. Army leaders were against it, intellectual groups detested it and de Gaulle, in November 1953, declared himself implacably hostile to it, referring to "this monstrous treaty" which would rob the French Army of its sovereignty and separate the defence of France from the defence of the French Union. It would go against all her traditions and institutions, and deliver her soldiers to an organism over which France had no control. He blamed this "and other supra-national monstrosities" on "the Inspirer", M. Jean Monnet. In a bitter parody of Monnet, he declared, "Since victorious France has an army and defeated Germany has none, let us suppress the French Army". He went on:
After that we shall make a stateless army of Frenchmen and Germans, and since there must be a government above this army, we shall make a stateless government, a technocracy. As this may not please everyone, we'll paint a new shop sign and call it "community"; it won't matter, anyway, because the "European Army" will be placed at the entire disposal of the American Commander-in-Chief.What finally brought matters to a head was a quite separate event, the fall to the Communist Viet Minh on 7 May 1954 of the enclave in Dien Bien Phu, in French Indochina. This disaster brought down the government. By 17 June, Laniel had been replaced by Mendès-France, a radical nationalist. He was ambivalent towards the EDC and sought to dilute its supranational element, proposing this to the Six in Brussels on 3 August. Adenauer rejected this out of hand. Spaak, who chaired the conference, made an almost hysterical plea to Mendès-France to support the treaty, clasping him by the arm while telling him that:
France will be completely isolated… You will be alone. Is that what you want?.. We must, must make Europe. The military side isn't everything. What matters is the integration of Europe. EDC is only the first step in that direction, but if there is no EDC, then everything falls to the ground.Brushing aside Spaak's accusations that he was not being "a good European", Mendès-France also ignored entreaties from the Americans and even Churchill, from whom he sought, unsuccessfully, guarantees of British involvement in the EDC. He thus brought the treaty before a hostile Assembly on 30 August 1954 without endorsement. After a stormy debate, in which the supranational issue predominated, it was rejected by 319 votes to 264. Mendès-France's government abstained. The triumphant majority burst into the Marseillaise. The EDC was dead. The idea of a Political Community soon faded into obscurity. Monnet and his supranationism had suffered a resounding defeat.
Thus did the French see off the first main attempt to foist a constitution for Europe on its unwilling peoples and now history seems about to repeat itself. However, it is also worth remembering that, three years later, the Six were signing the 1957 Treaty of Rome. That is the other thing history tells us – the "colleagues" never take no for an answer.
Posted by
Richard
at
12:37
Printable Version
Print
Too many questions?
Having watched the hour-long Question Time extravaganza on the EU constitution, broadcast live from Paris, courtesy of BBC 1 television and David Dimbleby, there is only conclusion to be drawn – that the BBC has ruled itself out of the game.
With six panellists, including two Frenchmen, plus notables like Caroline Lucas, Denis MacShane, Eddie Izzard, Liam Fox, with frequent interjections from the audience, all you got was a cacophony of sound. How anyone, with the best will in the word, could drawn any conclusions from the programme, how it could in any way help anyone make up their mind, is simply beyond imagining. "Entertainment", I suppose it was – passionate, it certainly was. Theatre, maybe. Informative? Definitely not.
We did however, have MacShane, without a hint of a blush, assert that politicians must "stop swapping insults" and "tell the truth". This is the man who felt quite happy, not a little while ago, to brand Eurosceptics as "Xenophobes" and who, whenever he was presented with an opportunity on this programme, claimed that the constitution made the EU "more democratic" and that it "returns power to the nation states" – both complete lies.
Not content with that, the man also asserted that the EU had been built on the "dream" of preventing war in Europe, then declaring: "If we tear that up, the clock of history can go backwards". This is the Margot "Holocaust argument" all over again. Funny how all the "colleagues" seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
Then, to add further insult to injury, MacShane, in virtually the same breath, accused the "no" campaign of resorting to fear tactics.
If Question Time had been a grown-up programme, it could have taken just those assertions, and based the whole programme around it. Instead, by cramming so much in, the impact is lost and the points are never argued through to any conclusion. Furthermore, this is not the first time, by any means, the BBC has crammed its programmes, turning them into a miasma of incoherence. It seems very much part of a trend.
In short, there were too many questions, and not enough answers. Anyone who wants to be informed about the EU constitution is going to have to look elsewhere. The BBC is no longer in the business of supplying answers – if indeed it ever was.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:14
Printable Version
Print
Labels: Liam Fox
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Blinking in the sunlight
Whoever said bloggers were "pyjama journalists" is half right, as we do work all sorts of peculiar hours keeping up the postings, whence sartorial elegance is rarely an issue.
Yesterday's launch of the People's No Campaign, however, saw me blinking in the sunlight, as I emerged from the backroom to join the "Herron gang". I am obliged to the internetters – precise source unknown - for this report:
The first floor conference room in Abingdon House at 2pm yesterday witnessed the first high profile "Gathering of the Clans."Anyhow, I am now back in the more accustomed darkness, hunched over the keboard. Normal blogging will resume shortly.
Many groups, organisations and individuals were represented. The meeting commenced at 2pm precisely and the room was bursting beyond capacity with many forced to stand outside in the hallway. Late arrivals were refused entry by security because the event was over capacity and had to wait outside.
The meeting opened up with room sponsor, Independent Labour Peer Lord Stoddart, delivering a passionate introduction. This was followed with a rousing address by Maastricht rebel and Chairman of the Freedom Association, Christopher Gill.
Sky TV and German Television were present and the room was littered with copies of the European Constitution, kindly provided free of charge by the European Parliament building in London that very morning. The media made the most of the shot of a pile of them sticking out of a House of Lords 'Recycle Your Rubbish' bin.
Neil Herron in his usual style delivered the background to what the campaign was about, where it had come from and where the fight was to be taken. Rousing applause again... and a few laughs.
Colin Moran, former Strategy Director of the North East No Campaign then detailed "What If?" in relation to the French situation.
Dr Richard North, the backroom research specialist for the campaign, "blinked as he was allowed out in daylight." He detailed the electronic networks and how they would work in what was to be the first internet driven referendum.
Questions came from the press and the media and from the floor. The atmosphere was absolutely electric... people knew this was "the happening."
Sky News had been running the launch since the breakfast programme where Neil Herron was interviewed live from the studio. Clips from the London office were also run in the preamble and played throughout the day. The meeting was a huge success and people went away enthused. We are busy collating the offers of support and preparing to link the various groups that wish to work with us.
Over 500 individuals have already registered as campaign supporters in the space of 24 hours.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:31
Printable Version
Print
Even the Italians are falling out of love with the EU
According to a story on Reuter’s website, the Italians are falling out of the EU. No, they are not becoming eurosceptic, various political scientists proclaim but they are rather fed up with what they see as the EU’s demands making the Italian recession worse.
Needless to say, Silvio Berlusconi has been making noises.
“We're pretty tired of all this bureaucracy. We are really determined to do battle over this because Europe's job should not be to create difficulties for member states, but precisely the opposite.”True enough, though it has taken them a little time to realize the problem. In any case, the statement is not unconnected with Berlusconi’s domestic political problems.
Berlusconi is blaming the euro or, at least, the way it was put into place (the method is always the problem, not the substance) for Italy’s economic difficulties. Popular support for the euro, according to the last Eurobarometer poll, is down to 62 per cent.
Anyone who has visited Italy recently and talked to Italians would know that that is an overestimate. The euro was never all that popular, though the idea of Europe may have been.
It seems to be a given that most Italians are pro EU and Prodi may reap the benefits there. But Berlusconi, who has made great play of standing up for Italy’s interests, may yet surprise us all. Again. After all, opinion appears to be moving in his direction.
Posted by
Helen
at
00:55
Printable Version
Print
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Of course they are pleased
The Guardian writes today:
“European Union ministers last night surprised and delighted aid agencies around the world when they agreed a dramatic increase in help to countries in Africa and the rest of the developing world that will see the EU's richest states reach the United Nations' historic goal of giving 0.7% of national income in aid by 2015.”I’ll just bet they are pleased and delighted. Just for a few moments it looked like some of those cushy jobs will disappear (not for long – NGOs are the biggest growth industry in the world) and the unfortunate people of Africa might start freeing themselves from those kleptocratic bloodthirsty tyrants with their socialist policies, whom aid has supported all these decades.
But hooray, hooray, the EU has promised to go on squandering money on projects that have been proved to be corrupt, inefficient and completely pointless time and time again.
One cannot help wondering how it is that suddenly an agreement was pulled out of a hat and Tony Blair’s “international reputation” was saved. Could this be another move in the EU’s endless attempts to position itself against the United States? Certainly, the Guardian’s story does not exactly deny that:
“The unexpected success in Brussels will intensify pressure on other rich countries, notably the United States, to increase their own efforts to "make poverty history". It will also raise hopes that the pro-development partnership between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will end on a high note, not with the damp squib many critics have feared.”The notion that more money flung at the people who have created and increased poverty in Africa is somehow “pro-development” exists only in the fevered imagination of the NGOs and their supporters in the left-leaning media, such as the Guardian or the BBC. It is, of course, a completely anti-development policy. But it does have a tremendous advantage for the EU: there will be no need to change all those protectionist trade regulations that largely keep Third World produce out of the European countries.
Mind you, promises are not the same as achievements, despite the whoops of joy emitted by Christian Aid, Oxfam and all the other usual suspects.
“The Treasury said last night that if all 25 EU member states meet yesterday's series of parallel pledges and some go beyond them, as they plan to do, EU collective aid to developing countries, including Africa, will rise from $40bn (£22bn) this year to $80bn in 2010.”If, indeed. And if they don’t? Well, who cares? Posaturing is what matters. After all, there is no particular reference to achievement, merely to meeting pledges. What happens to the money afterwards, whether it gets stolen by EU agencies or local officials, whether it is squandered by NGOs on endless conferences and comfortable quarters for their staff, whether it goes into Swiss bank account, arms for terrorists or great big useless constructions that glorify the current tyrant, it matters not.
In fact, Oxfam gives the game away.
“But the deal's potential significance lies in its impact on other countries. "It's really fantastic, it could have been better, but it's a very generous deal that lays down the gauntlet to the United States and Japan. We were desperate for such an injection of cash into the poker game they are all playing," said a spokesman for Oxfam.”Not that desperate, surely. What happened to the last lot of squillions of pounds they collected?
But, of course, it is all about international politics and squaring up to other countries, like the United States. Never mind, that America pours untold amounts into the Third World through government help and private charity. Never mind, that it is America, Japan and Australia that provided the fastest, most effective, most efficient aid after the Tsunami. What matters is the pledge.
And just to show how good the whole idea is, the squabbling has already begun. Having made the pledge,
“Italy, Germany and Portugal issued statements in Brussels warning that their budget problems may hit EU borrowing limits and stop them meeting the target. EU officials made light of the problem.”Christian Aid is pouring scorn on Gordon Brown, particularly on the idea that donor nations should somehow insist on “good governance”. Just hand over the money and ask no questions. How can you doubt that Christian Aid and others of that ilk will spend it beneficially.
Other aid experts (who dem?) say that reform of governance is essential, without explaining how that is to be achieved.
Let us hope that America, Japan and Russia (Blair is flying there as well, but one cannot quite see Puttin going along with this nonsense) will demand some evidence of achivement before they start trying to match the pledges.
Posted by
Helen
at
10:58
Printable Version
Print
Blogging lite
For obvious reasons, blogging is going to be fairly light today. Helen will keep the home fires burning as best she can.
Posted by
Richard
at
08:11
Printable Version
Print
Seven minutes to change the world
Today, at a time yet to be decided (as we write) José Manuel Durao Barroso, president of the EU commission, will stand up in the chamber of the EU parliament in Brussels to defend himself (and his commission) against a motion of no confidence, brought by Nigel Farage and 73 or more other MEPs.
Although there will be no vote on the day, the result is a foregone conclusion. All the major political groups oppose the motion and, when it comes to a vote in Strasbourg, they will easily defeat it.
Farage will have exactly seven minutes to make his case, giving him about a thousand words to set out an indictment that could, with justice, run to hundreds of pages. Apart from the headline issue of Barroso taking hospitality from multi-billionaire Spiros Latsis, when one of his companies was awaiting a decision from the commission as to whether it could be paid over €10 million in state aid grants, there are many other issues that could be aired.
For instance, it is of some considerable public interest to establish the precise nature of the funding at Athens Sparta Airport, and the precise role played by the Latsis Group of companies, not least Eurobank, which handled the payments of EU money.
In a country that is awash with EU money, under the multi-billion euro "Community Support Framework III" programme, a country that is also a by-word for corruption, questions might be asked about the funding of the motorway and road building programme – set to receive over €9 billion in EU funds and loans.
In particular, questions could be asked about the tenders for the Elefsina to Patra Motorway and the Ionian Road, and the contract, valued at over €200 million for which two consortia, Olympic Roads and the Aegean Motorway Group, have been recently short-listed with commission approval.
The latter group should, perhaps, get special scrutiny as it includes a firm in the Lamda Group – one of Latsis's companies – and a firm called Hochtief, one of Germany's largest building companies, one, incidentally that managed the Sparta airport contract.
Hochtief is an especially interesting company, with a chequered history. It has been named in relation to the bribery scandal in the World Bank-Funded Lesotho Water Project, where a dozen major international dam-building companies lavishly bribed at least one top official on the project, allegedly giving nearly US$2 million in bribes over ten years. The Highlands Water Venture, a consortium which included Hochtief, was directly linked with $733,404-worth of bribes.
Then there is the affair of the Southern Cross Airport Corporation Limited, to which the federal government awarded the ownership of the Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport, involving Hochtief in circumstances which had an Australian "waste and corruption" website flag it up. Add to that, the affair of the Berlin airport, and why Hochtief was disbarred from bidding for redevelopment by the courts, and an interesting picture emerges.
Yet, Hochtief is one of the companies on whose behalf Schröder intervened with President George W. Bush, asking him to invite them to bid for $4.5 billion worth of contracts. In this context, it could well be asked what professional or other links there are between Schröder and Hochtief, and the role this company might have played in funding Schröder's SDP.
One might then ask why Schröder took it upon himself to intervene personally to prevent the EU parliament's socialist group calling Barroso to explain his links with Latsis, one at least of whose companies is linked with Hochtief.
All this Farage could do, but for the fact, in what is a parody of "transparency", he has precisely seven minutes. In short, Farage has seven minutes to change the world – or, at least, the EU. He isn't going to be able to do it, but he might lay down some interesting markers.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:04
Printable Version
Print
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr Blair goes travelling (again)
This time the Prime Minister will be leaving his happily squabbling Labour Party (the only party in British history that wants to get rid of a victorious leader) in order to talk to his colleagues in the G-8 countries, prior to a meeting at Gleneagles.
As ever, the preliminary negotiations are everything as the meeting must come up with some kind of a consensus. The trouble is that what is bothering Mr Blair, as Prime Minister of the country that holds the presidency of the G-8, is not what is at the forefront of other politicians’ minds (or the electorate’s).
Mr Blair, for instance, does not seem to have noticed that there is the odd economic problem or two in most western countries and, certainly, in almost all European countries. Even in Britain, our boasts ring hollow when we survey the shrinking private sector and the bloated public one, not to mention problems such as pensions, health, education, etc etc.
At least, unemployment is not as high as on the Continent, however the various figures are arrived at.
But this is not what bothers Mr Blair. Nor is it the war against terrorism or the need to form strong alliances across the world not just in the fusty and musty world of EU politics.
His two top items are climate change and aid to Africa. And, sad to say, he is getting no help on either of those from anybody, possibly because just about everybody sees the complete lunacy and stupidity of those two ideas.
It seems that certain Labour MPs feel that the problem lies in the European countries not being able to decide on a united front in order to put pressure on America, as ever the villain of the piece. (What of Russia or Japan, one asks oneself.)
The Guardian is sympathetic to that point of view, of course, but finds it diffiult to avoid the natural conclusion: nobody wants to support Our Tone.
The first item is climate change. This is the new buzz expression that has supplanted global warming. The trouble with global warming was the lack of proof, the lack of understanding as to how it might manifest itself and what it might lead to and the lack of evidence that it was human behaviour that caused it.
With “climate change” some of the problems disappear. You do not have to prove it because it is inevitable and unstoppable. The only constant thing about climate has been that it has changed, at least in the northern hemisphere.
Accounts of life in England and Europe show that a mini-ice age struck round about the fourteenth century and did not let up till the early nineteenth. Before that there was wine produced in this country and Greenland was a populated land.
During it the winters were so cold that there were fairs with ox-roasting on the frozen Thames. Then it changed again. It is possible the change is faster now, though no evidence has been produced and it is equally possible that the Gulf Stream is changing directions which will have climatic implications.
While this needs to be studied and ways of dealing with the possible problems worked out, it cannot be stopped or in any way affected. (Though one could argue that a little less hot air from all these dire meetings would reduce the greenhouse emissions.)
Still, Mr Blair is running around, demanding that America fall into line over emissions, that other countries, notably, China, India and Brazil do the same or something similar, disregarding the clear evidence that what is needed for a better and cleaner environment is economic development not the unsupported and largely discredited assertions of the Kyoto-freaks.
The Guardian gets huffy, too:
“Britain had expected a deal would already be assured by now to write off the debts owed by poor nations to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the African Development Bank.
The government had also hoped that the US would be offering more on climate change than lifting trade barriers to allow US enterprise to help developing countries with clean fuel technologies.”
Surely, what the Americans are offering is the best possible idea. There is nothing you can do about climate change, so we shall help developing countries to work out clean fuel technologies? Alas, no, since it is the fixed certainty of the climate change conspiracy theorists that the most important thing in the world is to shackle the American economy. Whether that would be of any use, they care not.
As for the whole Millennium Plan for helping Africa, that has steadily become nothing but a gleam in Mr Blair’s frantic eyes and a self-publicity tool for film stars, models, rock singers and huffing-puffing politicians like Hizonner the Mayor of LondON.
Unfortunately, even the Guardian has had to admit that it is not just the United States that is telling Mr Blair and his minions to go away and leave them alone.
“In addition to the resistance from the US, fiscal constraints in several EU countries will also make a deal difficult to secure. In a sign of the hurdles ahead, fellow EU states yesterday spurned an attempt by the international development secretary, Hilary Benn, to win support for a commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid.
Germany and Italy have proved difficult to budge on the 0.7% timetable discussed by Mr Benn yesterday, and Mr Blair's meeting with Mr Schröder is seen as crucial in providing a united European position that would put pressure on the US to follow suit.”
Some of the Labour politicians who think that all this can and should be overcome would do well to read Stephen Pollard, former Fabian policy wonk in the Times Online yesterday.
Mr Pollard repeats all the arguments about the idiocy of “trade justice” that prevents developing countries from trading and developing; of abolishing debts and increasing aid that would reward governments for their disastrous policy and give them more money to siphon off.
“Much Third World poverty is the result of governments taking the decision,in effect, to remain poor. The conditions under which they can prosper are known, and available, if those in power choose to avail themselves of them.
As Hernando de Soto (who has done much to alleviate poverty, not least through his seminal book, The Mystery of Capital) points out, it is easy to make a country prosperous. It needs only security of life and property, and markets in which property rights can be valued and traded. The West’s prosperity is built on property rights and the rule of law; it is the denial of those rights which causes poverty and prevents growth.”
He then adds:
“If those behind Make Poverty History were serious about ending poverty they would be campaigning for property rights and the rule of law — for better governance, in other words. And they would campaign not to abolish free trade but to extend it — attacking, for instance, the EU Common Agricultural Policy and its immoral tariff barriers against the developing world.
The EU spends €2.7 billion a year subsidising farmers to grow sugar beet; at the same time it imposes high tariff barriers against sugar imports from the developing world. And the EU’s agricultural tariffs average 20 per cent, rising to a peak of 250 per cent on certain products. The European market remains barely open to the majority of low-cost textiles from the developing world.”
It seems unlikely that any of that will be raised at the G-8 meeting or the subsequent EU Presidency. Instead, there will be more hot air and the sight of Prime Minister Blair running up air miles in his attempts to reverse climate change, whatever that might mean.
Posted by
Helen
at
17:10
Printable Version
Print
An increasing note of hysteria
Mark Steyn is on good form in The Telegraph, taking on board the "Holocaust" obsession of the Euro-luvvies.
In so doing, he deals with the not-so-fragrant Margot and her Terezin references and then concludes that the pitch the luvvies are trying to sell us for the Euro-ballot is: "…yes to the European Constitution, or yes to a new Holocaust."
"The notion that the Continent's peoples are basically a bunch of genocidal whackoes champing at the bit for a new bloodbath is one I'm not unsympathetic to," Steyn continues, "but it's a curious rationale to pitch to one's electorate: vote for us; we're the straitjacket on your own worst instincts."
Actually, it is not that curious. My co-editor and I have constantly puzzled about why the Euro-luvvies have been so lack-lustre in promoting the object of their dreams. More to the point, we have wondered why, when their grandiose claims of the EU having kept the peace in Europe are so easily rebutted, that they persist with them.
What now comes to the fore, and is touched upon by Steyn, is that these people treat "Europe" as a secular religion. And, having been in the ascendancy for so long, without being seriously challenged, they have lost the capability to argue their case – if indeed they ever had such a capability.
Now, having to confront a level hostility to which they have never before been exposed, instead of rethinking their their pitch, and perhaps coming up with some new, more powerful ideas – if indeed they exist – like the High Priests of old, they simply fall back on their mantras and preach hell fire and damnation for the heretics who dare to question them.
In this context, if they believe so fervently, as they do, that it is only the EU that stands between the peoples of Europe and another bloody war – with all that that entails – and they have also linked the constitution with the survival of the "project", it is but a small step in logic to postulate that, if the EU collapses for want of a constitution, there will be nothing to stop the tanks rolling across the borders again.
In a way, the fragility of this argument is encouraging. That is the Euro-luvvies' best shot, and it is neither credible nor convincing. But it does explain the increasing note of hysteria that is entering into their tone, as the peoples of Europe shrug their shoulders and walk away from a dream that is not their own.
Posted by
Richard
at
15:29
Printable Version
Print
Never taking our eyes off America
[Health warning: this posting has no reference whatsoever to the Conservative Party.]
It is the proud boast of “Europe” or whatever passes as “Europe” in some minds, that the creation of the EU, or some alternative integration of the countries would restore the Continent’s greatness.
Above all, it would undemine the power, influence and leadership of the United States. We shall do such things, what they are we do not know, to paraphrase the Bard.
However, what do we get as examples of great independent thought? In France both sides in the referendum campaign are fighting with one eye on America.
Vote yes, to strengthen Europe against American influence (all those McDonalds in the Champs Elysée and other places), says one side. Vote no, to prevent this American-inspired free market constitution from being imposed on France the Glorious. How does that sort of political debate make France a great country?
And what of Germany? In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Europe one of its editorial writers, David Schwimmer had an article entitled “Schröder’s Götterdämmerung” (those dam’ Americans – they are not supposed to know things like that).
Analyzing the situation in Germany after the North Rhine-Westphalia fiasco for the SDP, he pointed out that many of the disillusioned voters were not going to the more reformist minded Christian Democrats, never mind the Free Democrats.
Schröder’s “reforms” made life difficult for people without opening up the economy because they did not go far enough or deep enough. Cutting back unemployment benefits may be a good idea if there is the slightest possibility of an upswing in employment. Otherwise, it causes severe problems.
But both the SPD and its former supporters have found someone else to blame. Of course, there is the usual plethora of tirades against capitalism in general (as if the socialism of one part of Germany had been such a howling success) but more specifically, there is American capitalism.
It is all their fault comrades, for investing money in the economy and wanting a return on it. As Mr Schwimmer writes:
“A few weeks ago, as the unemployment figures kept rising and the SPD poll numbers kept falling, Chairman Müntefering began blaming private equity funds for the country’s economic malaise.Well, all these people may get their wish.
Like “locusts” they “devour” German companies, he said. A “black list” was then leaked to the press, containing – you guessed it – the names of American firms only.”
The Market Center Blog says, quoting the left-wing New Republic:
“According to a Boston Consulting Group survey, one in five U.S. companies currently in Germany is planning to relocate at least some operations. Thus,thanks to Schröder and the SPD, Germany is not only an economically dicey investment but a politically dicey one as well.”I guess, they will be able to blame the nasty Yanks again for their problems.
How does any of it make Europe or the European idea great?
Posted by
Helen
at
14:11
Printable Version
Print
Looking for an alibi
I enjoyed the French Ambassador's rebuff in The Independent, who slapped down Denis MacShane's "patronising description" of French small towns "depending on low-cost flights and holidaying Britons for their survival" as "simply ludicrous" (offered in an opinion piece on 20 May).
Disagreeing with MacShane's assertion that the French will be voting on anything but the EU Constitution, Gerard Errera writes that, "if he knew France as he claims, he would have noticed that books on the EU Constitution have been topping the country's best-seller lists for weeks." He might have also have noticed "that a truly democratic and passionate debate about the future of the EU is going on across the Channel."
MacShane, though, is not on his own. Over the past few weeks, I have noticed a succession of pundits – mainly on the BBC – talking down the significance of the referendums, both in France and The Netherlands, claiming that the vote is (mainly) a popular expression of dissatisfaction on the respective governments.
It seems to me that the Euro-luvvies are looking for an alibi. If they can position any "no" results as simply "anti-government" votes, it makes it easier – they think – to call for fresh referendums.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:13
Printable Version
Print
Why bother?
"If the choice is Yes or Yes, why bother with a referendum?"
Phillipe Esnol, Socialist Mayor, Saint Germaine-en-Laye (a suburb of Paris), speaking about the French EU referendum. (In today's Telegraph)
Posted by
Richard
at
12:37
Printable Version
Print
Against the laws of nature
Says the UPI press agency, "for Schröder's Social Democratic Party to lose the province of North Rhine-Westphalia is like the Democrats in the United States losing Massachusetts, or like Tony Blair losing his seat in Sedgefield. It is against the political laws of nature."
Posted by
Richard
at
02:20
Printable Version
Print
Monday, May 23, 2005
Those battle groups again
Another Monday another meeting of Ministers, though not necessarily of minds. This time round it was Defence and on the agenda was the need to speed up political decision-making for the proposed EU battle groups that are supposed to be up and running by 2008.
The Luxembourg Defence Minister (don’t snigger there at the back), Luc Frieden, explained:
“We decided to adopt a proposal which will help us to bring down the time within which decisions are taken to enable the EU to react rapidly to crises to avoid worse coming to pass.”And there you have the problem – the whole plan is so nebulous in its purpose that no specifics can ever be provided.
Of course, the EU is not alone in wanting to speed up the political process with military decisions taken ever faster. The Americans are working on that, too. There is a difference, though. Well, several, all to do with the fact that the United States is a single country, a democracy with an accountable government and a clearly defined military structure.
The EU has none of the above: it has no democratic accountability, no single commander in chief, no line of command, no entity to which soldiers can swear an oath of allegiance. Nor has it any specific interests. In the place of all that, it tries to place structures and agreements.
Javier Solana has suggested and the others, presumably, nodded that ministers should take a decision to deploy forces within five days and for the troops to be there, fully deployed within ten days.
That, of course, assumes that there are troops to deploy. It also assumes that the member states and its legislatures will cheerfully accede to these ideas with no fear of political backlash at home.
As we have pointed out before, the proposed European Union Bill, put forward in the last Parliament in Britain, gave the Secretary of State (Foreign or Defence, presumably) extensive powers to push through decisions to do with the common foreign and security policy with no parliamentary debate. We shall have to see whether the new Bill will have the same provisions. And if there is no Bill for reasons to do with the French and Dutch referendums, whether those powers are introduced in some other way.
Mr Frieden seems to think that all member states will modify their national procedures to fall into line with EU practices, but he may find that it is easier to say that than to achieve it.
Meanwhile, according to the EUObserver:
“…Germany signed itself up to two more battle groups with France and Spain as well as with Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania and Latvia with the first to be ready in the second half of 2008 and the second during the first half of 2010.Intriguing, as news comes of a separate development in Eastern Europe (what a problem those people are, to be sure).
A Nordic group - with Estonia, Finland, Sweden and non-EU members Iceland and Norway - was also formally given the go ahead on Monday and is expected to be up and running in 2008.”
On May 13 there was a ceremony in Lutsk, in Ukraine at which the Chairmen of the Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian parliaments, signed the founding declaration of an Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the three countries.
Historically, those three have been linked for centuries and are closer to each other than they are to, let us say, Spain and Portugal. In the recent Ukrainian election crisis, it was Lithuania and Poland that took an active role, trying to sort matters out in a satisfactory way, while Solana ran around calling for peace and stability.
The idea of this Inter-Parliamentary Assembly grew out of those meetings.
The overriding purpose is to help Ukraine with its process of democratization and to bring it into NATO and the EU eventually (though, I suspect, that eventually is a very long way away).
There is something else though. According to the Eurasia Daily Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation
“Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine are also close to fielding a tripartite peacekeeping battalion. It is an outgrowth of the existing bilateral Ukrainian-Polish and Lithuanian-Polish battalions (UkrPolbat, LitPolbat). On May 11 in Kyiv, Defense Ministers Anatoly Hrytsenko of Ukraine and Gediminas Kirkilas of Lithuania signed an agreement on joining with Poland to create the tripartite LitPolUkrbat.Outside NATO they may be, but how does this fit with the common EU defence policy? NATO has never demanded that its members serve exclusively within its framework. The EU with a common policy will.
Its first mission is planned to begin later this year in Kosovo, with Poland and Ukraine contributing 200 to 300 troops each, and Lithuania 140 troops, to the NATO-led, UN-mandated Kosovo Force (KFOR). Outside NATO's framework, it should be wholly realistic for LitPolUkrbat to consider participating in peacekeeping missions in Moldova and Georgia at these countries' request.”
Will the troops simply be double-hatted? And who is putting together those peacekeeping missions in Moldova and Georgia? Should we not be told? Come to think of it, should Javier Solana not be told?
Posted by
Helen
at
21:24
Printable Version
Print
An American writes ....
Andrew Stuttaford gives an interesting analysis of the European Constitution, the forthcoming referendums and the general situation in the Eurozone on the National Review Corner blog. In particular, he is very forthright about what is and what should be American attitude:
Well, at least we gave Condi Rice the benefit of doubt."Do I think that people over here are looking enough at all this? No.
Do I think that the administration should be doing or saying anything? No, it would be counterproductive.
Do I think that Condi Rice’s supportive comments on the draft ‘constitution’ reveal an ignorance so profound and an imagination so shallow that I am at a loss to understand why she has the job she has? Yes."
Posted by
Helen
at
20:28
Printable Version
Print
There is never any point to appeasement
One of the reasons we need the European Constitution, runs the mantra, is that then Europe “will speak with one voice” and will be stronger in the world. What we have never quite worked out is what it is Europe might want to say with one voice, as there seems to be no evidence of a single interest.
The only reply one ever gets to this eminently reasonable question is that Europe needs to stand up to America. Right, so the single European interest is to oppose the United States? Well, errm, not precisely, but we need to stand up to it and create a multipolar world, not to be confused with multilateralism, which is a way of using up large amounts of money to bleat with great self-satisfaction, achieving little.
So, there we are, standing up to America (and possibly it is about time Secretary of State Rice appreciated that) but how do we do this? One obvious way is opposing everything America does. The trouble is that the United States has proclaimed the aim of its foreign policy to be the spread of democracy.
It is possible to point out various hypocritical actions, all the times the United States decides to support a less than democratic state, like Pakistan because President Musharraf is preferable to the alternative; or the rather nebulous support for the leaders of the various “stans” in Central Asia (not precisely opposed by Russia or the European Union either).
Or we can go the whole hog and actually support all those who oppose the United States. And that, I fear, is what the EU does all too often, pleading a greater sophistication and understanding of world politics.
One spectacular example has been the old and, alas, not too decrepit Communist dictator and murderer, Fidel Castro.
In 2003 the Cuban government imprisoned 75 dissidents and executed three “hijackers” who wanted to escape from the Communist paradise. The EU suspended high level contacts and began to invite those dissidents who are temporarily free to ambassadorial functions.
All that has changed and the engine of change was the new Socialist Spanish government of Zapatero. Urged by him the EU has announced that it has discerned certain changes in the Cuban regime (it must have been using a very powerful microscope) and, therefore, was ready to lift sanctions.
Counter-urged by the new East European member states, who knew all about Communist dictatorships at first hand, and whose representatives would have grown up with pictures of the bearded wonder all over their newspapers and magazines, the EU decided merely to suspend sanctions. Never mind, still a kick in the general direction of Uncle Sam.
Well, it seems Fidel is not all that grateful. Several EU parliamentarians and European journalists went to Cuba last week to attend and monitor a congress of Cuban dissidents. One of them was, in fact, a Spaniard; some others came from the former Communist states.
This was of no importance. One and all, they were frogmarched to the nearest airport, put on a plane and sent packing.
The Czech MEP Karel Schwarrzenberg did not mince his words:0
“This is the typical behaviour of a totalitarian state. I did nothing against the law. They just didn’t like the people I was visiting.”
No doubt he could recall the time when Western visitors were treated in the same way if they tried to make contact with Czech dissidents.
The German Christian Democrat, Arnold Vaatz, who had been sentenced to forced labour under the East German regime, said that he was appalled by the European “romanticism of Cuba”, adding that the dissidents had told him of increased terror and arbitrariness.
The Congress of dissidents did go ahead, despite the inevitable squabbles between the various groups and under the watchful eyes of Castro’s police.
200 people turned up on the first day but only 100 on the second. That may have been fear or a certain feeling that one day is quite sufficient.
The United States made its position clear. A senior diplomat, James Cason, attended, equipped with a videotaped message of support from President Bush.
“We will not rest. We will keep the pressure on until the Cuban people enjoy the same freedom in Havana that they have in America.”
Alas, the “we” does not include the European Union or that many European governments. Not displaying too much worry about the fate of the Cuban people, the spokesman for the Commission, Amadeu Tardio, did make a comment about the expulsion of MEPs and journalists.
He described the incident as “not acceptable”, adding:
“As such incidents occur even the best friends of Cuba would find it difficult to maintain their position.”
What on earth is Mr Tardio talking about? It is not difficult to maintain one’s position as a friend of Cuba or the Cuban people. You just have to oppose the evil government that oppresses them.
Posted by
Helen
at
19:56
Printable Version
Print
Great historic quotes # 1
With thanks to our colleague in Ireland, Anthony Coughlan (who has also spoken at Bruges Group meetings), who reminds us of something Otto von Bismarck wrote in 1880:
“I have always found the word 'Europe' on the lips of people who wanted something from others which they dared not demand under their own names.”Nothing much has changed then.
Posted by
Helen
at
18:51
Printable Version
Print
They use fruitier language in Eastern Europe
In an online interview Mirek Topolánek, the leader of the opposition ODS in the Czech Republic described the European Commission as “shit”, using for some reason the English word.
He also added that no sober person could vote for it. Will they roll out barrels of Czech beer for the referendum?
Posted by
Helen
at
18:33
Printable Version
Print
One must not misoverestimate one’s enemy
We are indebted for that word to one of our most faithful readers and commenters, Mikhael Gennser, who pointed out that the Bush neologism “misunderestimate” can be turned round.
I have finally managed to look at the infamous advertisements run by some of the Dutch MEPs, that have caused an outcry in that country.
It is difficult to tell what is fuelling the growing Dutch opposition to the Constitution: it could be a general discontent with the way Dutch and European politics are going; it could be the now officially acknowledged miscalculation over the euro; it could be the shambles of the Eurovision song contest (is that not a perennial problem?).
It would be very good to think that it is, in fact, the outrageous pro-Constitution video, fronted by four MEPs that convinced a number of those who had not intended to vote, to go out on June 1 and say no to the whole caboodle.
The pictures and words are clearly comprehensible even if one’s knowledge of Dutch is limited. In effect, they are saying that without the Constitution there will be more Holocausts, more Srebrenices, more Madrid bombs.
The Dutch are very sensitive on the first two issues, having been accused of collaborating under the Nazi occupation (though their record is no worse and often better than many others’) and being the ones who supplied the particular battalion that first disarmed the men and boys of Srebrenice, then effectively handed them over to the Serb militia. They were never seen again alive.
To be fair, again, the Srebrenice debacle happened under UN auspices and, while the Dutch government conducted and exhaustive enquiry, produced a report and resigned, the UN and its leadership merely shrugged its collective shoulders.
It is, nevertheless, an odd one to bring up, not least because the Yugoslav war was the largest in post-1945 Europe and coincided with the creation of the European Union.
The EU was around during all the years that the Al-Qaeda cells grew and multiplied in Spain and it is not quite clear how it could prevent another possible bomb attack similar to the one in Madrid last year.
One can go on arguing the historical imbecility of all this propaganda and, indeed, we all have, not least the people who responded to Margot Wallström’s stupidity over Theresienstadt.
The question does remain as to why the yes campaign considers it a good idea to keep coming up with these arguments. Do they really believe what they say: that only further integration and the creation of a European state will stand between us and another Franco-German war, another Holocaust, another massacre, another terrorist attack?
If they do believe it, how do their minds work? Have they looked at the history of the specific events? It looks like the answer to that might be no, as there is a marked tendency to refer to such events as the Holocaust as something that just happened as a result of bad karma, presumably, not as something that was brought about by real people, influenced by real ideologies.
The yes campaigners, or, at least, some of them, presumably, do genuinely believe that without the EU Germany will invade France (or, alternatively, the French will invade Germany, specifically the Ruhr); that without the constitution gas chambers will become functional again across Europe; that a yes vote in France or the Netherlands will guarantee that terrorists will never strike again.
And yet, they are allowed to run around unsupervised and even to make public pronouncements. It is a rum world.
Posted by
Helen
at
15:03
Printable Version
Print
And nappies to you too…
The business section of the Telegraph today offers a “personal view” by Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute, who argues that: It's just rubbish to put recycling on the level of a religion.
He uses as his hook, four-year study by the Environment Agency that, he writes, "has confirmed what many of us, with our back-of-the-envelope calculations, had already worked out: that disposable nappies are no worse for the environment than washable ones." From that, he goes on to explore the economic rationale of recycling, this bringing him to his conclusion that we should recycle if it is rational, not because it is a religion.
If he had been so minded, Butler could then have observed that the problem with the EU environmental policy is precisely that it does elevate recycling to the status of a religion, in the name of the great God "sustainability". This is why its attempts to create a better world will never work.
How interesting, though, that it takes a load of (soiled) nappies to identify this fundamental flaw. No so much out of the mouths of babes...
Posted by
Richard
at
15:02
Printable Version
Print
A curious choice of words
The latest instalment in the "battle for the rebate" is given coverage in most of the quality newspapers today (although, strangely, not the Europhile Independent), marking Straw’s arrival in Brussels for a foreign ministers' meeting on the vexed subject of the EU budget.
But no headline is more curious than that offered by The Scotsman, which offers: "Straw holds EU to ransom over plans to scrap Britain's 'fair' £3bn rebate".
Regular readers of this Blog will readily attest to some significant gaps in my education (fortunately, for the large part, filled by my gifted co-editor) but I do not think I am wrong in my understanding of the word "ransom".
As far as I am aware, this is a sum of money demanded by thieves (robbers, brigands, or whatever – sometimes governments, but hey! What's the difference?) for the return of an illegally held person or property.
One can forget the "illegal" bit but, in the context of the Scotsman's headline story, we have a situation where the UK is in receipt of an annual rebate, as an adjustment for a distorted budgetary payment system which would otherwise require of us to pay a disproportionate contribution to the EU.
The other member states are now demanding that we give up all or part of that rebate, in return for… er… exactly nothing. That, in my opinion – which can rarely be described as "humble" – is hardly a ransom situation, especially when be have a copper-bottomed veto, which means that Straw can tell the "colleagues" to go take a running jump.
That reality is better reflected in the Telegraph, which has: "Chancellor talks tough over threat to EU rebate", citing Brown who said yesterday that the Government "would not hesitate" to veto the next EU budget to defend Britain's multi-billion pound rebate. This is the message being delivered by Jack Straw in Brussels today.
What is curious about this is Straw's choice of words, retailed in The Times today, which quoted him on his on arrival in Brussels. There, he said: "The rebate was justified in 1984 when it was agreed. It is fully justified today and we will not hesitate to use our veto if that is necessary. Indeed, it is only the fact that we have a veto that gives a proper bargaining power to the UK."
Those with a memory span slightly longer than a goldfish will instantly recall the Foreign Office "myth rebuttal" exercise, placed on its website on February, where it spoke up in support of Qualified Majority Voting, stating: "Majority Voting helps Britain get what it wants".
"Removing national vetoes," said the Foreign Office, "helps the UK push reform in Europe. For example, without Qualified Majority Voting we could not have secured important reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy or the liberalisation of European energy markets. We are rarely outvoted."
Ho, ho, ho! And is QMV is so helpful in helping Britain get what it wants, why is not Mr Straw pushing for QMV on the budget rebate? Why does a veto give us a "proper bargaining power" on the budget, but not on other matters of national interest? Answers on a postcard please…
And there is one final curiosity. Barroso – amongst others - is claiming that it is only fair that Britain should pay more, as it is a much more wealthy country than it was when Thatcher negotiated the rebate back in 1984. But, since then, the overall contribution is calculated as a proportion of the Gross National Income (GNI), currently fixed at a maximum of one percent.
On this basis, since Britain is a wealthy country, it is automatically paying more than it otherwise would have. Barroso's argument is specious. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
Posted by
Richard
at
12:12
Printable Version
Print
Of rats and sinking ships
Although the crashing defeat of Schröder's Social Democrats last night in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia was hardly unexpected, the event could still have unexpected consequences.
One, certainly, was the chancellor bringing forward the general election from next year to this autumn, but there is an even more profound possibility. Schröder has now lost control of the Bundesrat – the upper house of the German federal parliament – controlling only five seats as opposed to the 11 of 16 that his party controlled in 1999.
Yet, it is in the Bundesrat that the final stage of ratification of the EU constitution must take place, and this is not due until 27 May. To ratify the constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote, which Schröder no longer commands.
The länder are already rebellious about being railroaded into ratifying the constitution – the timetable being set by Schröder, simply to influence the French referendum - and the election defeat gives them the opportunity to make their voices heard.
The House has expressed its concerns about the possible accession of Turkey and is uneasy about the lack of participatory rights of the Bundesrat in EU affairs. It wants to increase its influence ahead of EU decisions on subjects which affect its areas of competence, and also wants the individual right for each region to take EU institutions to the European Court of Justice in the event of a breach of the subsidiary principle.
While it is highly unlikely that the House will actually block ratification, with defeat of Schröder in North Rhine-Westphalia, the CDU/CSU could decide to flex its muscles by delaying the process. That, in turn, could influence the French referendum in a way not anticipated by Schröder, affording the Länder an opportunity to negotiate changes to the EU text - by proxy, so to speak – when or if the French reject the constitution.
In that event, we could be seeing another example of the rat leaving the sinking ship – the Bundesrat.
Posted by
Richard
at
01:52
Printable Version
Print
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Has Condi been "captured" by State?
As our readers will recall we discussed exhaustively Secretary of State Rice’s comments on her various trips to Europe and compared them to President Bush’s speech, which unequivocally placed the emphasis on Europe and European countries rather than the European Union.
Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand, seemed wavering, uncertain in her opinions (though her last comments were made in response to a carefully placed question by the Financial Times that was clearly intended to trip her up).
We hear a great deal of what “the Americans” think or what the “United States” wants or thinks. There is no such thing. The size and the variety of the country would preclude that and as a number of our commentators know to their cost, the self-appointed “elite” on the two coasts no longer represents anybody.
There is, however, no one opinion even on the government level. If there is one thing we learnt from the early months of the Iraq war it was that the State Department and the Defence Department had different ideas and different plans. It was, in fact, the multiplicity of plans that was the problem rather than the lack of one, as some people said.
So it is with the European question. By and large, it is the State Department, viewed by many in America and, even, in Washington in much the same light that we view the Foreign Office, to whom the idea of a united and even integrated Europe appeals.
The argument that the European Union, should it ever acquire a common foreign and security policy, will be anti-American, cuts little ice with the diplomats of State. They are there, as someone told to me in Washington, to explain to Americans why the world does not like them, not to represent American interests. (The world in their case consists of other diplomats and members of various multilateral and transnational organizations – the international great and the good, in other words.)
As with our own Foreign Secretaries, so it is with Secretaries of State, only more so: one watches for signs of capture. Sad to say, it is beginning to look as if Condoleezza Rice may have been captured by State. One hopes not but the signs are not good.
ISN Security Watch reports that Secretary of State Rice
“… has told the leaders of the US Congressional Task Force on the UN that there was a “very poor rationale” for giving Germany a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (UNSC) because the EU was already represented on the council.”The report is based on a leaked memorandum, so it may not be entirely accurate, but it is worrying to think that there is an acceptance at that level of the concept of the EU as one unit that can have so much representation on international organizations but no more.
What happens then with the much-touted Anglo-American alliance and friendship? Where does Britain come into this scheme? Or for that matter the new member states of Eastern Europe, whose good sense was so notably lauded by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?
Having Germany as a permanent member of the Security Council would be in everybody’s interest. For one thing, it would open the floodgates to other members, thus ensuring that the Security Council would never make any decisions at all. Since most of its decisions are either bad or dangerous or lead to corruption, that would be an entirely good thing. Let them squabble while individual countries would get on with the work through various “coalitions of the willing”.
Then again, if Germany has a permanent seat, Italy may want one as well. Once a country achieves that eminence, it will not want to retreat. Three or four European countries with permanent seats, unwilling to give them up, would signal the end of any EU ambition to become THE one to sit on the Security Council.
Still, even according to the leaked memorandum, Condoleezza Rice makes it clear that she thinks the UN has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously.
“In the leaked memo, Rice also said one guideline for restructuring the Security Council should be that “no non-democratic state should become a permanent member”.It’s just this problem of Europe and the European Union that she seems to have problems with. This is a little worrying as the general opinion is that Rice has President Bush’s ear. So far, he has not followed her lead in his pronouncements and may well be listening to other people on this subject.
The memo also quoted Gingrich as saying he doubted that serious change would take place unless the current UN leadership was removed, adding that an entire layer of the UN’s bureaucracy would continue to deteriorate unless the current leadership was cut out. His sentiments were similar to those of the controversial US nominee for the post of ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.
According to the memo, Rice responded to Gingrich by saying: “You won’t get an argument from me.”
Rice also said the principle of allocating jobs in the UN via geographic distribution was a "disgrace”.”
Posted by
Helen
at
23:24
Printable Version
Print
A quarter of a million up
Well, it's something worth celebrating. Courtesy of our steadily increasing band of readers, it only took us 13 months to get there and, if the current 'hit rate is maintained - and I manage to stay out of prison - we will easily have half a million up by the end of the year.
Interestingly, hit number 250,000 came from a US reader, which is not unsurprising as the USA accounts for a good third of our readership. I do not know whether we are improving trans-Atlantic relations, but we are certainly trying.
For the rest, our main readership does come from the UK, with The Netherlands in third place, but we have a good following from Spain and a sizeable scattering from the rest of the world.
And, despite popular request for one now, I think we'll save the party for when we reach a million 'hits'. In the meantime, both Helen and I look forward to seeing some of you on Wednesday, in London. For the rest, we both thank you all for your support.
Posted by
Richard
at
18:25
Printable Version
Print
The best outcome
The papers today are full of speculation about the outcome of the French referendum, of such confusing diversity that it is pointless even trying to summarise it.
Interestingly, though, after Delors recently let the cat out of the bag about there being a “Plan B” in the event of a French "non" – only to have it denied - The Sunday Telegaph is now revealing that there was a Plan B after all.
In the event of a "non" the 25 EU members plan to issue an emergency joint statement, as long as the rejection is by a small margin. The statement would insist that the constitution lives on and that ratification must continue. Britain would therefore go ahead with its referendum.
Under this plan, the treaty would be voted on again by the French after its ratification by all other EU states. However, if France votes against the treaty by a big majority, a possible outcome dubbed a "grand Non", many EU leaders accept that the constitution would in effect be dead, and it would be futile to try to shore it up with an emergency statement.
While some pundits suggest that we would be better off with a French "oui", the prospect of a French "petit Non" seems to be the best possible outcome. Not least, this would maximise the political pain for Tony Blair – with Britain holding the EU presidency over the crucial period, he would be expected to broker the deal that brought the French back into the fold.
The sight of Blair squirming to justify the constitution to the French – who are already suspicious of its being an "Anglo Saxon Trojan Horse" – is a treat too good to be missed, especially as, at the same time, he will be trying to sell the text to us, as being "Good for Britain".
Altogether then, Wayampi Indians notwithstanding, we on this Blog will be hoping for a very narrow "non" – the narrower the better.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:56
Printable Version
Print
Bright, this one!
"I think there will be a 'yes'. If we don't (vote 'yes'), there is a great risk there will be a 'no'".
Elizabeth Guigou, former French Europe minister, speaking about the French referendum, on The World at One, today.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:28
Printable Version
Print
Bring on the terrible twins
Scotland on Sunday reports that, according to a Downing Street spokesman, the great comic double act, Blair and Brown, will move into action after the results from France and the Netherlands come in, to sell the Constitution to the people of Britain.
Remembering the effect Chirac’s involvement in France and certain Dutch politicians’ in Holland has had on the campaign, we on the no side should be greeting this news with joy.
This is especially true as either the spokesman or the Westminster correspondent of the newspaper has seriously misread the election results:
“TONY Blair and Gordon Brown will reprise the 'double act' that helped steer Labour to a third election victory in a desperate attempt to turn public opinion around and win support for the much-derided European constitution.”
Helped to steer? Given the size of the majority in the last parliament and the imbalance in the make-up of the constitutencies, there could have been no other result but a Labour victory. In fact, let us recall, the media was uniformly predicting a much larger one than the electorate delivered.
As it has been noted already, had the Conservative Party been a little more forthcoming on some issues, particularly Europe, the majority would have even been smaller.
The great comic duo has steered Labour to a point where it lost many thousands of votes and has come back into power on 26 per cent of it. Hardly something to be proud of but, not content with “dying” once on a Saturday night in the provinces, the comic duo wants to repeat its performance.
Posted by
Helen
at
13:17
Printable Version
Print
They've finally found a use for the constitution
In an article in The Sunday Times, Matthew Campbell reports on how Chirac is counting on jungle tribes to swing the EU vote.
These are the Wayampi Indians, who inhabit an alligator-infested corner of French Guiana in South America. They are one of the many tribes in the French portfolio of dominions around the globe from the Pacific to the Amazon jungle. Their 1.4m voters, Campbell writes, could swing the result in the French referendum and determine the future of Europe.
Although they only speak rudimentary French, copies of the constitution have been shipped to them at considerable expense on Air France from Paris, and then by helicopter and canoe up the river from Cayenne, the distant capital. The Wayampi, it seems, are particularly pleased to receive them as, we are told, they come in handy for wrapping tapir meat and lighting fires.
These Indians are to be congratulated. They are the first community to have found a use for the constitution.
Posted by
Richard
at
10:46
Printable Version
Print
Booker
After the fishermen, (some) farmers, abattoir owners, electricians, food supplement retailers, chemical manufacturers, lorry drivers, magazine distributors, and sundry others too diverse to mention – to say nothing of the operators of Sally B - it is now the turn of Britain's small animal vets to feel the pinch.
Thanks to an EC directive, Booker writes in today's column, they could soon have to spend a quarter of their working lives recording mountains of almost wholly irrelevant data, forcing them to increase their bills to pet owners by up to 25 percent. He continues:
The threat arises from just one article in the proposed Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2005, implementing directive 2004/28 and now out to 'consultation', which will affect Britain’s 2,500 small animal veterinary practices.It is those last few words that chill the heart: "implementation of the directive's provisions is an obligation of membership of the EU". That also sounds a little bit familiar. Only yesterday we read in the Telegraph, in relation to the absurd rules that have grounded Sally B, the words of a "senior officials from the Department of Transport", who said that "nothing can be done about the rule." And that is because – you guessed it – it is an obligation of membership of the EU.
The new regulations stem from a series of Brussels directives which, since 1990, have sought to protect meat eaters from adverse reactions to drugs used to treat farm animals. But the directives make no distinction between animals for human consumption (including horses eaten on the continent) and domestic pets such as dogs, cats and guinea pigs.
Article 66 of the proposed regulations, headed "Record Keeping", lays down that every time a vet buys in a medicinal product, he or she must record the date, product, quantity, manufacturer's batch number and expiry date. Each time it is dispensed the same data must be recorded, with client details. At the year’s end all drugs dispensed must be checked against stocks remaining, and records kept for five years.
All this might not seem unreasonable until one looks at what it means in practice. As pointed out by Simon Gubbins, the West Midlands vet who drew this to my attention, "every time I see a dog with a bad ear that might get an antiobiotic injection and an anti-inflammory injection, followed by two sorts of tablets and possibly two sorts of topical drops, I will have to spend up to five minutes recording 12 sets of numbers on the clinical records".
Michael Jessop, president-elect of the Small Animals Veterinary Association, explains "in an average day, we may prescribe 200 items, each of which must be recorded, then audited". 30 consultations a day, with five minutes each logging-in time, adds up to two and a half hours a day, or twelve and a half hours a week. This is more than a quarter of the time a vet will be permitted to work under the EC's working time directive.
The implications are horrendous. The loss of time will inevitably mean longer waits for appointments and higher bills. Even with dedicated software, so far not available, tallying up this data will be hugely time-consuming. For the 25 percent of practices not computerised, as Mr Jessop points out, "it will be all but impossible". Any errors will be treated as a criminal offence punishable by fines or imprisonment.
This "batch recording" requirement derives from just one article in a set of regulations 115 pages long. The original purpose of the legislation which inspired them was to protect humans. Not many dogs, cats and guinea pigs are eaten in Britain. Even if the officials now claim it would also be useful to be able to track down any batch of drugs found to be faulty, almost all those millions of pieces of data solemnly logged-in and kept for five years will never be looked at again.
The VMD admitted it will have no "information on the cost of keeping the necessary records" until the consultation is complete. But it insisted that "implementation of the directive's provisions is an obligation of membership of the EU".
Let the Euro-luvvies explain that away.
Anyhow, for his next story, Booker picks up on our posting about that idiot Matthew McGregor, styled as "Head of Campaigns – Vote-No", and his debacle on Newsnight last week, plus sundry other matters, all to write a “state of play” article on the forthcoming – possibly – referendum campaign. He writes:
As the campaign for a referendum on the "Constitution for Europe" stutters into gear, unsure until France votes next Sunday whether we will have one at all, both sides will need to get their act together rather more convincingly than was evident last week. Considering the gravity of the issues at stake, many viewers must have been stunned by the Newsnight discussion last Wednesday, when the spokesmen for each side seemed not just far too young and inexperienced but singularly ill-briefed.Number three, as we call it, tilts at the journalists who claimed that the Queen’s Speech "broke the record" by proposing 45 new Bills. Booker thinks they should be sent on a beginners' course in how our country is now governed:
Fronting for the "Yes" side is "Britain in Europe", with its shambolic track record, hoping that Mr Blair will soon be sending in some rather more heavyweight reinforcements than Douglas Alexander, after his faltering start as our new Europe minister. Along with the Lib Dems and a few Tories, led by Kenneth Clarke, their aim will be to downplay the contents of the Constitution as far as possible, hoping no one will actually read it, to see how much further it would subordinate Britain to a supranational form of government which in almost all significant respects will be able to dictate how our country is run.
Front-running for the "No" camp is an uneasy alliance between Michael Howard's Tory Party and an all-party "No" campaign, set up by the businessmen behind "Business for Sterling" which campaigned effectively against the euro. A central weakness of these groups is their almost comical determination to show that they have nothing against Britain’s membership of the EU as such, but only oppose the constitution.
This will involve them in wondrous intellectual contortions, as they try to distinguish between those bits of the Constitution which are new and those which are simply carried over from previous treaties. The result can be as embarrassing as the young "No" spokesman’s reply to Jeremy Paxman, when he stammered "I don’t think anyone in the No campaign is against there being a constitution". In other words, these "Yesno" campaigners would welcome an EU constitution. It is just this particular constitution they don’t care for.
So far glaringly absent from this line-up is a broader-based "People's Campaign", appealing to ordinary voters who want a grown-up, free-ranging debate on Britain’s relationship with the EU rather than one so tightly constrained from the top as to be meaningless. Next Wednesday at 2 pm, various Eurosceptic groups will meet at Abingdon House, 13 Little College Street, opposite the House of Lords, to discuss launching such a "People's No Campaign". Anyone is welcome to join former Tory and Labour MPs and Neil Herron, the doughty campaigner from the North East, to plan a campaign which is not being set up in rivalry with others but to complement them - in a way which after next Sunday may seem badly needed.
For a start, the only way Blair's proposals for an 18-month session challenged for a record was not in how many Bills he put forward but how few. When John Major put through only 41 in 1994-5, this was historically a record low. Through much of the post-war era, 150 to 200 Bills a year were commonplace.The final story, or "four", deals with two of my own personal obsessions, "speeding" and compulsory metrication, combined in an unexpected way. Booker writes:
A more important point to which these journalists are oblivious is that most of our legislation no longer needs be discussed by Parliament at all. It is issued in the form of statutory instruments or ministerial edicts. Since 1990 the number of these has soared, so that they now average 3,400 a year.
Although much of this "secondary legislation" is trivial, it also now includes many of the more onerous and far-reaching laws going onto our statute book, notably the hundreds of regulations required each year to implement legislation from Brussels (even 10 of Blair’s new Bills are EU-related). If journalists are troubled by what the Evening Standard's Anne McElvoy called this "juggernaut" of new laws our Government is imposing on us, they should first find out how most of our laws are now made, and then recognise which "government" is actually imposing them.
There was understandable uproar over the decision of district judge Bruce Morgan in Ludlow to acquit PC Mark Milton on a speeding charge for driving his police car at 159 mph on the M54. He even criticised the bringing of a prosecution, on the grounds that, as a "crème de la crème" advanced police driver, Milton needed practice at driving fast.It does indeed – one rule for us, and one for them. I wonder if they realise the extent to which they are held in loathing and contempt.
But, interestingly, it was this same Judge Morgan who, in April 2002, had no hesitation in finding a Sunderland market trader, Steve Thoburn, guilty of a criminal offence under EC-inspired law for selling a "pound of bananas". The late Mr Thoburn was clearly not "crème de la crème". To sell a pound of bananas is obviously a criminal act, but it is fine for a policeman to break the speeding laws by 90 miles an hour. This perhaps tells us more about today's Britain than Judge Morgan may have realised.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:24
Printable Version
Print
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Now is the time for all good men ...
Browsing through the English-language version of Corriere della Sera (as one does) I came across a couple of articles by one of their star commentators, Gianni Riotta.
One was a prolonged hand-wringing exercise of the possibility of the lustre of the European project being tarnished by the French voting no, ending with what he clearly thinks is a firm warning:
“If, by a hair’s breadth, the constitution manages to elude the blade of the referendum guillotine, we must thank the French. But the very next day, we should be working to refine our interpretation of the constitution, and to launch a Europe where “social” is not synonymous with the conservatism of a stale, decadent, Ancien Régime.”Of course, as one looks at the shenanigans of Commission President Barroso, the ever more idiotic comments of the fragrant Margot and the staggering stupidity and arrogance of some of the yes campaigners in the Netherlands, the term “Ancien Régime” is precisely the one that comes to mind. I am afraid, it is too late, Signor Riotta.
The other article was somewhat more surprising. Its title was The Scandal-stained UN and it began with words similar to those written in the Wall Street Journal Europe many months ago:
“Let’s suppose for a minute that the chairman of a multinational was under investigation for preferential contracts granted to his own son, while the board was passing kickbacks to bloodthirsty dictators, and executives were resigning in droves under suspicion of bribery. Let’s also suppose that the company’s employees had been accused of raping starving African children in exchange for cookies.Dear me, I thought.Nobody loves the UN any more, not even Italian journalists. In fact, the rest of the article proceeds more in sorrow than in anger, Signor Riotta’s greatest fear being that the UN’s refusal to clean up its act will confirm “the neocons’ worst unilateralist prejudices”.
Finally, let’s imagine that two members of the commission of inquiry had announced that their findings were being covered up. How would public opinion react? With scorn, with impassioned youngsters demonstrating outside the company’s offices, with self-important editorials in the papers, and with demands for swift, sure, guilty verdicts.
This cheerless imaginary scenario is actually, tragically, unfolding at the United Nations, the most important, most prestigious multilateral organization on the planet. The secretary general, Kofi Annan, is entangled in the 50 billion-euro Oil for Food scandal involving under-the-counter payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime, and his son Kojo is accused of covering up embarrassing commissions from Cotecna, one of the companies involved.
Following charges of illegal conduct against Undersecretary-general Benon Sevan, it is now the turn of Maurice Strong, the U.N.’s special envoy to Korea, to suspend himself for being too friendly with a businessman who doubled as an Iraqi bagman.
Two members of the investigation committee, Robert Parton and Miranda Duncan, have resigned in protest at pressure to go easy on Kofi and Kojo Annan in their final report. Sadly, we all know about the Blue Helmets’ sexual transgressions in Africa from the revelations of the young girls who were raped,which we would prefer never to have heard about.”
It might, of course, confirm some other people’s prejudices, as well. Furthermore, a refusal, even now to condemn all those practices unequivocally does little to dispel those prejudices.
Still, unlike many of the British apologists for the UN (the BBC springs to mind) Gianni Riotta seems to be more on the John Bolton side of the argument about where the UN should be going next. (Not that he would see it that way.)
“In recent years, the U.N. has been touted by ad hoc apologists as a moral conscience capable of opposing war, imperialism, and even pollution in the name of peace and harmony. If we concede that this is its role, and not the pragmatic, robust mediation of interests promoted in the name of human rights and development, it is evident that the United Nations is losing its charisma,and is incapable of instilling fear in bullies and bandits.”As it happens the UN has never had much charisma, except for those who did well out of it; nor did it ever instill fear in bullies and bandits, some of the worst, such as the Soviet Union and China, being much cherished permanent members of the Security Council.
But it is Signor Riotta’s final conclusion that is priceless in its brilliant and unconscious (I think) humour:
“For anyone who truly loves the U.N., and wants to serve it with passion, the time for hard, disinterested decisions has arrived. Before September, when the debate on reform will begin, the Glass Palace will have to be cleansed of its oil stains, and regain its former transparency.”You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
Posted by
Helen
at
23:57
Printable Version
Print
One size definitely does not fit all
Among all the articles full of surprise that the people of France and the Netherlands appear to be more cussed than the “traditionally eurosceptic” British, the International Herald Tribune also had one on the economic aspects of the European “experiment.
(That expression reminds me of an old Communist joke about some chap asking at a party meeting whether it was true that Marx and Engels were doctors. Yes, he is told, though, they had PhDs. Well, says the questioner unabashed, why did they not experiment on animals first? I suppose nowadays the animal rights brigade would be up in arms if all these political “experiments” were inflicted on our four-legged friends first.)
Mark Landler of the New York Times looked at the situation in Spain, where the economy or, at least, the housing market is seriously over-heating. (While unemployment remains very high, though Mr Landler did not seem to notice that.)
Mr Landler makes it clear that he thinks the eurozone is a good idea, but he is, nevertheless, bemused with what is happening:
“Nearly two decades after joining the European Union, Spain is on the leading edge of an emerging, and troubling, dichotomy between dynamic European countries with fast-rising asset prices, and lumbering countries with moribund markets,most notably Germany. Far from converging into a more homogeneous bloc, the 12 countries that use the euro are dispersing into sprinters and laggards, with different levels of consumer confidence, industrial activity, and economic vigor. Bustling Ireland, with a growth rate of 5 percent, has little in common with becalmed Italy, where output may shrink this year.There are many reasons for the rapid rise in housing prices, the most rapid since the mid-1980s of any large country in the world, according to Michael Ball, author of an annual survey of the European housing market published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in London.
“This has created a conundrum for the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, which sets interest rates for much of the Continent. For months, the bank has signaled it wants to lift rates. But it is afraid of hobbling weak countries like Germany and the Netherlands.
While the Germans linger on the edge of a recession, Spaniards are taking out cut-rate mortgages to buy and build houses at a furious pace.”
One of the biggest one, however, is the interest rate set by the European Central Bank. Spain, it is considered, could easily absorb a higher rate than 2 per cent.
“Germany is the polar opposite. With an unemployment rate of 11.8 percent and growth of less than 1 percent, prices have been flat or even falling in recent years. Foreign investors are buying German property because it is viewed as a bargain. On the other hand, housing prices are rising at double-digit rates in Ireland and France. "Housing-price inflation is the first indication of a monetary policy that is too expansionary," said Jörg Krämer, the chief economist of HVB Group in Munich. "If we get a bubble, there is a high risk it will burst."”Mark Landler provides no answer. He merely notes the, to him rather strange, phenomenon of the euro not bringing the European economies together or even closer to each other.
Meanwhile, just down the road, Italy has gone into a “technical” recession. In other words, its GDP has fallen for the second quarter running. According to the Corriere della Sera:
“There was a 0.5% drop between January and March in comparison with the previous quarter, and the year-on-year trend has plummeted from +0.8% at the end of 2004 to -0.2%. Again according to data released yesterday by the ISTAT statistics institute, industrial output fell in March by 5.2% on an annual basis.”That’s pretty bad, you might say, but then you are not Silvio Berlusconi, who simply refuses to acknowledge that this is a recession, though he did admit that the situation is not one to encourage optimism.
“Italian domestic consumption is languishing and exports are falling. In the first quarter, all the key Italian economic sectors continued to suffer. In March, textile production fell by 11% on an annual basis, and footwear was down 16.6%. Furniture production had contracted by 8.1%, and output of motor vehicles fell by 9.8%. What is worse, the situation is unlikely to improve in the short term. ISAE (Institute for Studies and Economic Analysis) experts forecast “only weak signs of improvement”.”The worst is yet to come, I fear. The European Commission has decided that the time has come to act on the Italian situation, where the problems are now being described as “structural” not contingent.
“In the light of the new data, the E.U. Commission is stepping up the pace of its inquiry into Italy’s accounts as it prepares to propose infringement procedures in June.”Should the infringement procedures go through, what will they propose as remedy? A huge fine? That should set the economy up, I do not doubt. Then again, Italy is unlikely to pay it.
Posted by
Helen
at
23:27
Printable Version
Print
The love that dare not speak its name
It is rather ironic that, in my commentary to the Booker column of 8 May, I made the following observation:
Once again, the malign influence of the EU is to the fore. If only people were more aware of what was going on – beyond that band of devotees who read the Booker column every week – we would all be better off.As it happens, I was commenting on the situation in Botswana but it was that same week that the column carried as its lead story the changes to the system of magazine distribution in this country, instigated in order to bring the UK into line with EU law, that threatens the very survival of many of the periodicals produced in this country and put up to 12,000 retailers out of business.
But now – at least yesterday – The Guardian carried the same story in one of its leaders, under the title: "It ain't broke". Decrying the proposed changes, it noted that the only people likely to gain were large retailers with existing distribution networks. The losers, it said, will probably be everyone else, since higher prices throughout the supply chain will be passed on to publisher and consumer. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is a good rule of thumb," the leader concluded.
However, there was a singular difference between the Booker story and The Guardian contribution. Booker had tracked down the driver behind the proposed change – the British government's insistence that UK practice be brought into line with EU competition law, whereas The Guardian put the blame entirely on the Office of Fair Trading, which is administering the changes on behalf of the government – with not a single mention of the EU.
It really is quite remarkable how many times this happens, with the most Europhile newspapers so anxious to conceal from their readers the malign effects of the organisation they so love. The same goes for pro-EU blogs, few though they are, which are so often remarkably silent on the adverse effects of the "project".
That, in itself, tells you all you need to know about the project. The Euro-luvvies may fawn over their construct, but it is a love that dare not speak it name.
Posted by
Richard
at
15:50
Printable Version
Print
That just about says it all!
Following on from yesterday’s posting on the Sally B, the story about how Britain's last airworthy Flying Fortress has been grounded by an EU regulation is also covered in today's Telegraph.
Although there has been vigorous campaigning to get Sally B exempted from this absurd regulation, the Telegraph cites "senior officials from the Department of Transport", who say that "nothing can be done about the rule."
It took effect on 1 May 1, with no exceptions allowed, and applies across the EU. But, continues the Telegraph:
It is also supposed to affect the only other B17 flying in Europe - Pink Lady, operating in France - although a spokesman for the company said the French government had not enforced the rule and Pink Lady was flying as normal. The Sally B, as a civilian aircraft owned and operated by a small group led by the Danish-born Mrs Sallingboe, appears to be unique in suffering so much from the EU rule...Now doesn't that just about say it all!
What the hell is wrong with us in this country, that we seem prepared to put up with this sort of crap?
Posted by
Richard
at
12:36
Printable Version
Print
Who is this "we", paleface?
In a letter to the Telegraph, published today, Sir Fred Catherwood - former chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board, and 15 years a member of the EU Parliament for Cambridgeshire, including a tenure as its Vice President – writes to implore us to accept the EU constitution.
"Of course", he writes, "the proposed European Constitution contains much that we dislike, as do our own British laws. But it is what we and our partners agreed before the arrival of a dozen new states, each with a vote and a veto at the council table…."
"It is what we and our partners agreed…"? And just precisely who is this "we", paleface?
Posted by
Richard
at
12:20
Printable Version
Print
Vote "yes" or we'll invade France
With polls showing voters swinging between "yes" and "no" - with treaty opponents holding a narrow lead this week - a rerun of 1992, when the French approved the Maastricht treaty by only 51 percent, is possible.
So says an AP report covered by The Guardian website, which also cites French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin saying: "Every vote will count."
Certainly, the French political élites are showing increasing desperation and so, it seems, are the Germans, according to a story in the Canadian daily, the Globe and Mail.
This paper reports how French citizens who thought they would spend a quiet day at the Louvre this week have found themselves assaulted by German youths, dozens of them, intent on plying them with blue-and-yellow flags, heaps of literature and long, impassioned arguments.
It cites Hans-Stefan Stemmer, a 20-year-old Berlin university student, who tells a bewildered elderly couple in fluent French in the museum’s elegant courtyard, "I'm asking you, as fellow Europeans, to think about whether you want my people to retreat back into our old history." They decline his offer of European Union flags, but say they will think about about his entreaties.
Mr. Stemmer, it seems, and hundreds of his comrades are part of a desperate last-ditch effort this week by leaders across Europe to persuade the French to vote in favour of adopting the constitution.
Since nothing seems to have worked, it was time to bring in the Germans. The students have been bussed from across Germany to beg and plead on French streets for people to cast a "oui" vote, in the belief that French citizens, suddenly disillusioned with their media and politicians, are more likely to listen to rank outsiders.
However, the sub-test of the approach is, to say the least, sinister, if not alarming. A "retreat back into our old history" from a German can only really mean one thing, the message effectively being – if you take it to its logical conclusion – "vote 'yes' or we'll invade France – again".
Posted by
Richard
at
00:42
Printable Version
Print
Friday, May 20, 2005
Mustn't get political...
A few weeks ago, via the Booker column, we reported on the how the last remaining British-owned airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress had been stopped from flying by EU rules.
Wrote Booker, at the time: "It seems curiously symbolic…"
…that this summer's celebrations of "Victory in Europe" will not include fly-pasts by Britain's last surviving Flying Fortress. For those of us old enough to remember B-17s darkening the skies of southern England in 1943 and 1944, as they flew out for daylight raids on the continent (rather fewer of them returning), there is peculiar irony in the fact that the last of them, the Sally B, owned and run at Duxford by a charity, should have been grounded by a regulation from "Europe".One of the many people who took up the cause of Sally B was the indefatigable ex-airline captain Bryn Wayt but, it seems, his efforts have not been appreciated. He has just received and e-mail from Elly Sallingboe, who describes herself as "Operator, B-17 Preservation", telling him:
The Sally B's website tells the sorry tale of how, under EC regulation 785/2004, the B-17 must now be classified for insurance purposes alongside commercial airliners, prohibitively raising its premiums to the equivalent of £1,000 for each hour of flying time. It is painful to read the letters from a British minister and the head of our Civil Aviation Authority, explaining how, since this is a Brussels regulation, they have no power to grant an exemption for the B-17, although it may seem absurd that the law has been drafted on such a one-size-fits-all basis.
So the last of the "Forts" that helped save Europe 60 years ago, and which serves as an official memorial to the 79,000 US aircrew who lost their lives, can no longer fly again. Bless you, "Europe".
…I want to make it very clear that our sole concern is to get an unsatisfactory Regulation amended so that we can save our B-17. There are no political motives in our campaign, and we do not wish to be associated with any political campaigning. So, please, please STOP using our campaign for your own battle against the EU."There are no political motives…", she writes. Of course there are. The decision to implement EC regulation 785/2004 was a political decision, and the fight against it is a political fight. But, like so many, who inhabit their own corner of misery, Elly Sallingboe believes she (and presumably her immediate colleagues) can fight the good fight without "getting political". She is wrong.
In this, I am reminded of the haunting comments made by Pastor Martin Niemöller about the Nazis:
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.Albeit without the same evil intent, this is the way the EU works, picking off each sector of economic enterprise, one by one. Each, whether it is the fishermen, the farmers, the slaughtermen, the electricians and, as we will see on Sunday in the new Booker column, the vets, deal with the threat as if it applies to them alone. Divided they stand, divided they fall.
But Sally B is something different. It is a symbol, a reminder of the young men of the US 8th Army Air Force to took to the skies in Europe to defend our freedom. They did not stand alone and fight their own battles. They fought – and died - for us all. Now, Sally B, the last remaining airworthy Flying Fortress in Britain is grounded. But she is not just the property of her custodians. In a way, she belongs to us all and we all have a right to fight the battle to keep her flying – against the enemy that has kept her earth-bound.
Mz Sallingboe, your battle is our battle, whether you like it or not.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:46
Printable Version
Print
More news from the Low Countries
The Belgian Parliament to nobody’s surprise has ratified the European Constitution. The Lower House followed the Senate’s endorsement with 118 votes in favour, 18 against and 1 abstention.
However, it is not over, not by a long chalk, let alone the shouting. The 18 votes against were those of Vlaams Belang (still called the Vlaams Blok by some news agencies). The point is that because of the 1993 constitutional reform the ratification has to be completed in the three regional parliaments.
The no camp has protested at the lack of any discussion in the country or even the media of the constitution and its implications, pointing to the different situation in France and the Netherlands. In both those countries, the extended discussion has led to a significant lead for the no side in the opinion polls.
Not surprisingly, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, has firmly announced that there was no point in any more discussion. Instead he reassured everyone that the effects of the Constitution
“… will not be as tangible as when the euro was introduced, or the borders suppressed”,not necessarily a useful argument.
Of the three regions, the one to watch is Flanders, where the Vlaams Belang has a majority. Verhofstadt himself is a Fleming, which is probably why he hates the Vlaams parties with a passionate hatred.
Meanwhile, over the border in the Netherlands, two opinion polls have put the no side well in the lead.
A poll for RTL television indicated 54% would vote No, with 27% voting Yes. A poll by Centerdata, also published on Thursday, showed 50.9% against the constitution and 28.6% for it.
Among all the various reasons produced by the political establishment to explain the seemingly incomprehensible Dutch attitude – fear of immigration, dislike of the government, dislike of integration that is going too fast – there are a couple of interesting comments by the Socialist MP Harry Van Bommell, one of the leaders of the No campaign.
He is adamant that an important consideration is the threat to the sovereignty of small countries like the Netherlands, presumably not exactly alleviated by President Chirac’s promise that the Constitution will strengthen Franco-German control.
But there is something else, and it ought to be taken into account by our own politicians:
“Mr Van Bommel also said Dutch people were being pushed towards a No vote because of the "ghost stories" being told by the government.Quite so. Enough to make the mildest of people annoyed.
"The justice minister has even said there is a chance of war in Europe if there is a No vote - referring to the break-up of the former republic of Yugoslavia.
"The people in this country sometimes are not completely informed about what is going on, but they are not stupid. They are angry at the government for the fact that they are insulting their intelligence."”
Posted by
Helen
at
17:21
Printable Version
Print
As stupid as he sounds?
Keeping up with the twists and turns of the controversy on the EU budget is more than usually difficult at the moment, not least because I am working on an update for The Great Deception.
I have just reach the point last year when the "great debate" started and comparing the current "cuts" with the batch last year, it is very difficult to discern the difference. With my already very slender grasp of reality (and the first one who agrees on the comments section gets banned!), I really do have difficulty working out which year I am in.
Anyhow, the latest update is provided by the BBC website which, when it confines itself to fact instead of ill-informed opinion (it should leave that to the bloggers) is not too bad.
Barroso, it appears, has ventured out of his lair in Brussels and, in addition to meeting Blair this morning at Chequers – one wonders if they discussed their holiday arrangements – went to that temple of Europhilia, the LSE, to deliver a talk which encompassed the demerits of the British budget rebate.
Telling the students that the rebate was no longer justified, he suggested that British taxpayers would understand that it "has to go" if politicians "had the courage to explain why".
The response, it seems, was less than complimentary, his remarks apparently invoking laughs from the student audience, not out of merriment, but of the domestic soliped variety. Certainly, Barroso seems to be getting a "horse laugh" from Blair, whose spokesman has told the commission president that: "The rebate is fully justified, full stop."
Maybe, what Barroso said today – together with the comments from the Three Musketeers is just pre-referendum posturing, for the benefit of French and Dutch audiences. I would hate to think he is as stupid as he sounds.
Posted by
Richard
at
16:30
Printable Version
Print
Taking to the boats?
There is a particularly stupid comment piece from Bruce Anderson in The Times today, who discusses the "state of play" on the constitution in the "Thunderer" section.
Says the clever-dick, in the context of the prime minister relying on the French delivering a "no" vote to get him off a rather uncomfortable hook, "Messrs Straw and Blair should beware. Anyone intending to rely on the French would be wise to have a Plan B, involving rapid withdrawal to the Channel ports and lots of little ships. The French might still vote 'yes'".
Anderson then concludes that, whatever the French do, "one outcome is certain. In Mr Blair's vacillation, future historians will find further evidence that Jacques Delors was right. The British are allergic to Europe."
I am not sure whether Anderson is parodying the Eurosceptic position, or merely seeking to reflect it, or whether I have missed the point all together. Either way, it totally misrepresents the sentiment which, at the risk of inducing tedium, must be repeated again and again.
We are not against Europe; we have no fear of Europe. And when it comes to the French, I am with the correspondent who wrote in the Telegraph yesterday, who observed that, when you met the ordinary people (Parisians and French motorists excepted) they were friendly, courteous and kind.
That is certainly my experience, to the extent that my loathing for the French must always be taken to mean their politicians (or most of them) and the political élites – a loathing, incidentally, shared by most French citizens.
The essential issue, therefore, remains that we are not against “Europe” but the European Union, a form of government characterised by the single word, "supranational". Meaning, "above the nation", it is best explained as a form of government which has the power to impose on us laws to which we object and which are against the national interest – viz, the Working Time Directive.
Emphasising this word "supranational", in my view, shots the fox which the likes of Mr Douglas Alexander, our new Minister for Europe, likes to set running. According to The Financial Times, he is today addressing a City meeting where he will praise the constitution, stating that: "It recognises that the union is one of free and sovereign nations, sharing our power where that makes us stronger."
More accurately, and truthfully, the union is one in which the political élites of formerly free, sovereign nations – largely without the informed assent of their peoples – have given power to a supranational government which then exercises it without effective restraint, often against our national interest.
This brings me to yesterday’s posting, which sparked a lively discussion of such length that the comment system eventually shut down.
There, I advanced the thesis that the alternative to the "supranational idea" was "intergovernmentalism", inviting questions as to what precisely that meant.
Frankly, at this stage of the debate, I do not know. It is a measure of how "Europe" has stymied thinking, that very little effort has gone into working out credible alternatives. This must be one of our tasks in the months to come, one which the Eurosceptic community has been remiss in not addressing.
For the moment though, we await the results of the referendums in France and The Netherlands. I would not even begin to predict the results – or the consequences. Maybe it will mean that we are deprived of an opportunity to have a referendum, but whatever the outcome, taking to the boats is not the answer. The debate must continue.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:06
Printable Version
Print
Try to catch us up
"My tip for today," he advised. "If you see us running, try to catch us up".
Quoted by David Rennie in today's Telegraph, who had been spending the day out with the bomb squad, clearing unexploded shells from Flanders fields.
Not bad advice to a correspondent who more usually spends his time covering the EU.
Posted by
Richard
at
10:47
Printable Version
Print
Alexander believes "Yes" camp can win
Douglas Alexander, the government's replacement for Denis MacShane, is looking forward to a referendum on the EU constitution and believes that the "yes" campaign can win.
"My experience as a campaigner teaches me that you win campaigns when you win the arguments. I believe we have the arguments to win this referendum campaign," he told The Times today.
"What emerged from the negotiations, a strengthened role for national governments and parliaments, a reduced commission and more effective decision-making, provides the framework for the kind of reformed Europe that Britain wants," he added.
So there we have it. None us knew it before, but what we all really wanted was a "reformed Europe", which the constitution has given us. And now we've got it, we will all go rushing to the polls and happily vote "yes".
Yea, right.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:39
Printable Version
Print
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Other battles, other polls
Hizonner the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is, as we know, a fervent europhile. He supports the Constitution, the euro, the idea that Britain should be on BST permanently because, according to him that will put us in line with the Continent (he, clearly, notices nothing when he goes on one of his jollies) and so on, and so on.
Though he does not support the immunity accorded to Europol officers, without knowing much about it.
However, the Constitution is not his only project. There is the 2012 Olympic bid, in support of which he announces ever higher popular support. Unfortunately, only 1.2 million people have put supportive signatures on the website and we are not quite clear who they are. Perhaps, they are all French tourists.
The arguments against that wretched enterprise are growing so Hizonner commissioned a poll, which, unsurprisingly, came up with the right result. But its methodology is of some interest to those who find it valuable to study how propaganda is created.
A full analysis is given on the Veritas London Assembly Blog.The implications for possible other campaigns are worth considering.
Posted by
Helen
at
21:05
Printable Version
Print
Here is another reason to vote "non"
One cannot help feeling that political leaders have a rather inflated opinion of their own importance. Yes, of course, that is a truism but the circus that is known as the French referendum campaign has proved it in abundance.
Not content with his previous performances, each of which sent the no vote soaring, President Chirac has returned to the fray, this time bringing two of his buddies along.
One is Chancellor Shröder, who, having refused the German people a referendum, is in a particularly strong position as far as campaigns are concerned.
Speaking in Nancy, in eastern France, he reinforced Chirac’s message that there will be no renegotiation. If France says no, then … well that bit of it remains unclear.
Chirac merely emphasises that the other 24 countries (it seems to have slipped his memory that there is the odd other referendum coming up but then French presidents are not good at remembering other countries) will not be in a giving mood:
“How can you think for a second that because France says 'no,' that our partners will say, 'Oh, all right, let's start over.”Chancellor Schröder also forgot about other countries having referendums and assured the audience (Who exactly goes to these meetings? We never hear any accounts from those who hear the speeches.) that it was pure fantasy to imagine that the 25 will in any way accommodate France if the country says no.
It must be rather odd for the French to be on the receiving end of these threats. Normally, they are the ones to wield the big stick.
Chancellor Schröder added:
“France has a big responsibility not to let other Europeans down. If we want to develop Europe, we need everyone. But we especially need France.”Clearly, there is no plan B as to what to do should the French vote no.
President Chirac’s other buddy was the Polish leader Aleksander Kwasniewski, who is a little worried as to what his own country might say, should its people be asked. He explained to the sceptical French that they had nothing to fear from Polish workers flooding in from Poland and undermining the unworkable economic system.
Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he. I wonder what the next lot of polls will show to be the result of this little outing, bearing in mind that the no side is fighting back steadily, anyway. Now they have three leaders to defy, instead of just one.
Posted by
Helen
at
20:08
Printable Version
Print
The bones of the argument
Caution – this post uses adult material.
Lifted from the not-so-fragrant Margot blog is the following comment from Dr David Taylor:
The founders of what has now become the European Union, firmly believed that the causes of the two major wars in Europe were caused by nationalism. They further postulated that if you could find a way of curbing nationalism you would prevent war.Of course, this argument uses big words, so it is not suitable for everyone. If it is too difficult to follow, there is always kiddies' korner.
The method they chose, a powerful supranational organisation, rather than merely an intergovernmental series of treaties has led to the current EU and its future development into what will be a federation of nation states governed by a supranational authority. Ms Wallström believes that this is the correct way forward in Europe, and her perhaps disingenuous remarks at Terezin confirm that view. In other words supranationalism is the only way to prevent the recurrence of wars between nation states.
However, there are many people who fundamentally disagree with this view and, like myself see the end result of a supranationalistic EU not being the peace and harmony of Switzerland but the discord and potential civil wars of Yugoslavia and the USSR.
The constitution of the USA begins with the words "We the people...." and was a constitution freely entered into. Even then there was to be a bloody civil war when one group of states tried to enforce its views on another group.
In the EU we have already two examples of treaties, subject to a unanimity agreement under previous treaty obligations, being rejected by the people of a member state (Denmark and Eire) but implemented anyway after insisting that the people vote again to get the "Commission approved" answer. I have no doubts that the current constitutional treaty will be dealt with in the same arrogant manner.
The often trivialised argument between the Eurosceptics and others is not about whether the states of the EU should co-operate to their greater good. Almost everyone agrees that they should. The real debate is about the governance of such co-operation. Ms Wallström and her supporters believe in supranationalism but I want to return to intergovermentalism.
Posted by
Richard
at
17:52
Printable Version
Print
And so they drivel on
Peter Norman (a former FT Brussels bureau chief) writes in the comment section of The Financial Times, just posted on the website.
"Like it or loath it," he opines, "the European Union's constitutional treaty is about to hog the headlines again. The project, which was launched by EU leaders in December 2001 with the laudable aim of making the Union 'more democratic, more transparent and more efficient' faces a potentially life threatening test on 29 May."
Dear me, don't they just drivel on. "More democratic"? The thing is deliberately anti-democratic, based on a supranational commission designed to cut elected politicians out of the loop. "More transparent"? The only sane response to that is howls of laughter. "More efficient"? To put the words "efficiency" and the EU in the same sentence can only be described as oxymoronic or, if you like, simply moronic.
Posted by
Richard
at
14:09
Printable Version
Print
Move over children...
"A No vote is a vote for repatriation of power", says the leader in the Daily Telegraph this morning.
The paper is right, of course, as it goes on later to say, in the same leader: "A 'no' vote would not simply be a vote for the status quo: it would be a vote for the wholesale repatriation of power from Brussels and the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty."
That is why the Euro-luvvies are so terrified, knowing that their bicycle metaphor is all too true: stop peddling and you fall off. There can be absolutely no doubt that if the "project" does not keep powering forward, with treaty after treaty – if it once falters – the whole thing will start unravelling.
Thus, if there is a vote, and if the kindergarten currently masquerading as a "no campaign" doesn't manage completely to screw it up and by some miracle we deliver a resounding rebuff to this ghastly constitution, there will be a debate and all the options will be on the table.
That saying, we have no time for the simplistic – even facile – UKIP mantra, which sees our relationship with "Europe" in the puerile terms of a "free trade agreement". Our dealings with the continent are far more complex than that, requiring agreements on a vast range of issues, from postal charges and telephones, to air traffic control, environment and pollution and, yes, even security and defence.
In that context, as the Telegraph puts it, "since this is the first time that we have been asked our opinion in 30 years, it is only natural that we should wish to express a view on the various transfers of power to the EU that have happened over that period," but what is really at the heart of the debate is our precise relationship with Europe.
And this is what our hapless (that word again) Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation, Margot Wallström, was getting at in the speech she never gave in Terezin, when she complained about those "who want to scrap the supranational idea" and want the EU "to go back to the old purely intergovernmental way of doing things".
This is a battle of philosophies, where the one side is content – nay willing – to manage international affairs on the basis on sovereign nation states freely entering into agreements, and abiding by them, and the other side which treats nation states like recalcitrant children, which must have an overarching nanny-like, supranational commission imposed on them to keep order.
Thus, when we come to vote for the constitution, if indeed we are allowed to, a "no" vote will amount to a defeat of the "supranational idea" and open the way for a re-ordering of Europe on the lines that the tranzies dread – intergovernmentalism.
Here, the idea of "leaving the EU" is equally facile. It makes absolute sense to have some kind of international organisation to aid in the process of ordering our affairs with our neighbours. The question is what sort of organisation – and the battle is over intergovernmental or supranational, not whether we retreat behind the ramparts and isolate ourselves from the world, as the Euro-luvvies would have it.
It is, therefore, time we stopped messing about, and came out into the open. We have to stop being mealy-mouthed about where we want to go, and dominate the debate on our terms. So, forget about the kindergarten of the "no campaign". Move over children - the grown-ups are coming.
Posted by
Richard
at
12:11
Printable Version
Print
A hostage to fortune
Newsnight yesterday was certainly taking the prospect of a British referendum seriously, despite the apparent confusion between Douglas Alexander, the new minister for Europe, and Jack Straw, over whether they would actually be one. Alexander maintains it would be held, irrespective of what the French do, while Straw argues – perhaps rightly – that there would be "no point" if a number of countries voted against.
Nevertheless, Paxman had the issue as his lead item, then having Lucy Powell for Britain in Europe and Matthew McGregor, styled as "Head of Campaigns – Vote-No", in the studio for a brief debate. I must say, I am getting a little confused about what the "no campaign" is really called.
Anyhow, Powell managed to lift Paxman's eyebrows well above ceiling height when she confidently asserted that the constitution had "nothing to do with Europe", a gaff from which she had great difficulty recovering.
But the "gaff of the week" award was definitely reserved for McGregor. In his anxiety to reassure Paxman that his group were not looking to leave the EU but simply "reform" it, he walked into the question of whether he (or his campaign) would agree to an "improved" constitution, one that was different from that on the table.
Said the hapless McGregor (I seem to be using that word rather a lot lately) – "I don't think there is anybody in the no campaign who is against a constitution".
Although Powell did not pick this up, no doubt, "yes" campaign tacticians were watching the "debate" closely, whence they must have whooped with joy. Their job is half done for them: a constitution is all right in principle – the no campaign says so - it is just a matter of reassuring the public on the detail. If ever there was a hostage to fortune, that must be it.
Looking at McGregor, barely out of his teens, one could not avoid thinking that a more seasoned campaigner would not have fallen so easily into such an obvious trap. However, it is possible that the sentiment reflects what passes for thinking in the "no campaign".
From the group photograph on the website, which looks more like a sixth-form college group than a serious campaign team, the suspicion is that thinking – and certainly experience – is not their forte.
What we are actually seeing is the result of the obsession of the money-men behind the scenes, who were determined to capitalise on the "yoof" image, in order to appeal to the younger voter. But the bunch of children in the frame is hardly likely to impress voters who, like me, have children older than some of the senior staff.
More importantly, perhaps, McGregor's gaff must surely arise from the proprietorial grip the campaign have on the referendum. They have not consulted with a wider audience; they have not taken soundings, nor asked for advice from people who have been in the game much longer then they. Nor, indeed, do they seem to know very much about their subject. And, while their pamphlet pleads for everyone to "work together", it is their organisation which has shown itself least prepared to work with anyone at all, outside the charmed circle.
Frankly, that is why we are setting up the people's campaign. This referendum is much bigger than all of us, and far too important to be left to a group of self-important, gaff-prone children, barely out of their teens. "Yoof" may be "cool" but experience and knowledge also have their place. We are not going to let it go to waste.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:01
Printable Version
Print
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Do we care?
One of the oddest things I found in the United States is that Americans actually follow British soccer football, though they rarely play it. Mysteriously, American boys do not kick a ball around. Given a ball and some space they shoot hoops. This, in my opinion, is counter-indicative of normal male behaviour. To make up for it, they are just as obsessive about wheels as their counterparts on other continents.
However, they do watch the game on TV, often having to pay for a special cable channel to do so. (Oh yes, dear supporters of the BBC licence, people will pay if they really like something. You don’t need to rely on a tithe.)
The team many of them like is Manchester United. Even more of them have heard of it and it is quite difficult to explain that not everyone supports that team and many who do are not your average football fans.
So I was not at all surprised to hear that Malcolm Glazer decided to spend many millions of dollars to buy the club. (I was once given a free drink by a barman in an uptown bar in New York because he liked my British accent, being a fan of the Her Majesty the Queen and ManUnited.)
Still a drink is one thing but £540 million or more is something else. Mr Glazer would like to recoup the money and raise the club’s revenue. What better way of doing it than through TV broadcasting rights?
United, after all, earned £31.7 million from the Premier League last season, of which £30.1 million came directly from TV money and the remainder from sponsorship and licensing.
It is assumed that the team could double its income from TV money at least. But it would have to negotiate and sign its own contracts, an idea that Mr Glazer clearly favours.
At present, the 19 Premier League clubs negotiate collectively on domestic and international rights. Mr Glazer has clearly thought of challenging this arrangement in the European courts, relying on free market arguments. The poor sap seems to have believed that the EU was about free market.
He was speedily put right on that. The Commission has announced that it will not support his bid. They have no problem, they announced grandly and not unpredictably, with collective bargaining. It is broadcasting monopoly they are worried about.
Manchester United fans or, at least, their various organizations have been opposed to the Glazer take-over, though what their preferred alternative is remains unclear. They may yet get their wish.
Posted by
Helen
at
18:17
Printable Version
Print
New "no" website
Following on from its relaunch today, the "Vote-No" campaign – now rebranded as the "no campaign" – has come up with a new website.
It has also produced a new campaign leaflet, running to 11 pages, entitled: "The European Constitution – It's your decision", with a form at the back which includes the plea: "If we are to win the referendum we must work together".
I think we could have done without the photograph of Green MEP, Caroline Lucas, with her quote: "The EU needs a new big idea, not this Constitution. Saying no is the first step to reconnecting the EU with Europeans by placing sustainability and democracy at its heart".
Er… waddaya mean, "Europeans", paleface? And when did the EU ever connect, much less reconnect?
That aside, there is no overt reference to supporting membership of the EU, either in the pamphlet or on the website, which is a distinct improvement. Furthermore, the theme – of the constitution giving more power to the EU – is a reasonable approach.
The campaign has also produced the results of a poll conducted by ICM, claiming that 54 percent of Britons oppose the constitution, against 30 percent in favour. Campaign director Neil O'Brien is now promising an "advertising blitz" after the French referendum.
Posted by
Richard
at
18:14
Printable Version
Print
Transparency… but not just yet
With some fanfare, last week anti-fraud commissioner Siim Kallas announced that the commission was to tighten controls on the way member states spend EU money and impose stricter rules for lobbyists as part of a drive to increase transparency and trust in the EU.
The timing of this "transparency initiative", which was also rumoured to include clarification of the code of conduct for commissioners on the disclosure of matters likely to give rise to conflict, was seen partly as a response to the attack on Barroso for accepting a holiday from multi-billionaire Sprios Latsis.
"It is a package of steps to increase the trust of citizens," said Kallas at the news briefing where the initiative was launched.
With the report on "transparency" due to be debated today by the commissioners, its publication prior to the meeting was confidently expected, as is the norm with reports such as these. However, immediately prior to the discussions, expectant journalists were informed that the report would not be published… in the interest of "transparency", no doubt.
Or, as St. Augustine might have said: "Lord give me transparency - but not just yet."
Posted by
Richard
at
16:02
Printable Version
Print
Cinq gardes du corps et dix salaires
So runs the headline in the Belgian daily, La Libre Belgique, which starts its article with the words: "Mauvais timing".
Bad timing indeed – as Barroso continues to squirm in anticipation of the motion of censure over what has now been dubbed "yachtgate", due to be debated in the EU parliament on 25 May, the lacklustre commission president has been caught out big time on another transgression.
It appears that Barroso, as ex-prime minister of Portugal, is entitled to a personal bodyguard of five "agents" drawn from the national security police. And while these are each being paid by the Portuguese state at the rate of €6000 a month, they have also been drawing extra salaries from the EU as "temporary agents", at the rate of €2722 to € 3586 per month, without informing the EU administration that they were already being paid.
This, apparently, was reported on 3 March in the Portuguese daily newspaper Correio da Manh, but it was not brought to the Commission's attention. Without a specific exemption, such "double payments" are illegal. They are formally prohibited by article 11 (Title II) of the EU Staff Regulations.
Barroso's hapless spokesperson, Françoise Le Bail – she who did not know whether any of the Latsis group of companies had any financial relations with the commission - professed equal ignorance of this arrangement while, it seems Barroso was unavailable for comment.
Predictably, the Independence/Democracy Group have pounced on this further example of Barroso's infelicity, dubbing the president "Captain Calamity". "The man is a disaster," says the group leader, Nigel Farage.
"This just gives more evidence of his inability to police himself", he adds. "The bottom line of that motion is the old Roman concept; Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?, who guards the guards? In this case it seems quite literally that the guards are the image of the institutions they serve".
Posted by
Richard
at
11:37
Printable Version
Print
The "Vote-no" campaign resurfaces
Just to confuse everybody, the "Vote-No" campaign launched today or, to be more accurate, relaunched.
Described by The Guardian as "the well funded no campaign", it seems that this "relaunch" has been brought about by an amalgamation of the business campaign, previously called "Vote-no" and the Campaign for a Social Europe.
This "group of left wingers, greens and trade unionists opposed to the constitution on the grounds that it is too pro-market and undermines the principles of social Europe" was in fact a front organisation, founded and funded by the same backers who launched "Vote No". Thus, the merger of the two organisations amounts to little more than an internal reorganisation and, presumably, some savings on office costs. No longer will the fiction have to be maintained that they are separate organisations.
The "new" organisation has managed to recruit former Blair's former economics advisor Derek Scott, although strangely, its own website seems neither to have recognised the new recruit, or even the fact of the relaunch.
The relaunch was covered this morning by The Guardian and the BBC Today programme, and while the organisation claims to be a broad-based, cross-party campaign, its website still bears the phrase "We support membership of the EU…", which rather limits its appeal.
Needless to say, we wish it well in its efforts, and look forward to seing one or more of its representatives at the launch of the People's "No" campaign next week.
Posted by
Richard
at
09:23
Printable Version
Print
Mote and beam
It was with growing incredulity that I read a piece in that august journal, the Lebanon Daily Star about how an EU team has been set up to monitor media fairness in the forthcoming elections there.
Its "mission", we are told, is "to assess impartiality during election coverage", making sure that the media stands accountable
"All forms of media will be monitored to check if all the candidates running in the elections get equal access to the media," said a media expert, who preferred to remain nameless, from the EU Election Observation Mission team.
The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) was sent to Lebanon to observe the general elections and carry out a comprehensive analysis of the electoral process and then offer an impartial, balanced and informed assessment of the elections.
In order to conduct this mission thoroughly, one segment of the EOM is solely devoted to monitoring the media coverage of the elections. "We are not here to critique or judge what is being said, we are here to assess and note everything down and hand in a complete report at the end of the elections," said the media expert.
He also mentioned that a team of six Lebanese media monitors trained in quantitative and qualitative methodology would measure the time, space and tone devoted to the political parties and candidates in a cross-section of the Lebanese national media.
In other words, the tone of the political candidates or parties about themselves or others is not what is being monitored, but rather "the manner" in which the media provides them with a platform.
If, for example, a journalist asks a critical question, the program will not necessarily be rated as one of negative content, as it is the journalist's job to ask candidates difficult questions. However, should the tone of the journalist's questions be "monotonously critical" or "insulting," then the interview could be considered "negative."
I suspect Paxo wouldn't pass muster if he was given the EOM treatment, but one just can't help wondering how that EU can have the nerve to set itself up as a monitor of media impartiality when virtually every member state holding a referendum is attempting to rig the media to ensure a "yes" vote for the EU constitution.
Perhaps when the Lebanese have finished their elections, they could send their own observers over here, to have a look at the BBC.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:11
Printable Version
Print
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Terrorist sympathisers
We are given to understand that Timothy Kirkhope, MEP and leader of the Conservative Group in the EU parliament, is accusing the "famous five" of being "terrorist sympathisers".
This is on the basis that the MEPs - Dan Hannan, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer, Martin Callanan and David Sumberg – have placed their names on Nigel Farage's motion of censure alongside Sinn Fein MEPs. To compound the "crime", there are some Communists on the list as well.
Kirkhope is telling media representatives that the Conservative Group could never support a motion that is also supported by either Sinn Fein or the Communists - although the Group has not been known to withdraw its many votes in the EU parliament where members of either persuasion have voted the same way as the Conservatives.
There is also the minor matter of the Kirkhope having rejected the motion before even he knew the identity of the signatories. But, hey! Principles are principles. Dan "Bin Liner" Hannan must be consigned to outer darkness and, as for Roger Al-Helmer - nothing is too severe for the likes of him.
Posted by
Richard
at
19:49
Printable Version
Print
The People's "No" Campaign
At last, we're ready. The official launch of The People's "No" Campaign (against the European Constitution) is to take place at 2 pm Wednesday 25th May 2005. It will be held at The Conference Room, Abingdon House, 13 Little College Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3SH. The launch has been sponsored by Lord Stoddart.
The "No" Campaign has been created as a genuine non/cross-party grassroots coalition to help deliver an overwhelming and emphatic rejection of the European constitution. Campaign Director, Neil Herron states:
It is essential that a genuine grassroots campaign helps to deliver the reasons for saying "no" in a plain, no-nonsense style, free from party politics. We are creating the broadest coalition from across the socio-political spectrum and intend to replicate the achievement of the North East No Campaign which rejected the Government's and John Prescott's proposals in the recent Regional Assembly Referendum by the biggest margin in modern political history.Dr Richard North, Research Director, states: "This is a genuine, important and fundamental move by the people of Britain to reclaim their own destiny."
The Constitution represents further surrender of power to Brussels and this is quite simply unacceptable. The debate preceding the referendum will be the first opportunity for the British public to examine the true nature of the whole "European Project". A full examination of the consequences of political and economic integration. A debate that we have been denied for over thirty years.
The timing of our launch is to show solidarity with the French "No" Campaign, and to send a message to our domestic politicians that they will not be in for an easy ride. If the French vote "oui" on 29th May then it is "game on" for our domestic Constitution referendum battle.
Details of the growing alliance will be posted on the website shortly, where we have a full analysis of news and events as they unfold. More statements to follow.
Contact: Neil Herron, Campaign Director. Office 0191 565 7143; Mobile 07776 202045. Registered Office: The People's No Campaign, 12 Frederick Street, Sunderland SR1 1NA.
Posted by
Richard
at
14:59
Printable Version
Print
Europe-free farming
A propos our posting on the state of the Conservative Party, our new shadow spokesman for the environment, food and farming, none other than Oliver Letwin, was interviewed at length this morning on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme (7.14 am).
His subject was the fate of small farms under the new regime of the so-called "single farm payments" introduced under the CAP mid-term review, agreed in 2003.
In a relatively long interview, where he was asked to set out Tory policy on farming, Letwin suggested making it easy for farms to diversify, and then offered better labelling to enable consumers to identify the source of their food, plus a review of public procurement policies, enabling public bodies to buy from local farms. He also stated that we must understand that farming was a business activity, but that "the aesthetic and environmental aspects of the countryside cannot be divorced from the business of farming."
What was remarkable about this was that the two specific offering made by Letwin – labelling and public procurement – directly impact on EU policies to the extent that very little progress can be made without contravening EU law. Yet, the shadow spokesman managed to discuss these issues without mentioning "Europe" at all.
And when interviewer Sarah Montague suggested that, in broad terms he was "supportive of the government's approach to this single payments system", Letwin failed to mention the crisis brought about by the implementation of the system, as reported in The Telegraph today. Crucially, he also failed to mention that this was a totally unworkably system imposed on us by the EU.
Interestingly, while Euro-luvvie Adam Nicolson in The Telegraph op-ed, under the title "This must be the biggest bung in the history of universe", makes it clear that the whole "single farm payment" system is totally unsustainable , and equally makes it clear its EU origins, Letwin managed to get through the whole of his interview without once mentioning "Europe" – much less the CAP.
Letwin, we are told, dismisses the idea that he can hold his portfolio without mentioning "Europe", as it has been suggested he might have said. But on current performance, he seems to be doing just that.
Posted by
Helen
at
13:55
Printable Version
Print
Skitsnack!
Comments are back up on the not-so-fragrant Margot blog after her venture into Swedish last Sunday.
However, the Commissar will not be terribly happy with the responses which, in the main, are far from complimentary or sympathetic. But I particularly enjoyed the single word comment posted by Apan Apansson: "Skitsnack!".
As far as I can ascertain, this is a Swedish colloquial term for "corporate bullshit" – unless anyone knows different. If that is the case, the Swedes must be congratulated for a powerful and very valuable addition to our vocabulary.
Posted by
Richard
at
11:57
Printable Version
Print
A Tory in distress
A letter in the Telegraph refers back to the story on Robin Aitken last Saturday, published under the title "It's not easy being a Tory at the BBC".
Writer Christopher Curtis suggests this headline could be extended to: "It's not easy being a Tory listening to the BBC".
Amen to that.
Posted by
Richard
at
11:12
Printable Version
Print
He doesn't seem to have got the point
President Ivan Gasparovic of Slovakia has suggested that smaller EU members should seek to amend the EU's constitution so that they do not have to accept all legislation from Brussels.
According his spokesman, Marek Truba, Gasparovic made this suggestion during a meeting with the president of Estonia, Arnold Ruutel, on the sidelines of a Council of Europe. Truba said the constitution required national parliaments to adopt new EU laws passed, which may not always be acceptable to smaller members. That requirement should be modified, he said.
"The president suggested that, after all 25 EU members have approved the constitutional treaty, the three Baltic states and the four Visegrad nations (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) should combine to change parts of the constitution that are not satisfying to the small nations," Trubac said.
Unlike Helen, I don't know what they eat or drink in Slovakia, but Gasparovic must have been feeding on magic mushrooms if he believes he can get other member states to agree that he can pick and choose the EU laws he applies. Even after a year of membership, he does not seem to have got the point of what the EU is all about.
Posted by
Richard
at
01:07
Printable Version
Print
Monday, May 16, 2005
The "famous five" in trouble
The five Conservative MEPs - Dan Hannan, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer, Martin Callanan and David Sumberg – who so gallantly added their names to Nigel Farage's motion of censure tabled against Barroso for keeping quite about the hospitality he and his wife received from multi-billionaire Spiros Latsis, seem to be having a spot of bother.
Today, each of them received a personal letter from EPP-ED group leader Timothy Kirkhope, instructing them in no uncertain terms to remove their names from the list, by the 19th May. Otherwise, he adds darkly, there will be "very serious consequences".
Presumably, this threat is being made at the behest of Hans-Gert Pöttering, EPP Group president, who promised the conference of presidents that no EPP member would add his name to the lost (sorry, that should read "list" - but the typo actually makes as much sense). If that is the case, it rather makes a mockery of the Conservatives' supposed independence within the EPP-ED section of the group.
However, it is also known that Kirkhope travelled to London after the motion had been tabled in Strasbourg last week, to see Michael Howard, and it is also known that the Barroso motion was high on his agenda of things to discuss. The outcome of those talks is not known but it could be that Kirkhope also received instructions or advice from Howard.
Nevertheless, the "famous five" have not given any indication that they will back down, so we are all agog to see what these "very serious consequences" will be.
But aside from the personal ramifications, it is going to be interesting to see whether the MSM picks up on the fact that the Conservative group in the EU parliament seems to be supporting the commission president against an attempt to call him to account for an action which, had he been a British minister, would have brought calls for his resignation.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:20
Printable Version
Print
The privilege of the harlot
No doubt we shall have readers asking what this posting has to do with the need to win the referendum on the Constitution. All I can say to them is: “Know thy enemy.”
Most of us know that famous jibe of Stanley Baldwin’s about journalists enjoying “the privilege of the harlot down the ages—power without responsibility”. Few harlots would have done anything as sickening as Newsweek did last week.
Calmly it produced a story without proper checking from an unknown “senior government official” that he “recalled” seeing somewhere that during interrogations in Guantanamo copies of the Koran were flushed down the toilet.
The outcome of this wonderful piece of “harlot’s privilege” was riots across several Muslim countries, 15 people killed and 100 injured in Afghanistan and an undermining of Pakistani President Musharraf’s careful policy of outmanoeuvring his fundamentalist opponents.
Newsweek’s journalists are barely repentant. After all, they displayed their anti-Bush credentials. Why should they care what the outcome was?
According to the BBC World Service website:
“In its latest edition, Newsweek's editor writes that its original source is not sure where he saw the assertion.Well, how nice. And all those problems will simply roll up into a little ball and go away.
"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the US soldiers caught in its midst," the editor, Mark Whitaker, writes.
In its new account, the magazine says that one of its reporters spoke to "his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Koran, including a toilet incident".
"But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced" in a forthcoming report by the US military, the magazine added.
Mr Whitaker told the Reuters news agency that he no longer knew whether the occurrence was genuine.
"As to whether anything like this happened, we just don't know," he said.”
Apparently not. Six Islamic parties in Pakistan have announced that they did not believe the retraction as it was
“…a crude attempt, both by the weekly magazine and the American authorities to defuse the anger of the Muslims across the world”.Actually, as usual the anger is not across the world, most Muslims not wanting to get too involved in riots and shootings, but there are enough people around who are too pleased to use the story to stock up fury and undermine all attempts to build relatively free Islamic societies.
Did the unknown and lose-lipped senior government official think of that? Did the journalist who printed the story without carrying out elementary checks? Clearly not.
The US military in Afganistan said there will, nevertheless, be a thorough investigation of the allegations.
Dare one hope for a similar investigation in Newsweek?
Remember this next time you hear journalists fulminating about bloggers who do not spend thousands of pounds and many hours carefully checking out their stories.
Posted by
Helen
at
19:26
Printable Version
Print
A reminder of the tsunami and transnational bureaucracy
Yesterday’s Chicago Sun-Times carried an article by Mark Steyn, in which he compared the extraordinary lengthy procedure by which John Bolton’s appointment as US ambassador to the UN has been held up with the equally appalling but far more dangerous process whereby most of the aid, particularly anything that was being channelled through international organizations, NGOs and the UN has remained in containers.
Here are some facts and figures, quoted by Mark Steyn:
“Five hundred containers, representing one-quarter of all aid sent to Sri Lanka since the tsunami hit on Dec. 26, are still sitting on the dock in Colombo, unclaimed or unprocessed.
At the Indonesian port of Medan, 1,500 containers of aid are still sitting on the dock.Four months ago, did you chip in to the tsunami relief effort? Did your company? A Scottish subsidiary of the Body Shop donated a 40-foot container of "Lemon Squidgit" and other premium soap, which arrived at Medan in January and has languished there ever since because of "incomplete paperwork,'' according to Indonesian customs officials.”
And what of the much trumpeted aid sent through such virtuous organizations as the Red Cross or UNICEF?
“Diageo sent eight 20-foot containers of drinking water via the Red Cross."We sent it directly to the Red Cross in order to get around the red tape," explained its Sydney office. It arrived in Medan in January and it's still there. The Indonesian Red Cross lost the paperwork.
UNICEF, the U.N. children's agency, sent 14 ambulances to Indonesia, and they took two months to clear customs. Terrible as it was in its awesome fury, the tsunami was in the end transnational business as usual.”
The only surprising part of that is the naivete displayed by the usually hard-headed Diageo. Whatever made them think that the Red Cross was any different from other international and transnational organizations? Did they think it was a charity?
Let us remember, that the only successful part of the post-tsunami effort was the early “coalition of the willing” led by the United States and Australia that actually delivered the aid to the appropriate places, helped to distribute it, laid on clean water and so on and so on. At the time we wrote a good deal about it.
Then came the international aid bureaucracy, established itself quite comfortably and proceeded to muck everything up, wasting and worse all that had been extracted from generous people round the world.
Never mind, though. These people, as Mark Steyn says, make all the right noises and get feted by their chums in the media. Not like that nasty President Bush, who does not bother to be visible to the media unless he thinks it is necessary. Maybe he does launch successful operations, but hey man, does he have compassion? I mean, does he feel their pain?
President Bush is the very antithesis of the Canadian Prime Minister (yes, that’s right, the one getting engulfed in sleaze scandals).
“In January, after the tsunami hit, [Paul Martin, the Canadian PM] flew into Sri Lanka to pledge millions and millions and millions in aid. Not like that heartless George W. Bush back at the ranch in Texas. Why, Prime Minister Martin walked along the ravaged coast of Kalumnai and was, reported Canada's CTV network, "visibly shaken."
President Bush might well have been shaken, but he wasn't visible, and in the international compassion league, that's what counts. So Martin boldly committed Canada to giving $425 million to tsunami relief. "Mr. Paul Martin Has Set A Great Example For The Rest Of The World Leaders!" raved the LankaWeb news service.
You know how much of that $425 million has been spent so far? Fifty thousand dollars -- Canadian. That's about 40 grand in U.S. dollars. The rest isn't tied up in Indonesian bureaucracy, it's back in Ottawa.
But, unlike horrible "unilateralist" America, Canada enjoys a reputation as the perfect global citizen, renowned for its commitment to the U.N. and multilateralism. And on the beaches of Sri Lanka, that and a buck'll get you a strawberry daiquiri. Canada's contribution to tsunami relief is objectively useless and rhetorically fraudulent.”
John Bolton says that the UN and multilateralist system must be reformed or it must die. That, in my opinion, is a generous estimate but he is clearly a generous man.
Who are the people holding him back? Why the multilateralists, the people who think that the problem remains the United States, the people who seriously and without any hint of irony assert that more money thrown into the UN black hole will somehow miraculously solve the problems.
In short, the people who either are those or back those who, among other things, mismanaged spectacularly the post-tsunami aid.
Posted by
Helen
at
18:49
Printable Version
Print
EU taxes galore
Following our piece on the EU airline tax, Chris, over at Strange Stuff draws our attention the a paper on EU taxation produced by the EU commission last year.
For the serious EU-watcher, this is compulsory reading. It sets out technical options for attracting a revenue stream independently of member states, in the form of "an examination of possible individual taxes that could be assigned to the European Union".
The authors look at nine possible taxes, including corporate and individual income taxes. Interestingly, there is some emphasis on "visibility" which is seen as an advantage in "increasing transparency of EU financing and thereby foster the involvement of the parliament in budgetary matters". This, it is felt, "could have positive consequences in terms of efficiency".
With not a trace of irony, the authors then offer the view that "as taxpayers tend to question the use and amount of taxes they pay, they also force the tax authorities to better justify the use of resources and to make best use of them". This "may impact on the accountability of a government", they say.
Technical paper this may be, but it confirms that EU taxes are definitely on the agenda, as if we did not know that already. But, as we all know, once EU bureaucrats get an idea, they will not let go of it. It is only a matter of time before the subject moves from the domain of the technical wonks onto the political agenda.
Posted by
Richard
at
17:28
Printable Version
Print
Group blogs
Some of you may have picked up the puff in The Sunday Times Review for the self-important Mz Arianna Huffington. She has started her own "Blog" under the name of The Huffington Post, which she calls a "cultured conversation" on the web.
She claims to have been a fan - and an advocate - of the fast-moving blogosphere ever since bloggers started leaking juicy American political stories that wouldn't be touched by the chummy DC press corps. Simply put, she says, blogs are the greatest breakthrough in popular journalism since Tom Paine.
However, her site seems to bear little relation to blogs as you and I know them. In gushing tones. Huffington describes it as combining "a breaking news section with an innovative group blog where some of this country's most creative minds can weigh in on topics great and small, political and cultural, important or just plain entertaining."
Disagree if you will, but I tend to take the view that the relationship between real blogs and the glitzy productions à la Huffington is roughly similar to that between seduction and gang rape.
Posted by
Richard
at
15:10
Printable Version
Print
A fragrant SOS
It seems that some people in the European Commission or, at least, their staff, work on Sundays. Well, sometimes they do. When panic buttons are being pushed.
Shocked by the unseemly attacks on her (and, incidentally, despite the accusations the British media did not do a great deal), the fragrant Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation posted yesterday on her Blog, beating all records. As readers would have noticed, her postings have, of late, become very infrequent.
This posting is rather unusual. For one thing it is in Swedish, which would indicate that despite well-deserved criticism of supineness, some of the Swedish media and political classes have gone into the attack over the Terezin speech.
Indeed, as I write this, information is coming in about the growing number of attacks on the fragrant Commissar in her home country from every part of the political spectrum (decency is not, after all, the privilege of one particular political group but seems remarkably absent in the European Commissars).
What might save her position is the Swedish Prime Minister's well-known reluctance to have her back in Swedish politics.
Posting in Swedish rather defeats the purpose of the blog. It is a fine language but is not spoken by very many people, whereas the fragrant Margot has been trying to appeal to all and sundry across Europe.
Luckily, our friend Dr Mikael Gennser has provided us with a translation. Some of our readers may have seen it on the comments section but we think it is important enough to post on the blog:
A debate has started in Sweden about a speech I gave in Terezin in Czechia the 8th May at a memorial in remembrance of the liberation of the concentration camp Theresienstadt. Since I was the one who delivered the speech - and therefore ought to say what exactly I wanted to convey and what was said - I can report the facts.It seems that she is no longer denying the fact that she spoke the offensive sentence but there seems to be a bit of a muddle as to what she did and did not say. So far, nobody from the audience has come forward to confirm or deny any of the different stories put out by the fragrant Commissar or her talented staff. Nor, curiously enough, do there seem to be any recordings.
1. The speech - including the most controversial sentences - dealt with the lessons we can learn from history and that EU came into existence as a peace project after the second world war.
2. The speech was given under special circumstances, given the fact that nazis and racists are still marching on the streets in Europe. That we still have those who deny the existence of the Holocaust among us, that 6000 cases of racially inspired violence occur annually, that we have political groups in Europe with extreme, nationalistic views.
3. IT WAS THESE GROUPS I HAD IN VIEW and the speech is therefore correct and totally logical.
4. The speech did not even remotely deal with the Constitution! It and/or its critics were not mentioned with a single word - and that is immediately obvious to anyone who reads the speech. I have many other possibilities to debate the Constitution and as was obvious this was not the intention of this speech.
Read the whole speech and make your own judgement!
I find it quite hard to believe that she is still directing people to the text of the speech, since it was the text that actually started the trouble. And, incidentally, whether she said the offending sentence or used the expression “inter-governmental” or “nation-state” (another difference between text 1 and text 2) is irrelevant.
She, or a member of her staff, wrote a speech in which a direct link was made between those who oppose the supranational project and the Holocaust. The speech is clear: it is not about the neo-nazis or Holocaust-deniers. How many of the latter are there, anyway? It castigates those who want to go back to the old way of doing things.
There has been another interesting development on the fragrant one’s blog. Comments are no longer published. The Swedish posting has none at all, though we know for certain that a number has been made; the previous English one has been stuck on 12 for several days.
What is going on? Has the Moderator resigned? Is the fragrant Margot purging her staff? Or is she being threatened with the sack if she does not sort this mess out?
In fact, she could have sorted it out with great ease at the very beginning by saying it was all a big mistake, apologizing and assuring everyone that this will never happen again. The whole story would have been forgotten except in those nasty eurosceptic circles that she keeps castigating. (Yes, I suspect, this blog is among them. Sackcloth and ashes are in order.)
Instead, she and her talented staff, shocked at the lèse-majesté displayed by all those people from all over Europe, who seem so unimpressed by the fragrant Commissar, decided to weasel it out.
First, the usual one: misunderstood, out of context; then: wrong speech even though the first one had been given to journalists and appeared on the website; next: a shrill attack alternating with self-pitying whingeing; now: a specious explanation as to what the speech was about.
We said it before but, it seems, we have to say it again: when in a hole, stop digging. By now, it seems, the fragrant Commissar has realized the hole she is in but she is still digging. Well, we are always ready to lend her a spade or two. What the heck, we'll give her a bucket as well.
In the meantime, may we suggest that our readers try to post comments – preferably short, polite and icily well argued – on her blog, with copies to this one.
Posted by
Helen
at
15:00
Printable Version
Print
Duff gen
Andrew Duff MEP, spokesman on constitutional affairs for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, should be looking to review the title of the group for which he speaks – and seriously questioning whether the word “democrats” should be retained.
To help him in his review, he could revisit his own words, in a letter to The Financial Times, in which he discusses the effect of a "no" vote in the French referendum. He writes:
If the constitution is killed off, Europe will be in deep trouble. The Treaty of Nice will not work, decision-making will be paralysed, and further enlargement will be pointless. The EU would be badly damaged at home and abroad. A French "no" will not kill off the constitutional project. The EU is wholly implausible without France. If France says "no" now, it will have to say "yes" later.What is so incredible is that people like Duff do not be able to understand the implications of their own words. Time and time again, we see the same sentiments from the Euro-luvvies, which all amount to the same thing – democracy only counts if you agree with us: a “no” is not permissible.
If Mr Duff was a trader, I suspect that his use of the word "democrats" would be attracting a visit from trading standards.
Posted by
Richard
at
14:27
Printable Version
Print
Labels: enlargement
A matter of impossibility
In today's Daily Telegraph, there is a perceptive piece by Philip Johnston in his "Home Front" column, making the case for "fewer better laws".
He records that tomorrow, the Queen will open the new session of Parliament and usher in "another 18 months of frenzied law-making" and, after cataloguing some of the more egregious failures of previous laws, refers us to a report published today by the Hansard Society which suggests that a review of legislation should be built into the system, with automatic scrutiny to see whether a particular Act has actually achieved what was envisaged.
It points out, says Johnston, that post-legislative scrutiny "is virtually non-existent… Parliament tends to regard its duty as completed once a Bill has gone for Royal Assent", with the Society concluding that:
There are strong grounds for believing that more regular and systematic post-legislative scrutiny would help to identify and rectify problems in flawed legislation. Furthermore, the knowledge that laws were to be subject to sustained monitoring may have a deterrent effect, making it less likely that laws unfit for their purpose would be passed… Rather than leaving such monitoring essentially to chance, it should become a core function of Parliament.Concludes Johnston, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, last week called for a "closed season" to be declared on sentencing legislation, because there was simply too much for the judiciary, the police and others to absorb. This is not to adopt an absurdist position that states that the Government must never legislate; it is to ask our law-makers to recognise that simply passing new regulations will not necessarily achieve what all previous legislation has failed to bring about.
Therein lies an eternal truth and, if it applies to the UK parliament, it applies in spades to the European Union. Much of the problem lies in the very perception of the function of a parliament and its members who are so often described – as in Reuters bulletins, to name but one source – as "lawmakers".
The essential function of a parliament is, in fact, to scrutinise the executive and it is that body which actually makes the laws. The parliament is supposed to approve them, but that should be a conditional approval and the review function should then be built in, as is suggested by the Hansard Society.
The trouble is that, on a national scale, this is difficult enough to do and it is not surprising therefore that our own institution is failing in that task. To ask for it to be done on a near-continental scale, with 25 countries involved, each with their own peculiarities, is nigh on impossible.
But, if review is an essential part of the legislative process and one concedes its impossibility on an EU-wide scale, one also has to concede that law-making on that scale is fundamentally flawed. Then, of course, that invites the obvious conclusion, that the supranational experiment is equally flawed. However, for the Euro-luvvies to admit that is, as we all know, also impossible.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:57
Printable Version
Print
We are all agreed
Such is the state of the negotiations on the EU budget settlement that Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg prime minister, was able to walk out of the ECOFIN council, which concluded this weekend, to tell journalists: "I'm happy to be able to announce to you an agreement."
However, before getting excited (if that's what turns you on), it seems that the hapless Juncker was only announcing that the finance ministers were agreed on one thing - the single fact that they didn't agree.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:39
Printable Version
Print
A worried Europhile
Wolfgang Munchau, residential columnist for the Financial Times, expresses the view in today's edition that, for Tony Blair, winning the election was the easy bit. His next political fight, the referendum to ratify the EU constitution, he writes, treaty, will be much tougher.
In fact, opines Munchau, it is going to be a "monumental fight". He notes that, in 2003, after five years in Germany, he returned to the UK to be surprised to see how "europhobic" (his word) the country had become.
Previously, the most outspoken eurosceptics were Conservative backbenchers and a few excitable newspaper editorialists. Now they are everywhere. There are few countries in Europe where people tell you - while managing to keep a straight face - that Brussels consists of corrupt bureaucrats who conspire to destroy democracy. Even the business community has turned eurosceptic. It is very difficult to wage the battle for Europe without the support of the business community.
To win the fight, Blair will have to reverse a trend towards euroscepticism that has lasted for more than a decade and made a deep and lasting impact. He will have to do something few British politicians have done before - make a positive case for the EU, to say why the UK needs an effective EU to help solve the political and economic challenges of the 21st century - whether they are wars, terrorism, economic shocks, immigration, the reduction of greenhouse gases, or others we do not know about yet.
If this argument is accepted, says Munchau, then surely it will be reasonable to approve a constitution whose goal it is to render an enlarged EU more effective. But if it is not, then there will be little point in remaining a member of this club. The stakes are high.
But the great columnist is not sure whether the "yes" camp in the UK would be capable of running or be willing to run such a highbrow campaign. But even if they were, it may still not be enough. The "no" campaign has the advantage that it reflects the national eurosceptic mood. As happened in France, this may also turn into a domestic political battle: vote No and get rid of Blair. Considering that most political commentators expect the prime minister to step down if he loses, this might turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another factor that does not help Blair is the persistent internal divisions within the EU - about economic policy, transatlantic relations and the EU budget. The last thing he needs is a dogfight with Chirac over the British budget rebate. Chirac has already said that the rebate can no longer be defended.
All that said, concludes Munchau, one should never take the outcome of a referendum for granted. But make no mistake about the task ahead. The defeat of euroscepticism will require time, determination and luck. Mr Blair may be a lucky man. He is also determined, but less so when it comes to Europe. And there is not much time left.
And there speaks the informed Europhile. He seems to be worried.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:27
Printable Version
Print
Sunday, May 15, 2005
They didn’t put that in the manifesto
After the relative silence of the Lib-Dims on matters EU during the general election campaign, barely a week has passed since the poll and here they are suggesting that Britain should give up its £2.6 billion rebate, making it the largest net contributor in the Union.
This, according to The Sunday Telegraph, comes from Chris Davies, Euro-luvvie extraordinaire and the party's parliamentary leader.
Davies believes that British ministers should not consider the rebate "sacrosanct". It should instead be traded against reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and a rebalancing of the EU budget between rich and poor states.
Even a Lib-Dim could predict the likely response to this, but with the election safely behind him and his seat guaranteed for four or more years, Davies happily acknowledges that: "The tabloid newspapers will scream betrayal". But, he says, "as it's going to happen anyway Liberal Democrats might as well be the first to say it." And say it he does: "Britain's unique EU budget must go. It can no longer be justified."
All very well and good, but if, in the opinion of the Lib-Dims, the rebate is no longer justified now, it was not justified a few weeks ago, before the general election. What a pity Davies did not think to say it then, or put it in the Party's manifesto.
But then, that might possibly have allowed people to get a taste of the real Lib-Dim agenda and harm Mr Davies's election chances. That would never do.
What a total schmuck.
Posted by
Richard
at
21:54
Printable Version
Print
Fresh vomit
Not the most attractive message to find in your e-mail inbox but, on opening it up, I could see the sender's point. It enclosed a link by now former Europe minister, Denis MacShane, published in today's Observer.
I will not trouble our readers with a précis but note, like many commenters on the Wallström blog, he resorts to quoting Churchill in support of his thesis, this one being that the next 18 months is: "Our last chance to make Europe work". "For the first time," MacShane writes, "Britain can lead the way to a truly united Continent."
In his piece, MacShane tells us that:
It was Churchill, not Jean Monnet, who electrified the world in 1946 with his language about a "United States of Europe", picking up the phrase first used by Victor Hugo a century before. But his vision and that of the cautious, careful planners of the first sharing of sovereignty ran into the barriers in 1950 of tired ministers who thought sharing sovereignty was a good thing for the continentals, but Britain's future was radiant and assured under Labour rule.His inference, of course, is that the great statesman supported a "United Europe" and so should we, but always when they invoke Churchill, the Euro-luvvies are highly selective.
What they should appreciate is that, while Churchill favoured European unity, he always made it very clear that any construct should apply to Continental Europe, and should not include the UK. This he made clear when, anticipating the Briand plan of 1930, he wrote in the New York Saturday Evening Post on 13 February 1930, as follows:
The mass of Europe once united, once federalised or partly federalised, once continentally self-conscious, would constitute an organism beyond compare…But he added this now famous piece, that made his views crystal clear:
We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should the European statesmen address us in the words which were used of old, "Wouldest thou be spoken for to the King, or the captain of the Host?", we should reply with the Shunamite woman. "Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people". We must build a kind of United States of Europe. Great Britain, the British Common-wealth of Nations, mighty America must be friends and sponsors of the new Europe.As for 1946, when Churchill "electrified the world" with his call for a "United Europe", MacShane, like the rest of his Euro-luvvie colleagues, is relying on the historic speech made by the great man in the Great Hall of Zurich University on 19 September.
Then, after painting a typically robust picture of the "plight to which Europe has been reduced" by the "frightful nationalistic quarrels originated by the Teutonic nations", Churchill held out his vision of how the hundreds of millions of inhabitants of this unhappy and ruined continent might "regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living". To achieve peace, freedom and an end to "all the crimes and follies of the past", he said, "we must build a kind of United States of Europe".
Churchill was to renew this message in three more major speeches in the years that followed, in London in 1947, at The Hague in 1948, and in Strasbourg in 1949. It is these rallying calls by Europe's only statesman at that time of world stature upon which the likes of MacShane rely as having been the inspiration for the steps which eventually led to the European Union: a project in which he implies that Churchill wished Britain to play a central part. In every respect this is based on a misreading of the facts.
For a start there was a crucial distinction between the type of united Europe envisioned by Churchill and that which would begin to take shape in the 1950s. He made this clear by his references at Zurich to the "pan-European union" which had been worked for by that "famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand", and to that "immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the first world war – the League of Nations".
At all times, Churchill was essentially looking back to that internationalist idealism of the 1920s, associated with Briand, Stresemann and Coudenhove: a "United States of Europe" based on an alliance of sovereign states. Yet, it was precisely this type of "intergovernmentalism" which the founders of what was to be the European Union regarded as their greatest obstacle and, as we saw from the Wallström "Terezin speech", consider to be the road that leads to another Holocaust.
Furthermore, Churchill consistently made clear both at Zurich and later, he saw any "United Europe" rooted in "a partnership between France and Germany". There was no question of Britain's direct participation. "In all this urgent work", as he put it,
France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and, I trust, Soviet Russia… must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe, and must champion its right to live.In 1947, at the Albert Hall in London, he conjured up his vision of a "Temple of World Peace", which would have "four pillars": the USA; the Soviet Union; a "United States of Europe"; and, quite separately, "the British Empire and Commonwealth".
But what is particularly interesting is that the man who was most dismissive of Churchill's type of "United Europe" was none other than Jean Monnet, who was convinced that the goal could only be reached in a wholly different way. Ironically, therefore, this was almost the only point on which Churchill and Monnet were agreed. If a "United States of Europe" was to be brought about, it would be without Britain.
If MacShane and his friends are going to quote Churchill, therefore, it would be helpful if they got their facts right.
Posted by
Richard
at
19:09
Printable Version
Print
One to watch
Of the welter of news and comment in today's papers, one to watch is a report on the front page of the business section of The Sunday Telegraph, under the heading: "EU ministers agree 'absurd' airline tax".
This relates to the ECOFIN meeting in Luxembourg last Thursday (and how many of us even knew there was a meeting?) when the finance ministers of the 25 EU member states, according to the somewhat misleading headline, "agreed to impose a tax on plane tickets to fund development aid programmes in Africa".
Rather less detail can be found on the Luxembourg presidency website but from that emerges the central fact that this is a "voluntary" tax, with the choice left to member states as to whether to impose it. But, as the statement says: "All the Member States agree to see the introduction of such a tax as an obligation to achieve a particular result."
As an aside, this very much illustrates the way much of the European Union works for, as it stands, the Union has no power or "competence" to levy such a tax but, as so often, they manage to introduce an extra-treaty power by securing a "voluntary" agreement within the framework of the insitutions – this one being ECOFIN.
In the fullness of time – which may encompass the span of a decade or more - the view will be taken that, as member states are adopting such and such measures, albeit imperfectly, it might as well be incorporated into whatever treaty happens to be in the course of preparation, purely in the interests of "efficiency" and "fairness" to make sure it is administered properly. In this way does the ceaseless ratchet of economic and political integration work, all based on this wonderful myth of "co-operation" between member states.
To return to the subject at hand, the "proposal", with must be fleshed out by the ECOFIN meeting of 7 June, is already invoking despair from the airlines, with British Airways describing the tax as "absurd" and "illogical". It is saying that there is no reason why airline passengers should be singled out to make a contribution to aid projects.
Other airlines, according to The Telegraph, are equally outraged. "This is misguided and unhelpful as the airline industry is hardly making any money at the moment," said a spokesman for easyJet. "If ministers want to alleviate global poverty they should look at the oil industry. "The last thing the aviation industry needs is ministers meddling and indiscriminately imposing a tax for a purpose that has nothing to do with the airline industry."
According to a document drawn up for the ministers' meeting, a tax of €10 (£6.90) on airline tickets for flights within the EU and €30 on flights outside the EU would generate about €6bn for development spending. The plan was devised by Chirac (ostensibly) to increase the amount of aid reaching the world's poorest people and was backed by Schröder.
However, there is a more sinister point that is being missed here, and one that explains the enthusiasm with which the idea is being taken up by the Union. In effect, under the guise of the typically "fluffy bunny" idea of helping out developing countries, this is in effect a proto-European tax, the Holy Grail of the integrationalists, who see such a move as the ultimate answer to their liberation from perpetual reliance on member states for funding.
In this context, it is known that taxation commissioner László Kovács is actively working on a number of ways by which the EU can raise money independently of the member states, one other being a road toll, based on the Galileo satellite system. Another is the so-called "Tobin tax", an excise tax on cross-border currency transactions.
This "airline tax" therefore, is far more sinister than at first appears, the nature of which comes over more clearly in a CNN report which refers to the "optional charge" falling short of what Chirac originally proposed. But, says the report, "it could break the ice on what might one day become a broader tax to help Africa."
The report goes on: "This will be a voluntary contribution which some member states propose to turn into a mandatory contribution but we are leaving this open," said Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker. "Five or six countries were ready to go ahead first," he said.
And there you have it… little bit, by little bit, the ratchet tightens and, once the "ice is broken" the way is clear for a "European tax", which can then be extended from its hypothecated base to cover broader expenditure issues. As we said, this is definitely one to watch.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:58
Printable Version
Print
Labels: galileo
This may not be news but ...
Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph ran an interesting article about Robin Aitken, former reporter and economic specialist of the BBC. In it he explained that he has always felt a bit of an outsider in the Corporation simply by being middle-of-the-road Tory. He did not belong to any political party, because he felt it to be inappropriate for a BBC journalist.
To his surprise and discomfort he found out that this assumption did not extend to people who wanted to be active members of the Labour and Liberal-Democrat parties.
The interview with Robin Aitken is well worth reading as he enumerates and tries to explain the various manifestations, of what he (having, perhaps, read this blog a few times) calls “a sort of unconscious, institutionalized Leftism”.
Northern Ireland, of course, where he had had stint as a reporter. All stories that put the Unionists in good light and told a bit more about the Republicans were ruthlessly suppressed.
Economically, the BBC gives the free-market view only occasionally, as a kind of a freak. Crime on the street stories refused to give anything like a balanced analysis.
And then there is the United States and, consequently, the Iraq war. Just what made the BBC so spectacularly biased before, during and after the war? Remember, this was the only organization that stayed on in Baghdad even after they had been forced to reveal that the “stories” they broadcast were those given to them by the Ministry or Information. Even Al-Jazeera had refused to kow-tow any longer.
“They cannot bear President Bush because he’s a Republican and an evangelical Christian. The sight of a Labour Prime Minister going into battle alongside such a man was more than many BBC people could stomach.”How delightful to know that dear old Auntie takes such a dim view of an enormous proportion of the world’s population.
Anti-Republicanism is built into the BBC’s view of the world, according to Mr Aitken, and let’s face it, we have noticed that ourselves. Still, on that score, not everything is lost:
“Last autumn, Today sent Jim Naughtie over to Washington to cover what they imagined would be the defeat of America’s knuckle-dragging President.Mr Naughtie, who was heard to refer to the Labour Party in one programme just before the official election campaign started as “we”, is not going to be happy about that comment. But it does indicate another problem about the BBC.
And what did we hear? Jim reporting Bush’s re-election through gritted teeth. Honestly, it would have taken a heart of stone not to laugh.”
Not only they are institutionally biased, they are also ignorant, about the details of what they are talking about and about even wider political issues or (for instance, in Iraq) military realities.
The British and European media was so biased about the American elections that Bush’s triumph came as a real shock to many people. But anyone who spent even ten minutes a day with the American media would have known that Kerry’s campaign was going from bad to worse. Did Mr Naughtie and his colleagues on the Today programme not realize this?
And so to the issue that interests most of us. How does Mr Aitken think the BBC will handle the referendum campaign?
“Europe is one area in which there has been some improvement, thanks to constant pressure from critics.Well, it may all be true but I am looking forward to the day on which Mr Naughtie and his colleagues stop going on about the 3 million jobs we will lose if we don’t sign up to whatever we are being presented with by Brussels.
I am sure that pro- and anti-constitution voices will be carefully balanced. The content of news bulletins will be beyond reproach. But it’s much harder to monitor the tone adopted by presenters and interviewers, so many of whom are supporters of further European integration.”
Needless to say, that support for further European integration is based on no knowledge or understanding whatsoever but a pleasant feeling of sophistication brought about by numerous holidays and, perhaps, the ownership of a second home in France or Spain.
Robin Aitken is writing a book on the BBC bias. He has already done a good deal of the research and marshalling of the material for a dossier he presented to the Governors in the 1990s. It was comprehensively ignored and you can bet that this dossier will not be mentioned in any searching BBC analysis.
In its own way this could be as devastating as the various revelations about the “liberal” bias in the American networks some years ago.
Posted by
Helen
at
13:00
Printable Version
Print
It seems there will be a Czech referendum
Don’t bet on it, though. In any case, presumably, the Czech government, presently headed by Jiři Paroubek, the third Prime Minister in nine months, will want to be the last to go. Then, with a bit of luck from their point of view, they can point to a solid or almost solid rank of yes votes and ask whether the Czechs want to be out of the swim.
In the meantime, Mr Paroubek, who became Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago, when Stanislav Gross had to resign to spend more time with his family and its rather interesting finances, has survived a no confidence vote in parliament. Just. The votes were 101 to 99.
The new Prime Minister is, naturally enough, making the fight against corruption as the centre plank of his government’s policy, though one rather wonders why. After all, if the Czech Republic wants to be a worthy member of the European Union, it ought to intensify its corrupt practices, at present amounting to rather small potatoes. (Or small beer, both being staples of the Czech diet.)
Somewhere along the line, Mr Paroubek has promised, his government will pave the way to a referendum on the Constitution (if it lasts long enough, as he did not add).
The campaign should be interesting as it would pitch the Prime Minister against the President, Vaclav Klaus being a known opponent of the Constitution and, indeed, the creation of a “country called Europe”.
Posted by
Helen
at
11:14
Printable Version
Print
Booker
In our long careers as "Euro-watchers", Booker and I have seen many EU laws on the horizon, and predicted all sorts of gloom and doom to come, when they were implemented.
One such was the electromagnetic compatibility directive, which required the makers of all or any electric or electronic equipment to pay for scientific tests, at inordinate expense, to ensure that their products did not interfere with other equipment.
We predicted, amongst other things, that bespoke makers of computers – of which there are many thousands in the UK, mostly small shops who will build a machine to your specification – would be put out of business by the scale of the testing fees, which exceeded the cost of the products they were selling.
However, when the law finally came in, nothing of the trauma we imagined ever came to pass. This was not because we were wrong about the nature of the law but because, quite sensibly, most people ignored it completely while trading standards, who were responsible for enforcing it, were far too busy persecuting Imperial traders and never got around to doing anything serious about it.
With another of these crazy EU laws, implemented as the so-called "Part P" amendment to the Building Regulations, which require electricians to be registered before they can carry out basic work, much the same could have happened. But in this case, while we warned of dire implications, the damage now seems to be occurring.
Thus, in the Booker column today, our favourite columnists opens his piece with a contrast, writing that, to Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy, "Europe" is a lofty abstract concept which for various reasons they don’t much wish to talk about.
But, he writes, "for Dave Walker, a 43-year old electrician in Bristol, it has become a very frightening and incomprehensible reality, forcing him to wonder how much longer he and his family can afford to go on living in their home." And so starts a story which is barely believable but comes straight out of the journal of the mad officials, and is absolutely true:
Last February, Mr Walker was asked by Mrs Godfrey, a pensioner living in a council flat, to fit a heated towel rail in her bathroom. Up to January this would have presented no problem. He could have carried out the work quickly and efficiently, charging her around £60.The story is so incredible that it invites the cliché, "you just couldn’t make it up", but the truth of it is that, when it comes to modern bureaucracy, and especially that emanating from the EU, there is no natural limit to the absurdities that they can perpetrate.
But Mr Walker was now aware of the new ‘Part P’ building regulations, rushed through last summer by John Prescott to comply with EC directive 98/34, under which Britain had to harmonise with various European electrical standards.
This meant that, to carry out all but very minor domestic electrical work, Mr Walker had two choices. Either he would have to be certified as a ‘competent domestic installer’ by the government-approved National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC). Or, to carry out wiring or any work in a bathroom or kitchen, his work would have to be approved and inspected, for a fee, by his local council.
Mr Walker therefore applied to NICEIC to be certified, on a yearly basis, which currently costs £877.50. He even sent a cheque. But he was told he could not be certified unless NICEIC could inspect his work on a whole house. Since his work consists only of small jobs for homeowners, and the only house he had wired was his own, which did not count, NICEIC was unable to certify him and sent his back his money.
Despite the fact that he has full City and Guilds qualification, which required five years theoretical and practical work, and years of experience without complaint, Mr Walker had to tell his customer that, under the new rules, since the towel rail was for a bathroom, she would have to ask the council’s permission.
The council replied, in what it calls “a standard letter”, that it had “no objection to the installation of a heated towel rail”. But in order to get approval, Mr Walker would have to provide a certificate guaranteeing the safety of all the electrical installation in her home. This, he calculated, would involve more than a day’s work, inspecting and reporting on all her wiring and each plug and light socket, costing £600.
Plainly this was out of the question. After further consultation with the council, the problem was solved by placing the towel rail outside the bathroom. But Mr Walker thus finds himself unable to do much of the work which until recently provided most of his income. If it was not for the money he gets for fostering two children, he says, he would be unable to keep up his mortgage payments.
According to NICEIC, the purpose of the new regulations is to stamp out the ‘cowboys’ who supply faulty and dangerous electrical work. But the effect, it seems, is the opposite.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that many small electricians are either surviving only by ignoring Part P, or are giving up (when Mr Walker went to the Job Centre he was told many electricians had been in asking about other work). This creates an opening for precisely the ‘cowboys’ Part P was intended to eliminate.
It seems many householders must choose between either a ‘competent’ electrician who has had to raise his charges to pay for certification, or a ‘cowboy’ who can do it on the cheap. What few homeowners have also grasped is that Part P applies equally to do-it-yourself electrical work.
To carry out any work in a kitchen or bathroom without council permission is now a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000. And to have it inspected will cost you an average £65. Thank you Mr Prescott, writes Booker, and of course those diligent civil servants who pointed out to him directive 98/34.
For his second story, Booker takes a deep breath and takes on the Latsis affair again, a brave move as the last time we ran the story, we got hit hard by the lawyers.
Anyhow, this time the story is pretty lawyer proof, based as it is on information on the EU commission website, discovered by this blog and broached in the EU parliament by Nigel Farage.
Thus does Booker start his piece, telling the story de novo, albeit so carefully worded as almost to emasculate it, then observing that: "Considering that a drama set in train by a British MEP set off such excitement last week in the German, Spanish and Italian press, he writes, it may seem strange that it has here been almost wholly ignored."
Actually, it isn't that strange, as the media are running scared, conscious that Dr Latsis is able to afford very expensive lawyers and can take you to the cleaners for even the slightest of errors, as he did with the The Sunday Telegraph and The Times.
Anyhow, the story has got into the Booker column and we await the lawyers letters once again. To conclude, though, Booker observes that the row is also potentially embarrassing to the new Shadow Cabinet in London, which after last week's "putsch" by the Europhiles, including the new Party chairman Francis Maude and his "moderniser" allies, has let it be known that MPs must talk about "Europe" as little as possible.
The Tory leadership line, Booker concludes, is to now to keep quiet about "Europe" until the referendum campaign gets under way. Yet another flurry of publicity over the Barroso affair, with Tory MEPs playing an important part, will not be regarded as “helpful”.
And for his final story, Booker takes a swipe at BBC Radio Four's Today programme – always an entertaining occupation – which recently reported the discovery in Somerset of an "Iron Age shoe". Its length, they solemnly intoned, was "30 centimetres".
It might have been interesting to observe, writes Booker, that this meant the shoe was a foot long, hence the name given to that measure which BBC reporters are forbidden to mention.
But someone ought to point out to the BBC thought police that, under EC law, centimetres are no more a legally approved measure than feet and inches. The only correct description for what those Iron Age cobblers created was a shoe 304.8 millimetres long.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:28
Printable Version
Print
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Le chat out of le sac?
Somebody had better tell Jacques Delors that he is a tad off-message – before Giscard gets to hear of it.
According to The Independent, the former commission president is admitting that the EU constitution can be rewritten, if it is rejected at the 29 May referendum.
What The Independent describes as "French Eurosceptics" (is there such a thing?) seized gleefully on a statement, which contradicts leaders of the "yes" campaign who have warned that rejection of the treaty would be a political train-wreck from which France - and the EU - would emerge permanently damaged.
Delors - although a vociferous supporter of the constitution - said that "a duty of truthfulness" forced him to admit that, if France voted "no", there couldafter all be a "plan B" or renegotiation of the treaty.
But he went on to say that France would be "undoubtedly weakened" in the short term; that the EU would be plunged into confusion; and a rapid solution would be impossible.
According to The Independent, opponents of the treaty are saying that Delors has let the cat out of the bag. If French voters rejected the treaty, it could be renegotiated and, therefore, changed to take account of their concerns.
This may be just the boost the "nons" need. A poll conducted today by Ifop for Web site Wanadoo.fr, showed 54 percent of 1,016 people surveyed on 12-13 May plan to reject the constitution, overtaking again the "yes" vote at four four points higher than a survey on 3-4 May
Nevertheless, the vote is still on a knife-edge with the TNS-Sofres poll for Le Monde conducted on 9-10 May putting support for the constitution at 52 percent.
Having reversed the powerful trend towards "no" two weeks ago, the "yes" camp had hoped to rebuild a commanding lead in the polls. It now appears that the French electorate - and especially voters of the centre-left - is split down the middle.
Thus, the outcome, says The Independent, may remain unpredictable until the referendum itself on Sunday 29 May. L'escroc had better get his printing presses working.
Posted by
Richard
at
19:59
Printable Version
Print
An idea whose time has gone
That is the conclusion of Charles Moore, who writes the Telegraph op-ed today.
His theme is that, “Even if the French vote 'yes', their Euro-dream has soured”, and he points out that the two principle advocates of the “oui” camp in France are Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, at 79, and Jacques Chirac, who is 72. The constitution is an old man's dream. The idealism for "building Europe" has gone. "Europe is uncool."
And ain't that the truth. Yesterday, I had the delight of addressing the sixth form of a school in Bridlington and, if they are any guide, we have no problems for the future. Polite, bright and full of intelligent questions, they were great fun to talk to.
The theme I chose for them was the history of the EU – not exactly a riveting subject if you go by the official account, except that I sketched the true genesis, which lay in the carnage of the appalling battle of Verdun in 1916, where over 700,000 casualties were taken in the 10-month battle.
It was there that French armaments minister, Louis Loucheur realised the link between economics and industrial warfare, as he struggled to equip the French army with modern guns and ammunition, running out of steel, then coal, and then the shipping to import the coal.
His experience crystallised the thinking that, by removing the capability to make war, and vesting it in a supranational authority out of the reach of nation states, war itself could be prevented – thinking that led in time to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community.
What is crucial though is that the idea stemmed not from the wreckage of the Second World War, but the First. It was picked up by Jean Monnet in that post-war period yet the structures that would put the idea into action were actually formalised by a British civil servant, Arthur Salter, a colleague of Monnet, who set them out in a book published in 1926 called "The United States of Europe". In the book, he outlines all the institutions which are so familiar to us today, the commission, the council of ministers and the court of justice.
Largely, it was the emergence of the Nazis as a potent political force in German which prevents any development of the idea and it was not until after the Second War that the some of same cast of characters dusted off their dream and put it into action, in a geopolitical situation that was now totally different.
By then, the young men who had dreamed their dreams were considerably older and, when it came to signing the 1957 Treaty of Rome, every one of the signatories would have qualified for bus passes, had they then existed. Even at its birth, therefore, what was to become the European Union was an old man's dream, an idea whose time had already gone.
How fitting now that the dream is still being promoted by a pair of geriatrics. Charles Moore finds it hard to believe that Tony Blair, who is a full generation younger, will be able to put his heart into the fight. Looking at the fresh young faces in that school yesterday, I find it difficult to believe that the new generation will take it on board either.
Posted by
Richard
at
12:13
Printable Version
Print
It gets murkier
According to a report in the German newspaper Die Welt, the EU parliament socialists were not acting entirely on their own when they failed to support Farage’s attempt last week to get Barroso to attend the parliament to answer questions about his relationship with Spiros Latsis.
The paper reports that there was heavyweight intervention, with Schröder telephoning Martin Schulz, chairman of the socialist group in the EU parliament, to get him to back off.
Schröder was acting "out of consideration for the referendum in France" and managed to dissuade the parliament's socialist group from supporting a call to have Barroso publicly questioned at the plenary session in Strasbourg this week.
Until Farage intervened with his motion of censure, the plan was for Barroso plans to refute the accusation of a conflict of interests behind closed doors with the presidents of the political groups.
This rather explains their sharp reaction to the motion and suggest that the action has hit an extremely raw nerve.
Posted by
Richard
at
02:17
Printable Version
Print
Friday, May 13, 2005
Post-script on the tranzis
Supachai Panitchpakdi, the outgoing chief of the World Trade Organization (WTO) will not starve. He has been appointed as secretary general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on Wednesday, as only the Chinese News Agency saw fit to report.
He thanked SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo of food-for-oil notoriety):
“I am profoundly honoured that Secretary General Annan has shown such confidence in me and I can assure him and all UN member governments that I will do everything in my power to ensure that trade becomes an ever more vital tool for development.”Of course, he will. Just as the UN has done so far. Anyway, that’s a load off my mind.
Posted by
Helen
at
20:16
Printable Version
Print
News from the tranzis
There are times when I wonder whether those organizations that are taking it upon themselves to run the world have not become so “drunk with sight of power” that they actually have started to bring about their own destruction.
Take the question of John Bolton’s nomination to be United States ambassador to the UN. You’d think all the tranzi-lovers would jump at the chance. Here is someone who will take the decrepit, corrupt, unaccountable, unreformable organization by the scruff of its neck and give it a good shake with the blessing of the largest donor.
At best, this will reform the UN. At worst, a little more time will be gained to root away in the trough.
After all, what was our greatest fear when the Santer Commission resigned, came back and finally went away (mostly)? That in their wisdom the member states will choose some upright Scandinavian (not the fragrant Margot, of course) who will try to put the whole mess into order, fail naturally, but, in the meantime lose us some time.
Instead, bless their little cotton socks, they chose Romano Prodi, who proceeded to make a laughing stock of the whole enterprise. This does not mean that the Commission or the EU will disappear tomorrow but a good deal of the growing disillusionment can be traced back to that fateful decision.
The row about Bolton, when all is said and done, boils down to the fact that he does not think very highly of the UN or other transnational organization, believes in democracy and thinks international politics should be conducted by individual states, preferably liberal and constitutional democracies.
Up with this the tranzis and their supporters will not put.
Well, they are playing into our hands. If the idea of a forcible reform of that bloated organization is not to be countenanced, then clearly, the best thing to do is to let it stew in its own unsavoury juice until it disintegrates through the disgust of all sane and sensible people.
Many of us think that the UN is unreformable because of its basic structure and assumptions. It is completely unaccountable and its pretensions to some form of world government are laughable. Most of its members do not subscribe to the humanitarian, freedom-loving principles that are supposed to be at the heart of the organization.
Bolton seems to believe that it could, conceivably, be changed back to a peace-keeping organization (though not, perhaps, after its troops’ behaviour in Africa and the Balkans). It is entirely possible that he will not be given the chance even to try.
Well, so be it. The UN is clearly doomed though its putrifying corpse will be with us for some time to come. And its death rattle is being brought about by its supporters in the US and the NGOs. A delightful irony.
Meanwhile, the one potentially useful organization, the WTO also seems to have taken leave of its senses. It selected Pascal Lamy, the former Commissar for International Trade, as the next Director-General.
This may have been part of an agreement between the US and Europe, i.e. France, to get Wolfowitz into the World Bank. Europe spoke with one voice and that voice turned out to be French.
At any rate, the former US Trade Representative, Henry Zoellick, is on record as saying that he thought Lamy would be very good at the WTO. But then Zoellick, now Condoleezza Rice’s Deputy is known as a man who is “sensitive” to the concerns of Europeans and NGOs. The United State government remained very publicly neutral on the contest between Lamy and the Uruguayan Carlos Pérez del Castillo. Perhaps, they have written the WTO off.
The Economist Global Agenda in a tellingly titled piece “Lamy to the slaughter?” commiserates with the incoming Director-General at the difficulties he will be facing in trying to revive the Doha Round and generally enthuse the world with the idea of free trade, when enthusiasm for it “seems to be on the wane”.
Well, now, how interesting. The Doha Round was killed off largely because of the intransigence of the EU. And who was the negotiator? Pascal Lamy, the man who gives protectionism a bad name.
What about this waning of free trade enthusiasm? There are certainly fearsome discussions going on in most developed countries but there are also serious negotiations to create a free trade area across the two Americas.
Developing countries are beginning to understand that it is not aid but free trade that will help them to develop (NGOs permitting).
Yes, there are problems and worries but if there is one segment of the world that is leading the rearguard action against free trade, it is the European Union, with France in the lead. Pascal Lamy is a worthy representative of that school of thought.
Ah well, good-bye WTO. It’s been nice knowing you.
“For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy mercy on Thy people, Lord!”
Posted by
Helen
at
19:55
Printable Version
Print
A few quotations
As readers of this blog know, or can guess, we are fervent admirers of the late great leader of the Western world, President Reagan. Just recently I saw a short selection of quotes from him and feel impelled to share two or three with our readers:
“The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”You can leave out federal but the rest of it is all too true.
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”But I shall end on a strong and positive note:
“No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”That was true when he said it and is still true. The enemy may have changed (slightly) but the wars are the same. We shall win these as we did the one under Reagan.
Posted by
Helen
at
18:56
Printable Version
Print
Dear Diary
The fluffy bunny Margot is back. Gone is the termagant that screamed at the DUP MEP, James Allister who had the temerity to question her on her unfortunate speech in Terezin. She is back in fluffy mode, chattering away about Swedish people wearing warm clothes, visiting her mother, sharing a joke with her brother – all to prove how wonderfully human the not-so-fragrant Commissar really is.
Why did she not blog for over a fortnight? Well, heck, she was travelling and, honey, you know what that’s like: not a moment to oneself, no way of communicating, just one dam’ thing after another. Clearly, the lady has not heard of laptops, blackberries or mobile telephones, all of which she can have at the taxpayers’ expense.
Her gifted and multi-talented staff can, presumably, teach her to use some or all of these electronic devices, though they seem to have failed in ensuring that she does not put her foot in every time she opens her mouth.
So where did the dear thing travel? Well, she went to Paris where she made her first ever speech in French and looked scared. With a rather poor attempt at humour she adds:
“(Yes, you can make a good joke about that, my UK-anti-EU-friends!)”
Aaaah! Bless!! Isn’t she cute? As if we needed to make jokes about her French when we have her to laugh at.
With great pleasure she tells us that
“The kind of exaggerations and misrepresentations of the Constitution presented by for example Jean-Marie le Pen has moved people to the Yes-side and they feel much more confident now.”
Well, maybe, though the proof of the pudding remains in the eating. Will the Swedish electorate be able to vote on the basis of certain exaggerations and misrepresentations the fragrant one “presented” in the Czech Republic? Not if she and her colleagues have anything to do with it.
Then she went to Budapest, where she jogged by the Danube. From personal knowledge I can confirm that it is one of the most beautiful cities in the world but you do not see anything if you jog. Try walking, Margot, looking and listening. Then you might work out that the Hungarian joke about the breakfast being “half a pig and some vodka” could not have been entirely accurate. It is pálinka they drink in Hungary but, hey, they are only East Europeans. How could she tell the difference?
Then on to the Czech Republic. And we come to her self-pitying account of what happened:
“I gave a short speech outside the social centre in Terezin. Some newspapers totally misrepresented what I said. There was not one word about the Constitution in the speech! I spoke about the meaning of Terezin for Europeans,how it can influence our thinking about Europe. And certainly such a link Constitution – Holocaust, deviously constructed by one newspaper, I find totally disrespectful to those survivors who were present to attempt to make this connection.
I think it is incredible that a mark of respect for the past and the suffering of the 35, 000 people who died in Terezin should be used in this way. My message was to outline the reality of the history of the European Union and the importance to ensure this never happens again. I stand by every one of my comments in Terezin. I felt also touched by the support I received from members of the Swedish Jewish community.”
Well, dear Commissar, I do think that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. The link she gives after those paragraphs is, naturally, to the second version of the speech, which she delivered because time was short. As our readers know, the difference between the two is one sentence.
Her knowledge of the “reality and history” of the European Union and, indeed, of Europe, as many have noted, is lacking in essential facts and information and the “support” from members of the Swedish Jewish community, as we know from Dr Gennsler, has not been unqualified.
The most appalling sentence of that whinge is undoubtedly
“I think it is incredible that a mark of respect for the past and the suffering of the 35, 000 people who died in Terezin should be used in this way.”
Yes, indeed, we think it incredible, too. So why did the fragrant Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation do it? Whatever was in her tiny fluffy mind originally, I expect she is regretting she ever set foot in that place, let alone opened her mouth.
Posted by
Helen
at
18:22
Printable Version
Print
Assuming the ostrich position
Those brave democrats – or, at least, the leaders of the political groups - in the EU parliament have given their response to the motion of censure tabled against the commission, in the form of a joint statement.
Signed by Hans-Gert Pöttering, European People's Party and European Democrats Group; Martin Schulz, Socialist Group; Graham Watson, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group; and Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Monica Frassoni, Greens-European Free Alliance Group, they write:
As chairs of of our political groups, which account for 597 of the 732 members of the European Parliament, we express our opposition to the motion of censure tabled yesterday in Strasbourg. We consider this initiative to be unjustified and disproportionate and principally designed to seek publicity for its authors.In a statement published by the Independence/Democracy Group, Nigel Farage immediately responded, saying:
Their Comments are sadly as one would expect. All of these ciphers have in the past called for a more active role for the European Parliament, but are frightened of doing so. With the authority that is vested in them by their electorates also comes a responsibility to hold the executive to account, this seems to be a responsibility that they wish to shirk."Contempt" here is the operative word. However, the bulk of MEPs also hold their electorates in contempt. But then, how do you expect them to treat people stupid enough to vote for them?
If they think that this gives the unelected Barroso carte blanche to ignore the request of 77 members to explain his actions. It doesn't. If Mr Barroso fails to turn up, if he fails to explain how the Commission OK'd a 10 million grant to his holiday host, if he fails to instigate a policy of full disclosure, then he will be shown to hold the position of elected members in contempt.
Posted by
Richard
at
15:57
Printable Version
Print
Contaminating the argument
It might be an odd choice of phrasing, but that is what is being said about the decision by the campaigning group, Britain in Europe, to wind up its advocacy of the euro.
According to The Times this morning, the organisation has "abandoned its founding purpose” of scrapping the pound ahead of the EU referendum campaign, amid alarm that voters' hostility towards the single currency was contaminating arguments over the proposed European constitution."
Lucy Powell, director of Britain in Europe, has confirmed that her organisation had dropped all references to the euro after a board decision to "decouple" the issue from the constitution.
On the face of it, this represents a major, if unacknowledged defeat for the Euro-luvvies, but it also shows up an element of confusion on the part of The Times. Britain in Europe was in fact founded (or, at least, formally launched) on 26 March 1974 for the specific purpose of fighting the 1975 referendum.
It was relaunched in October 1999, to take on the campaign for the euro – which it now seems to have abandoned – so its current move can be seen more in terms of it clearing the decks to take on the function for which it was first established.
This seems to fit in with a suggestion, again reported by The Times, that Blair is considering pursuing a referendum even if the French and Dutch deliver "no" votes. On the back of this, it seems "diplomats" - i.e., our enemies in the Foreign Office - are already examining how the government could "rescue" the treaty (i.e., ignore the "no" vote) in such circumstances, one option being to revive those parts of the constitution which do not require treaty change, while going ahead with a referendum.
As to the referendum itself, Blair is holding his cards close to his chest, declined to give a date for the poll. It would be "done in a stable and orderly way", he told journalists in a press conference in Downing Street yesterday.
Posted by
Richard
at
09:59
Printable Version
Print
Galileo stitch-up
Not my words, but those of Paul Betts writing for the Financial Times. It was all so predictable, he says. The competition to build the Galileo satellite navigation system - Europe's answer to the Pentagon-controlled Global Positioning System - has ended in a classic political fudge.
As we left it in January, permission had been given to build the Galileo system and two rival consortia were vying for a contract to deploy and operate the equipment. Bids were submitted in February but then, when the result was expected in March, the competition was deferred.
According to Betts, it was a phoney battle anyway. The competitors for the €7 billion contract were France's Thales and the Franco-German EADS, against a consortium composed of Italy's Finmeccanica, France's Alcatel and two Spanish companies.
But when the competition was postponed in March, the EU commission claimed that the contest was so close it could not make up its mind. It argued that a further extension would allow the rivals to improve their offers.
The real reason, we now know, was to persuade the two rivals to join forces and put forward a single offer, thus avoiding the risk of political conflict - the last thing the EU and leading member states want as they struggle to win popular approval for the new European constitution.
Betts tells us that the French have applauded the decision to combine the offers as a sign of pan-European co-operation at its best, mirroring the success of Airbus. Yet even if one consortium had been chosen, the losers would probably still have been awarded specific parts of the project. This would also have avoided turning the long drawn out bidding process into a farce.
Technical this may be, but isn't it interesting that, when writing of EU affairs, one invariably ends up using words like "stitch-up", "fudge", "farce" and "phoney". That, I believe, should tell us something as well.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:17
Printable Version
Print
Another one down
Unsurprisingly, the Slovakian parliament has endorsed the European constitution. 116 deputies voted in favour, 27 against and 4 abstained.
Members of the right-of-centre Christian Democrat Party (KDH), who had been in favour of a referendum but were overruled by their colleagues in the government coalition, voted against.
According to the Slovak Spectator:
“During the parliamentary debate prior to the vote, KDH chairman Pavol Hrušovský complained that the document lacks democracy, Christianity and sincerity.
"A lack of democracy threatens Europe, and the smaller countries will be weakened in favour of the larger ones," he said.”
The Communist Party also opposed the Constitution but, interestingly, Vladimír Mečiar, leader of the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia, whose rather less than democratic government was severely criticized by all west European countries and the European Union, has become a born-again proponent of European integration, explaining that he would welcome the creation of a United States of Europe, admitting that it was unlikely to happen in his lifetime.
Posted by
Helen
at
00:07
Printable Version
Print
Thursday, May 12, 2005
"Non" and "ja"
There is some useful insight on the French "non" campaign literature on the L'Ombre de l'Olivier website, complete with illustrations.
Meanwhile, Germany's Bundestag has overwhelmingly approved the constitution: a total of 569 members voted in favour, with 23 against and two abstentions.
Addressing the Bundestag just before the vote, Schröder told the deputies: "I ask you not to be too petty or too obsessed with the detail of the odd half sentence that may not completely meet our expectations."
Posted by
Richard
at
22:10
Printable Version
Print
Seepage
Both the Wallström and the Barroso stories are seeping into the MSM, Barroso even making the BBC 6 o’clock news.
As for the none-to-fragrant Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation, the august Financial Times has now picked up the Terezin story, with a headline, "Commissioner under fire over 'Nazi' speech" – this after "it emerged she had changed the version published on the internet to remove the controversial passage."
We are now told by her spokesman that the passage in which she asserted that scrapping the idea of a supranational Europe could put the continent back on the road to a holocaust, in the original version of the speech - which given to journalists ahead of Wallström's visit - was removed because Ms Wallström did not have enough time to deliver the full text.
Thus, from that account, the distinctly pongy Margot did intend to say what was in the text given to journalists but did not have time, leaving them (including David Rennie of the Telegraph) to publicise the original which she had in no way retracted and from which she had not even distanced herself.
This seems a million miles away from the claim she made in the EU parliament, when questioned by Jim Allister, where she described an account based on her original script as "lies".
"I never said such a thing, but it does not help if they have written it. They have lied; they have made things up. I just feel sorry for you because you have been misled by pure lies in the British media. I just want everybody here to know that this is a pure lie," she screeched.
"They have made up some kind of title or headline in the newspapers that is totally wrong. A lot of people were there, so you will know exactly what I said."
All right, she might not have actually said it – but she meant it, and there was no way the media "made it up". This little commissar is telling porkies of her own.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:11
Printable Version
Print
Out of options
The Guardian today offers an interesting insight to our question as to why Michael Howard really needed to raid the nursery to find a shadow chancellor.
It seems that Howard had already considered William Hague and David Cameron, who had turned him down, before alighting on George Osborne, aged 33¾. It looks like play school was his only option. I wonder if he asked Osborne's mummy first?
Posted by
Richard
at
16:54
Printable Version
Print
You could not make this up
The EU commission, we are told, plans to tighten controls on the way member states spend EU money and to impose stricter rules for lobbyists “as part of a drive to increase transparency and trust in the 25-nation bloc.”
Anti-Fraud commissioner Siim Kallas has announced a package which will be debated by the commission next week. It also includes plans to improve standards of conduct for EU officials.
The proposal, says the report, comes as Barroso "is under fire from some European parliamentarians for accepting a holiday on a Greek billionaire's yacht."
This "transparency initiative", it appears, is part of an effort by the commission "to bring the EU closer to citizens, who often regard its institutions as distant, bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt."
"It is a package of steps to increase the trust of citizens," says Kallas, adding that, although fraudulent spending of EU funds did not appear to be a serious problem, "we must prevent the misuse of EU money as it compromises the EU and member states".
"There is sometimes... a contradiction here between transparency and data protection. There must be a balance between them," he says.
And the source of this report: the state-owned China Daily.
Posted by
Richard
at
15:15
Printable Version
Print
All systems go
Perhaps conscious of its untenable position on Farage's motion of censure, the secretary general of the EU parliament has caved in and arranged an announcement of the motion of censure at 3 pm today in the hemicycle of the Strasbourg parliament.
A Independent/Democracy group member comments: "So, it's all ok and WE MADE IT!"
Posted by
Richard
at
14:46
Printable Version
Print
Rewriting history before our very eyes
The fragrant Margot (no longer smelling of roses even in her homeland, according to our Swedish friends) has decided to take a leaf out of George Orwell’s description of a horrific dystopia. As many of our readers will recall, Winston Smith’s job in the Ministry of Truth was to re-write ex post facto no longer convenient reports and articles in the Times.
She and her minions have been busy denying the accusations that the silly woman had said in Terezin (knowns as Theresienstadt when it was a Nazi camp) connected the need to create a supranational organization, a.k.a. the European Union with the Holocaust.
The sequence of events was as follows: the Daily Telegraph published an article highlighting this interesting piece of historical and political thinking. The fragrant Commissar’s minions rushed in to defend her – you have to feel sorry for them, working for someone as stupid as that – pointing out that no, she did not really say that at all, merely emphasised the horrors of the Second World War, which, according to her, was caused by “nationalistic pride and greed, and … international rivalry for wealth and power”.
I asked it before and ask it again: what was it that built camps like Theresienstadt? Nationalistic pride or an evil ideology? And while we are on the subject, what was it that fought that evil ideology and the other one, not mentioned by the fragrant Commissar or her colleagues, the supranational ideology of Communism? Was it not national pride?
Anyway, to get back to the story. The minions, rather helpfully, provided us all with links to the Terezin speech, which had among other comments, the following:
Fairly clear cut, would you not say? Certainly, the Swedish media thought so. Let me quote the comments put on this blog by Dr Michael Gennser:“Yet there are those today who want to scrap the supranational idea. They want the European Union to go back to the old purely inter-governmental way of doing things.
I say those people should come to Terezin and see where that old road leads.”
“In today's Svenska Dagbladet there is an article about Wallström's Terezin speech. The title in translation reads: Indignation over Wallström nazi-speech.
There is a short recapitulation of the speech, with some historical background on Theresienstadt. Then follows two statements by Mrs W's press scretary Lena Ag. In the first she says that the comments shouldn't be taken literally, but then she comes back and tells the journalist that the last of the criticized sentences ("I say to those people come to Terezin and see where that old road leads.") was struck from the speech, and was never spoken by Wallström.
"The wrong version was published on our home page. We are correcting it now."
Then follows comments by Nils Lundgren MEP (junilistan) and Sören Wibe MP (s) who both are very critical of the speech whether the last sentence was there or not.
So is Mrs Lena Posner-Körösi from the Jewish Association who finds it unacceptable that the Holocaust is reduced to an argument for or against the EU constitution.
On the web-site there are links to the "old" and the "new" version of the speech, as well as picture of the speech with the "offending" sentence highlighted.”
In the meantime, the fragrant one has been blustering. When she addressed the European Parliament yesterday, she was asked a number of fawning (there is another expression I could use but this is a family-friendly blog) questions from the assembled politicos.
One, James Hugh Allister, dared to put the relevant question:
“Has the Commission no shame in trying to ride to success in the referendum campaign on the back of emotion and sentiment, such as the Commissioner deployed in her speech at the commemoration ceremony for the liberation of the concentration camp of Terezin at the weekend? Does the Commission not have any appreciation that the opponents of the Constitution are just as proud of the defeat of Nazism as anyone else and that we take great offence when she tries to hijack and monopolise that sentiment in order to advance the political agenda ofHe, unlike his lickspittle colleagues, did not get a pat on the head from the Commissioner for Truth and Reconciliation. Instead she screamed blue murder:
seeking to promote this Constitution?”
“I am sorry, but do the UK media have no shame in publishing such absolutely desperate lies? I never said such a thing, but it does not help if they have written it. They have lied; they have made things up. I just feel sorry for you because you have been misled by pure lies in the British media. I just want everybody here to know that this is a pure lie. They have made up some kind of title or headline in the newspapers that is totally wrong. A lot of people were there, so you will know exactly what I said.”Temper, temper. The UK media, the Swedish media and the blogs, such as this one, took the wording from the website, whose link was helpfully supplied by the no-longer-fragrant harridan’s spokesman.
But, as Dr Gennser’s comment points out, the “new” version of the speech no longer makes the explicit connection between intergovernmentalism and the Holocaust. The “new” paragraphs read:
“European nations nations may well disagree on all kinds of issues – but instead of fighting we now sit round the table and discuss them until we reach an agreement. It means a lot of compromises but it works!At the risk of repeating myself, I feel I need to do a little fisking on that.
Yet there are those today who want to scrap the European supranational idea. They want the European Union to go back to the old purely nation state way of doing things.
We rejoice today at the ending of the Second World War and all its horrors.”
In the first place, are we to understand from the fragrant one’s reading of history that there has never been a situation in which nation states’ representatives sat down round the table and discussed matters? No previous agreements or treaties at all? The whole of history has been waiting for the balmy influence of the wondrous Commissars to spread peace and happiness?
Secondly, even without the offending Terezin sentence (is there anybody out there who heard the speech or has a recording of it?) the comment about people wanting to go back to the bad old days is indicative of the argument. What exactly is so wrong with the “old purely nation state way of doing things”?
Thirdly, and most importantly, the rejoicing in the ending of the Second World War (though not, apparently, of Nazism) seems to forget about Communism (mentioned explicitly by President Bush though no mealy mouthed Commissioner) and completely ignores a basic historical fact. I mentioned it above but it bears repeating.
It was national pride and a desire for national as well as personal freedom that fought and defeated both Nazism and Communism. We must remember that and rejoice in it. (And no, I have not forgotten the role played by the United States and Canada, both nation states, in the defeat of the twin evils of Europe.)
In the meantime, what are we to do with the new Ministry of Truth that is headed by the fragrant Commissar and her flagrant and shameless re-writing of history? I would appreciate it if the replies were reasonably polite.
Posted by
Helen
at
13:02
Printable Version
Print
Latsis - the cover-up continues
The EU parliament and the political groups have reacted sharply to Farage’s application for a motion of censure on Barroso.
The secretariat have challenged the authenticity of ten of the signatures (the implication being that they are forged) and have therefore refused to accept the motion until the signatures have been validated.
The political groups are leaning on the signatories to withdraw their names and an estimated four have already succumbed to the pressure and backed off. Hans-Gert Pöttering, leader of the EPP group of which the Tories are part, has been particularly active, pledging that all his group members will remove their names from the list. This is the man who said, of Farage's Barrot exposé: "What Mr Farage said is not worthy of the European Parliament."
Pöttering's pledge puts the five dissident Tory MEPs, Dan Hannan, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer, Martin Callanan and David Sumberg, very much under pressure. It will be very interesting to see if they stand their ground. Nevertheless, Farage is confident that replacements can be found for the faint-hearts – not least Kilroy-Silk who is apparently keen to add his name to the list.
Meanwhile, Barroso is trying to play down the whole affair, dismissing the motion as "absurd" – a stance that is being helped by the usual sloth of the media. The Telegraph did a small piece and so did The Sun, at the bottom of page two, next to a page three picture of a donkey and a lady wearing not very much at all. "Not very much at all", therefore, describes the coverage.
Posted by
Richard
at
12:38
Printable Version
Print
Tells you all
The ridiculous European Parliament vote over the opt-out to the Working Time Directive and its various implication have been relatively well covered in the media (with the exception of the BBC, whose luminaries still do not understand the difference between the European Council, the Council of Minister and the Council of Europe).
Nevertheless, I cannot resist quoting one of our own MEPs, a Labour chap by the name of Stephen Hughes, elected probably on something like 10 per cent of the available vote and the Labour employment spokesman.
Disdaining the fire-and-brimstone class war rhetoric of his French Communist colleague, Jacky Henin, Mr Hughes pompously explained why he wanted to make the British (and European) economy uncompetitive and drive up unemployment in the private sector:
“We don’t want an opt-out. We want a proper balance between work and family life in Britain as in every other member state of the EU.”Obviously he has missed the fact that a large proportion of the working force in other member states of the EU is spending more time with its family than it would like because there are no jobs to go to.
In any case who is this MEP, whose idea of work is to sign in and disappear, to tell us what the proper balance is between anything? This tells you all you need to know about our rulers in Brussels, whether they are British or other, whether they are in the Commission or the Parliament. Come to think of it, the Commission and its minions are more likely to come up with sensible comments than those wastrels in the European Parliament.
Posted by
Helen
at
09:57
Printable Version
Print
A question of priorities
According to the press officer for the Independent/Democracy Group, when he went down to the press office in the EU parliament with a sheaf of releases on the Latsis/Barroso story, so keen were the assembled hacks that he described it as "like walking into Trafalgar Square with an open packet of corn".
And the result? A search of Google this morning gives… nothing… ne rien… nada. However, the BBC's Today programme did a stonking story on Beckham's satin cummerbund.
Posted by
Richard
at
08:52
Printable Version
Print
Pig ignorance
The egregious BBC hackette Martha Kearney – slated as successor to Andrew Marr – was interviewed last night by the increasingly mad Paxo on Newsnight.
Showing her erudition on things European, she explained to him what was going to happen now that the amendment to the Working Time Directive had been agreed by the EU parliament, telling him:
…this isn't the end of the story. It still has to go to the Council of Europe…The wonder is that they let people like her out on their own.
If you want to see how others see it, have a look at Free Republic.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:16
Printable Version
Print
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
It's the Blog wot done it – again!
Following on from the attempt by UKIP MEP Nigel Farage to bring Barroso to the EU parliament to explain himself on the Latsis affair, by 6.30 pm today he had obtained 74 signatures, from MEPs in most political groups and nations, and delivered them to the secretary general of parliament Julian Priestly, calling for a motion of censure for the commission president.
Under the rules of the parliament, there must now be a debate which, we understand, will be held during the mini-plenary in Brussels on 25 May, four days before the French referendum. Although he is not obliged to attend, it is understood that Barroso will be present to defend himself, his chief spokeswoman conceding that he might otherwise lose the motion.
The press office for the Independence/Democracy Group readily acknowledges that the motion was based entirely on the details unearthed by this Blog (here and here) which means that the Blog can rightly consider that it has played a key role in bringing the president to book.
Says Nigel Farage in the group press release, "He only has himself to blame. If he and the commission had not repeatedly refused to answer a simple parliamentary question then none of this need to have happened." He adds: "Absolute refusal to answer a legitimate question was followed by denial. Now we will have the opportunity to force the commission to come clean about its conflicts of interest".
For the record, among the MEPs who signed the motion are five Conservatives, Dan Hannan, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer, Martin Callanan and David Sumberg who did so in defiance of Party instructions. Other signatories included Paul Van Buitenen, Ashley Mote and the French MEP Philippe de Villiers, plus the full UKIP team and, surprisingly (in my view), Caroline Lucas, the Green MEP.
Congratulations to them all.
* * * *
By popular demand - the complete list of MEPs:
Nigel FARAGE, Filip ADWENT, James ALLISTER, Peter BACO, Gerard BATTEN, Bas BELDER, Hans BLOKLAND, Godfrey BLOOM, Jens Peter BONDE, Graham BOOTH, Mario BORGHEZIO, Martin CALLANAN, Sylvester CHRUSZCZ, Derek CLARK, Paul-Marie COUTEAUX, Richard CZARNECKI, Marek CZARNECKI, Jill EVANS, Barirbre DE BRUN, Elly de GROEN, Maciej GIERTYCH, Hélène GOUDIN, Dariusz GRABOWSKI, Dan HANNAN, Christopher HEATON-HARRIS, Anna HEDH, Roger HELMER, Giorgios KARATZAFERIS, Roger KNAPMAN, Sergej KOZLIK, Ole KRARUP, Urszula KRUPA, Zbigniew KUZMIUK, Kartika LIOTARD, Patrick LOUIS, Caroline LUCAS, Nils LUNDGREN, Helmuth MARKOV, Hans Peter MARTIN, Jan MASIEL, Mary Mc DONALD, Ashley MOTE, Mike NATRASS, Bogdan PEK, Tobias PFLÜGER, Miroslaw PIOTROWSKI, Zdzislaw PODKANSKI, Miguel PORTAS, Miloslav RANSDORF, Karin RESETARTIS, Boguslaw ROGALSKI, Leopold RUTOWICZ, Matteo SALVINI, Carl SCHLYTER, Esko SEPPAANEN, Czeslaw SIEKIERSKI, Kathy SINNOTT, Jonas SJOSTEDT, Francesco SPERONI, Bart STAES, David SUMBERG, Eva SVENSSON, Jeffrey TITFORD, Witold TOMCZAK, Paul Van BUITENEN, Philippe de VILLIERS, Sarah WAGENKNECHT, John WHITTAKER, Wojciech WIERZEJSKI, Tom WISE, Lars WOHLIN, Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI, Vladimir ZELEZNY, Gabriele ZIMMER.
Posted by
Richard
at
18:45
Printable Version
Print
Dark days ahead
In the recording of road accident causation, there is a category called "looked but did not see", a self-explanatory cause whereby the driver looked in the direction of a hazard but simply failed to see it.
In a similar fashion, political observers can look at specific phenomena and fail to see their significance. Sometimes it is because they do not put together the pieces, or have not discerned the very often subtle links. Other times it is simply because what they see is considered "boring", something BBC political editor Andrew Marr famously admitted.
The other great problem is when the observer gets too closely involved. On the basis that the spectator sees more of the game, descending onto the pitch and getting stuck in plays havoc with the over-view and the objectivity.
All of these problems are affecting, to a greater or lesser extent, this blogger. I should be getting excited about the havoc being caused by the Labour MEPs on the working time directive opt-out and there are serious issues with the WTO negotiations that deserve attention – to say nothing of the Iran situation and much else.
However, despite our digression into many other issues – with sometimes marginal relevance to the issue at hand – the primary purpose of this Blog is to record and thus aid the fight against the EU constitution, in the context of the forthcoming referendum.
This is why, of course, the behaviour and fate of the Conservative Party is important to this Blog. Unlike the 1975 referendum, when all three major political parties supported the "yes" campaign, which was then launched for the Conservatives by none other than Margaret Thatcher, we have a situation now where the Conservatives will be opposing the constitution and thus should form a central part of the "no" effort.
Out in the constituencies, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a strong Eurosceptic sentiment. Having worked closely at the grass-roots with UKIP, and thence with Conservative Party activists, it would be very hard to tell the difference between the two parties at a local level and we could expect activists from both parties to make a strong contribution to any popular campaign.
But the effectiveness of the workers will depend to a very great extent on the leadership they get from the centre and this is why the Howard re-shuffle is so important. Hailed as a "modernising" cabinet, it really must be appreciated that this is the left-wing, Europhile branch of the party that would earlier have been described as "one nation" Tories, or more simply "wets".
They hark back to the pre-Thatcher days and, as my colleague has remarked, subscribe to a philosophy encapsulated in the credo "we can manage socialism better than the socialists". These now form the bulk of the members of Howard's shadow cabinet, many of whom are instinctively Europhile or "reformers". But, since they know that the constituency associations (and the majority of rank-and-file MPs) are strongly Eurosceptic, they dare not proclaim their real preferences.
Thus, as long as these people are at the helm, instead of strong leadership on the EU referendum, what we will get is lukewarm support, and in some cases covert sabotage, leaving the constituency workers without direction, motivation and, crucially, money.
This is further exacerbated by Howard's decision not to leave until Christmas, which means that in the crucial run-up to the high-intensity campaign, the Party will be looking inwards and not concentrating on the main event. How much better it would have been if Howard had declared that he was going to lead the party through the referendum and then step down leaving the way clear for his successor to fight the next general.
What must be realised though is that the current reshuffle represents a palace coup, brought to a head by a very small circle of MPs who have neither the support of the majority of MPs and certainly not of the constituency parties. They have struck now before the new entry – largely Eurosceptic – have been able to bed in and get organised – on the basis that, if they did not seize control now, they would never have another opportunity.
Even as I write, however, a counter-revolution is in the planning but whether it will succeed is anyone's guess. If it does not, there will be dark days ahead. The "modernisers" will run rampant and sap the life energy of the Conservative Party which is so needed to fight the EU referendum.
Posted by
Richard
at
14:08
Printable Version
Print
None of its business
Trust The Guardian - and, of course the BBC and the rest of the pack – to get excited about the vote in the EU parliament yesterday, supporting the motion to back the McCartney sisters' fight for justice over the murder of their brother, Robert.
A resolution called for the unprecedented use of EU anti-terrorism funds to finance a civil legal action if Northern Ireland police failed to bring a criminal prosecution.
Interestingly, the speeches on the motion were delivered yesterday, which ensured a packed press gallery and plenty of television cameras around. And just before the debate, Nigel Farage made his bid to call Barroso to submit to oral questioning on the Latsis affair . But, although this was witnessed by the assembled media – waiting for the main event – not a single newspaper of broadcast channel reported it.
That sort of typifies the media, but it also shows up the pretend parliament for what it really is. Given the opportunity to do its job – holding the commission to account – it ducked its responsibility and instead devoted its time to an issue which – however worthy – was none of its business.
Posted by
Richard
at
02:39
Printable Version
Print
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
See foot, take aim… fire!
Ten of the European Union's leading trade partners have been barred from attending a high-level meeting to discuss the EU's planned overhaul of its chemicals legislation, even though the new rules could have a substantial impact on the ten countries' exports.
Rantburg does a beautiful "take" on this latest bit of commission idiocy - some superb comments as well.
Posted by
Richard
at
21:56
Printable Version
Print
Raiding the nursery
In an audacious move, says the Conservative Party website - but widely regarded by Conservative activists as a "palace coup" - George Osborne has been promoted to shadow chancellor, replacing Oliver Letwin, and given the key job of taking on Gordon Brown in the new House of Commons.
Now, we all know that the Tory gene poll is somewhat shallower than a tiny tot's foot dip but did Howard really have to raid the nursery to find a shadow chancellor? Furthermore, this one, at a mere 33, is the very type of Tory Boy that engenders detestation of the breed.
Born in London in May 1971, he was educated at St Paul's School, London, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he read modern history. At Oxford he was a demy (scholar) and joint editor of the University magazine Isis. He was also a Dean Rusk scholar for a semester at Davidson College, North Carolina.
His only passing acquaintance with a real job was a short spell as a freelance journalist, whence he joined the Conservative Research Department in 1994 and became head of the political section. From 1995-7 he was the special adviser at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and worked in the political office at 10, Downing Street. From 1997-2001 he was political secretary to the leader of the opposition and secretary to the shadow cabinet.
In other words, the boy is a career politician, a public school product with a classics, Oxbridge background – reeking of "privileged Tory".
Just as bad is the other "rising star", former pre-election policy supremo David Cameron, a "moderniser" and Howard's heir apparent. At 39, he is another Oxbridge product and career politician, with about as much charisma as a year-old pork pie. Yet he has been given the "important shadow education portfolio."
Then we have the tired old Thatcher re-tread, aka "veteran politician", Sir Malcolm Rifkind, together with the dire Francis Maude and Michael Ancram, the latter in the all-important defence post. It is hard to imagine anyone as bad as Nicholas Soames, but Howard just found him.
The post of shadow foreign secretary goes to ex-party co-chairman Dr Liam Fox, currently chairman of the Liam Fox appreciation society and mounter of the greasy pole – pretend Eurosceptic but believer in not very much at all, except himself.
While David Davis stays as shadow home secretary and Andrew Lansley remains as health spokesman, amazingly, Letwin becomes shadow secretary for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Apparently, his first instruction to staff was: "We must not talk about Europe".
To complete the dismal round-up, Theresa May has been given the Culture Media and Sport portfolio in addition to her Family portfolio, and John Redwood remains as spokesman for deregulation. The lamentable Caroline Spelman continues with local and devolved government affairs, Lord Strathclyde as shadow Lords leader, while David Willetts switches to become spokesman for productivity, energy and industry.
The word is that this is a cabinet designed to exclude David Davis from the reigns of power, while the work goes on behind the scenes to stitch up the leadership voting procedure in order to ensure a smooth succession for the Rifkind/Cameron axis.
Altogether, the new cabinet is not so much Europhile as from the obsessively "don't mention Europe" camp, determined to bury their collective heads in the sand over this vital issue. It looks like UKIP might be getting some new recruits fairly soon, as the constituency members take on the implications.
Posted by
Richard
at
21:43
Printable Version
Print
Labels: Liam Fox
Who would be prime minister?
The Dutch political élite is now in a flat spin as opinion polls show an increasing lead for the "no" camp. A survey by pollster Maurice de Hond publicised on Saturday showed an increase from 40 to 42 percent for "nee" campaigners, while supporters of the EU constitution lost one point to 38 percent.
As a result, ministers have been forced to abandon plans for a short, sharp campaign and instead have stepped up their efforts to win backing for the constitution. With just three weeks left until the vote, they plan a series of television and newspaper interviews amid criticism that mainstream politicians have not done enough to shore up support for the constitution.
In Brussels there has been growing dismay at the almost complete lack of a 'yes' campaign in the Netherlands. "I think it is more than likely they will say 'no'", said one gloomy EU commissioner.
This is stacking up as a nightmare for Blair as the French "yes" camp looks increasingly secure.
Among the latest polls, a CSA survey published today in Le Parisien newspaper conducted on 7-9 May showed 51 percent of 1,006 people backing the constitution against 49 percent "non". A CSA poll on 30 April 30 to 2 May showed the same outcome and a TNS-Sofres survey conducted 7-8 May had 52 percent supporting the constitution against 48 percent, the same result as one conducted April 27-28.
While a French "non" might be enough to torpedo the constitution, the feeling is that The Netherlands could be brow-beaten into submission on a second referendum, leaving Blair with no excuse to abandon the British referendum. That would put him in the position - with the UK holding the EU presidency - of having to broker a deal to bring the Dutch back into the fold.
At the same time, likely as not, he will be holding the ring on what promises to be an increasingly bitter fight over the EU budget. Blair will be trying to find the money to keep the recipient states happy while trying to square off Germany and The Netherlands, neither of whom are prepared to pay more, and at the same time defending the British rebate.
During all this time, he will also be seeking to convince a sceptic British public to support the constitution in the forthcoming referendum, as well as fending off contenders for his own job. As the problems crowd around him, Blair may well be wondering why he sought to win the election for Zanu New Labour.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:32
Printable Version
Print
Memo to Margot - 2
My apologies to our readers for returning to this subject but reading some of the later comments on Margot's blog of over two weeks ago and the actual speeches the silly woman made in Teresin and Prague, I could not help thinking that the lady might benefit from a little good advice.
Setting aside the huffing and puffing on the part of the moderator and various other of the fragrant Commissar's spokespersons that proved nothing except that the Daily Telegraph article flicked them all on the raw and that they know nothing about British politics (one silly little twit thought it was very funny to chortle about UKIP not getting any seats – ho-ho-ho) there are extremely useful links to the two speeches and the text of the remarkably silly statement by the Commissioners.
I am afraid Margot's speech in Terezin does make all the comments I refer to (wandering Jewish teacher and all) and shows only the most cursory knowledge of European history and of the Second World War, which appears to have been everybody's fault without exception (all that greed and nationalism with no mention of Nazi ideology).
Her reference of what could bring about a new Holocaust is even stupider than the Daily Telegraph made out:
We also came to this terrible point in our history through nationalistic pride and greed, and through international rivalry for wealth and power. It was precisely to put an end to such rivalry that the European Union was born – the first ever supranational organisation in which sovereign nations voluntarily share their sovereignty.Let me get this quite straight: if we do not have a supranational organization but inter-governmental negotiations, we necessarily have a Holocaust? Or is it the fragrant Commissar's contention that there have never been negotiations in the past (or even in the present) without a supranational organization, run by unelected and unaccountable elites, which impose their ideas on all and sundry?
European nations may well disagree over all kinds of issues – but instead of fighting we now sit round a table and discuss them until we reach an agreement. It means a lot of compromises, but it works!
Yet there are those today who want to scrap the supranational idea. They want the European Union to go back to the old purely inter-governmental way of doing things.
I say those people should come to Terezin and see where that old road leads.
She also has a strange idea that if she keeps repeating that something is happening that it actually is happening:
The founding fathers of the European Union set out to bind nations together, through shared sovereignty and joint decision-making.Whether Terezin is the right place or not is irrelevant. But where has the silly woman managed to find a European demos? No-one else has noticed anything remotely resembling it.
I believe we now need a Europe that binds people together, through shared goals and dreams, shared friendship and respect.
Not just a Union of economics and politics but a union of hearts and minds.
A new demos for a new democracy.
The transformation from a technocratic Europe to a truly democratic one, a real Union of people, is potentially as dramatic as the metamorphosis of a chrysalis into a butterfly. Terezin is, to me, an ideal place in which to begin that metamorphosis.
And a union of hearts and minds? What a convenient substitute for actually asking people what they really think about integration. While some Swedish politicians are fighting for a referendum, that is for the people to have the right to express their opinion whether the political structure actually does reflect their dreams and shared goals, our Margot is not one of them.
In fact, the fragrant Commissar expressed certain reservations about having a referendum, on the grounds that it might encourage people to disagree and in her world, peace and harmony are achieved by a unanimous point of view.
So we come to the fragrant Commissar's speech in Prague, where she once again forgot to mention Communism as being quite a nasty sort of regime. She sort of mentions that things were not all rosy in Eastern Europe but does not give a reason. In fact, let's face it, our Margot is incapable of concise, straight thinking. Her image of fluffy bunniness has clearly affected her brain.
The rest of the speech is the usual blah about benefits of the EU, much of which has nothing to do with it – economic growth in the Czech Republic was stronger before it became a member.
There is a certain amount of bare-faced lying as in her assertion that it is the national governments with the European Parliament that pass the legislation, forgetting for the moment about the role played by her and her colleagues. And, anyway, does that not smack of inter-governmentalism that leads to Terezin and worse?
And, of course, the right to petition the Commission (the Commission? I thought it was the national governments and the European Parliament that legislated.) as long as you get 1 million signatures and even then the Commission has every right to refuse. In any case, this is a juvenile idea, guaranteed to produce any number of silly suggestions. Hardly a substitute for democratic accountability.
For a display of really muddled reasoning, I refer our readers to the fragrant Commissar’s ten reasons for signing up to the Constitution. A mish-mash of inaccuracies and irrelevancies, if ever I saw one. Space and an inability to keep a straight face, prevents me from quoting them but it is always better to read these things in the original.
Well, no, I can't resist the last one:
Finally, my tenth reason for supporting the Constitution is that it gives more direct power to the people. As I said earlier, if you manage to collect one million signatures in a significant number of EU countries, you can ask the Commission to propose a new law or policy.It is not just history the woman is incapable of understanding but even ordinary political concepts. Her idea of direct democracy appears to have been culled from mediaeval fairy tales and legends of the righteous king listening to his people. For her information, many of us in various European countries have long gone beyond petitioning rulers to lend an ear to our pleas.
In effect, this gives you a right of initiative that had previously been reserved for the Commission alone. That is real progress for direct democracy in Europe.
Posted by
Helen
at
16:16
Printable Version
Print
Memo to Margot - 1
Dear Vice-President Wallström,
You seem to be getting into trouble with your pronouncements on history, religion, philosophy and politics. May I, therefore, in the interests of international solidarity help you out a little. Here are a few points you might like to follow, with background information further down.
1. Try to speak on subjects you are actually familiar with. Maudlin sentimentality does not make up for ignorance.
2. Make an effort actually to say what you mean. Unless you really do mean that there was sixty years of peace everywhere in Europe, do not say it. If you have no idea what kept the peace in the part of Europe you refer to, find out.
3. Do not try to curry favour by discarding cardinal aspects of your own religion. Christians will be offended and others will despise you. In other words, dear Margot, do not refer to Jesus Christ as a “wandering Jewish teacher [of] 2,000 years ago”.
4. If you are going to quote political thinkers, make sure they did not say anything that can be quoted back to you. As a rule of thumb, Edmund Burke, that great opponent of the French Revolution, supporter of tradition, constitution and democracy is a particularly difficult one from your point of view.
For example, you quote him saying: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Very nice. Well done. There are, of course, people across Europe who quote that one to urge people to fight the European Union and its rather undemocratic nature (Were you elected to be Vice-President, Margot?) but that is of little import.
But have you looked at his other sayings? For example: “But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice and madness, without tuition or restraint.”
Or have you seen this: “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” You might like to contemplate that one as you look around at the unelected, unaccountable Commission that you so ably participate in.
Or, the next time somebody mentions, the names Jacques Barrot or José Barroso, or enquires too closely about the various unresolved scandals of corruption in the EU structures, you might like to remember the following saying by Burke: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.”
5. And finally, dear Margot, may I suggest that you fight your own battles. Do not get the moderator of your rather infrequent blog to defend you. It is not edifying or attractive to hide behind your staff.
Posted by
Helen
at
15:39
Printable Version
Print
The brooding elephant
At least the Independent picked up the story about the effect the UKIP/Veritas had on the general election results.
With Booker in the Sunday Telegraph (plus a letter), a mention in The Business and letters today in the Daily Telegraph and The Times, this means that the point has had a fair degree of coverage, although nothing in comparison to the torrent of political comment about the election in general.
To that extent, the blindness of the mainstream political commentators is really is quite remarkable, their inability to see that brooding elephant in the room, and to understand the consequences. But, I suppose, having ignored the issue of "Europe" throughout the election (together with most of the politicos), one can hardly expect these same people to confront their own failures in their post-election analyses.
The one exception though, in today's Telegraph, is Mark Steyn who, under the opaque title of "Stealth taxes are the least of people's worries" does address the issue of the "UKIP effect".
He recalls how, on election day, he found himself in Solihull - "Conservative since the dawn of time" – which, for the first time in the constituency's history, voted other than Conservative. They are now represented by a Liberal Democrat.
Writes Steyn, "If it were three in the morning on an election night special, I'd say sternly: 'Until they can win seats like Solihull, the Conservatives will never be in government again', and leave it at that. Then I'd cross over to the returning officer in Hawick or Blaenau Gwent, and never give the place another thought."
Instead, he brooded over the result and its broader significance, discovering as indeed we did on this Blog that the Lib Dems won by 279 votes while the UKIP candidate got 990.
He then finds that, in Warwick and Leamington, Labour won by 306 votes; the UKIP bloke got 921. By some analyses, he adds, the UKIP vote cost the Tories 25 seats. Without them, the Lib Dems would have won merely an extra seven seats and the Labour majority would have been down to 34.
There may be some argument about the arithmetic and the precise extent of the "UKIP effect" but it would be facile to pretend that it does not exist. Steyn (amongst others) sees it in terms of the Right being split on the "Europe" issue.
With the Left also split, which split, he asks - the Left's or the Right's - is likely to be patched up by the next election? He concludes that, by 2009, Iraq will be a long way in the past and Gordon Brown's Labour Party will win back a lot of those anti-war votes. But, he asserts:
…Europe, like the poor, is always with us - and, whatever befalls the constitution and the euro, there's no reason to believe, after 15 years of failing to do so, that the Tories will suddenly find a form of words both the Clarkeite and sceptic wings of the party will support convincingly. And, if they go into another national election determined to avoid the subject, those 900 UKIP votes up and down the map will do their work yet again. Not to mention the BNP vote, which is a further complicating factor.There his analysis goes a little wonky and tends towards the superficial. As we pointed out in our analysis, on its performance over the last three elections, we won't be seeing "those 900 UKIP voters" but more commonly constituency votes in the 1-2,000 range.
However, the point made that the splits on the Left may have healed is a good one (although there may be other factors to take the place of Iraq, etc). If this is added to effect of the potentially increasing UKIP vote anf the unknown (but possibly harmful) effect of there being Euro elections and a general election at the same time, the Conservatives could be in real trouble.
For sure, this is crystal ball gazing about events in four years time, based on assumptions which themselves are far from unequivocal. Whichever way you cut it, though, there is potentially a political phenomenon here of some importance. It could, conceivably, deny the Conservatives power at the next election.
Dispute this if you will. Debate it by all means, but it does not seem to me safe to ignore it. But then, "denial" has been the characteristic of the MSM and the political élites when it comes to "Europe". Our message is, "ignore it at your peril". That brooding elephant in the room could well trample you to death.
Posted by
Richard
at
12:34
Printable Version
Print
Another reason for voting against the constitution
According to a poll published today in the Belgian French-language daily Le Soir, 49 percent of respondents said they would "probably or certainly" vote for the EU constitution, compared to 12 percent who said they would definitely vote against it.
Frankly, if the Belgians are in favour of the damn thing, what more reasons do you need to vote against it?
Posted by
Richard
at
00:01
Printable Version
Print
Monday, May 09, 2005
An apologia
In response to our posting on the fragrant – and odious – Margot, two readers respond. But not any old readers, erudite and distinguished though you all are. These are Mikael Gennser, MD PhD and Mrs Margit Gennser, former Member of the Swedish Parliament. They write:
Dear Dr North,It is indeed terrible, and we are grateful for the comment.
We are so ashamed that our country has foisted this third rate politician on our neighbouring countries. As you and other British eurosceptics have noted Mrs Wallström does not possess the sharpest tools in the box, but that she would be able to in a few foul sentences reveal her total ignorance of the history of the last century, and besmirch not only the memory of millions of dead in WW II, but also every voter who has had the temerity to vote against the EU, was beyond even our wildest imagination.
Unfortunately, one must wonder whether the speech by Mrs Wallström which was shortly followed by the statement from the EU Commission is not part of a pattern of disenfranchising the European peoples. Mrs Wallström is not the first one to invoke the Holocaust to promote the European integration. If pro-Europeanism is to be the "litmus test of political respectability" (to quote John Laughland), will in the end any other standpoint be allowed?
Of course, less than two years ago a large majority of Mrs Wallström’s compatriots voted no to the euro. Therefore, and for no other reasons, we will not be allowed to vote on the EU constitution.
It is certainly a terrible thought that we are being led by fools like Mrs Wallström towards a new authoritarian rule, only years after the Soviet empire imploded.
Posted by
Richard
at
22:57
Printable Version
Print
Fini reassures (almost) everyone
Gianfranco Fini, the Italian Foreign Minister, has decided to take part in the French referendum campaign. Well, why not? Everyone else seems to be taking part – Chancellor Schröder, the Latvian President, assorted German “public intellectuals”, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
Whether Signor Fini’s contribution is going to be all that useful is not clear. On the one hand he is “optimistic” that the French people will come to their senses and vote for the Constitution.
On the other hand, if they don’t, well, that is not the end of the world either.
“The project of the constitution would reach deadlock. . . It doesn't mean that Europe would fall to pieces, but it would mean that the process would come to a halt.Well, that’s rather reassuring. Good to know that Europe will not fall to pieces because of a no vote or, indeed, when one thinks about it logically, for any other reason.
I hope that the Yes camp wins, and I'm still rather optimistic. . . Even if the No vote prevailed, what we have to stress is that it wouldn't be so much a No to the European treaty. It would be a convergence of a wide range of different positions, many influenced by domestic politics in France.”
And, of course, it is very good to know that a no vote to the European treaty would not really be a no vote to the European treaty. After all, nobody sane would vote against such a wonderful project.
Above all, Signor Fini explained, a no vote in France should not prevent Turkey from joining the European Union. He is, of course, quite right in explaining that the two developments – the Constitution and Turkey’s potential membership – are unrelated. However, aware that this is an unpopular issue in France, President Chirac has tried to separate the two by promising another referendum in ten years’ time when Turkey’s membership is sur le tapis.
Signor Fini’s pronouncement is not going to please the French electorate or, for that matter, President Chirac. It is high time Europe’s politicians (and that goes for the British ones as well) grasped that the people of Europe (and that goes for the people of Britain as well) are getting very tired of being told that it does not really matter what they want or which way they vote. The outcome will always be the same, as decided by the elite.
Posted by
Helen
at
19:39
Printable Version
Print
Two weeks and no posting
It seems that the fragrant Commissar may be suffering from midnight sun madness. How else can one explain her behaviour?
She is supposed to be trying to persuade the people of Europe of the immense benefit the Constitution for Europe will bring to them. To this end, I believe, she started her ill-fated blog, which she now updates about once a fortnight if then. What on earth does she think is the point of that?
We have reached the point when the discussion on the comments section concerns everything and everyone rather than the fragrant Margot herself. She remains severely absent from it.
As we know, she has decided to make her views known by explaining to all and sundry that if we do not sign up to the Constitution, there will be another Holocaust. I presume she will explain that she was quoted out of context but bearing in mind the silliness of her other pronouncements and that the midnight sun is nearly upon us, I would not put anything past her.
But what is happening to the next posting? Margot, why are we waiting? You haven’t abandoned us, have you?
Posted by
Helen
at
18:38
Printable Version
Print
Gutless MEPs
This Blog's story on the payment of €10 million in state aid to a company owned by Greek billionaire Spiros Latsis following Barroso's holiday on his luxury yacht (here and here) has reached the EU parliament in Strasbourg.
But attempts by UKIP MEP Nigel Farage to call Barroso to the parliament to give an account of his actions, and the potential for conflict of interest, have been blocked by MEPs. They rejected a motion this afternoon calling for him to give an oral explanation by 147 votes to 29 in favour.
Farage believes he has shown Barroso and the commission at their worst - out of touch, off hand, and anti-democratic. "His refusal to answer a question posed by an MEP because he found it personally inconvenient was quite disgraceful", he says. However, Conservative MEPs were under a three-line whip to reject the motion and most complied, together with their colleagues in the EPP group, thus refusing to support moves to bring the commission president to book.
The Independence/Democracy Group is now seeking 72 signatures from MEPs to support the tabling of a motion of censure against Barroso. If they are successful, the vote will be held on 27 May, two days before the French referendum. But, whether 72 MEPs have the cojones to take on the commission remains to be seen.
Given the gutless behaviour of the Tory MEPs, don't hold your breath.
Posted by
Richard
at
17:25
Printable Version
Print
Hooray
Another beneficial side-effect of the general election are the resignations of Tim Yeo, shadow environment secretary, and Nicholas Soames, shadow defence secretary, from the shadow cabinet.
Yeo, from the "modernising wing" of the Party, is a soft Europhile and a political "wet", supporting the Kyoto agreement and much else, directly giving the Conservative manifesto a "green" tinge that failed to distinguish it from those produced by the other Parties.
Soames, apart from being incurably stupid, has been one of the worst defence spokesmen in recent times, failing to grasp any of the key issues at a time when the Armed Forces are in the grip of tumultuous change. Also a soft Europhile, he has consistently failed to challenge Labour's plans for further European defence integration.
Neither will be missed from the ranks of the Tory front benches, although it is always possible that their replacements could be worse.
As to Yeo, there is some question as to whether he went before he was pushed – it being he that is reputed as being the driving force behind questioning Howard’s election strategy. But we understand that both men are planning to focus on the key 1922 committee in an attempt to ensure favourable rule changes to the leadership election process, variously to block Davies and to ensure their own man gets in.
This is the outward indication of a battle raging in the Tory parliamentary ranks for the heart and soul of the Party, the outcome of which will, to a great extent, determine what stance the Party takes on EU issues for the foreseeable future. A great deal is at stake.
Posted by
Richard
at
15:08
Printable Version
Print
Vile bodies
Congratulations to The Daily Telegraph for its judgement in putting the “Holocaust” story on its front page.
A senior European Commissioner, it David Rennie writes, marked VE Day yesterday by accusing Eurosceptics of risking a return to the Holocaust by clinging to "nationalistic pride".
This was none other than the fragrant Margot, whom the DT describes as "a Swede and the commissioner who must sell the draft constitution to voters". Speaking in the former Jewish ghetto of Terezin in the Czech Republic, she argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s.
This ghastly woman then went on to blame the Second World War on "nationalistic pride and greed, and … international rivalry for wealth and power". The EU, she claims, had replaced such rivalry with an historic agreement to share national sovereignty.
No content with the extrusions of this vile woman, the rest of the commission joined in with a declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting "yes" to the EU constitution. They also gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of Nato and the United States.
The DT cites Richard Shepherd, the Conservative MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, saying it was "breathtaking" to link Nazism to the defence of national sovereignty. "It's a monstrous rewriting of history to promote a profoundly undemocratic project," he adds.
Too right! How dare these second-rate crooks invoke the death of millions in the support of their cause. Never more have this etiolated bunch demonstrated just how foul their "project" is and what vile bodies they really are.
Posted by
Richard
at
10:39
Printable Version
Print
How low can they get?
While the whole of Europe was commemorating the end of the Second World War in Europe yesterday, Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende used the opportunity to plug the EU constitution.
Speaking at a US military ceremony in Margraten, southern Netherlands, he recalled the determination of European leaders after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945 to unite to prevent a new war. They realised, he said, "that cooperation was the best guarantee of lasting peace."
"Time has proved them right," he added, speaking just before Bush. "European cooperation has brought us 60 years of peace, progress and security. The EU is about to take the next step: ratification of the European constitution," he said.
Unashamedly puffing his cause, he went on to say: "We believe in the words of the constitution, that 'Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity'".
Of course, the EU has had nothing to do with keeping the peace in Europe, as we demonstrate here. But, for these creatures, nothing is sacred and anything is grist to the mill when it comes to promoting the "project".
Posted by
Richard
at
00:13
Printable Version
Print
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Now for some good news
Never start a class war, say I. You may lose it. Just look at Peter Bradley who has just lost The Wrekin, a previously reasonably safe Labour seat, despite making sure that 25 per cent of the vote was going to come by post.
Peter Bradley, as our readers will recall, was the man who wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph last autumn, in which he gloated about the fact that those who had challenged the might of the government to do whatever it likes (i.e. people who wanted to go on hunting) had finally been subdued by, as he did not point out, very dubious constitutional means.
How are the mighty fallen. Hunting went on throughout the season and will be back, though keeping within the law probably means a good deal more suffering for foxes. But then, as Mr Bradley wrote at the time, animal welfare did not come into it.
And where is Mr Bradley? No longer in Parliament. His was one of the seats targeted by Vote-OK, led by Charles Mann, formerly of the Countryside Alliance.
Mr Mann and his shock troops ran well organized campaigns in a number of constituencies with anti-hunting campaigns. They reckon they helped to take 29 of the 47 seats lost by Labour and left another 21 MPs with tiny majorities, to be taken next time.
For Mr Mann and his merry men and women are not intending to give up. The shock troops have had little previous experience in politics. They took six weeks to organize their campaigns but they believed in what they were doing and were determined to succeed.
It also helped that on this particular issue the Conservative Party was unambiguous. I wonder whether a few lessons could be learnt here for the future.
Posted by
Helen
at
23:27
Printable Version
Print
And so to the referendum
You just have to read The Sunday Times comments of Michael Portaloo to know where the Tory "modernisers" are coming from.
Addressing the subject, "five minute routes out of the Tory wilderness", Portaloo writes: "In the first minute, I would ban party spokesmen from mentioning immigration, Europe or law and order. They would be allowed to speak only about the NHS, education and transport."
Therein lies the seeds of defeat. As they blather on about "schools'n'hospitals", ignoring the issues that allowed UKIP to creep in and rob them of up to 27 seats, the public will turn away in their droves and leave the Party in the wilderness where it will justly belong.
Nevertheless, that is definitely the agenda of one Michael Howard. His intended resignation – but not just now – is intended to allow time for the modernisers to stitch-up the leadership selection rules in a way that they will exclude the only credible right winger, David Davies.
Since Davies has more support in the constituencies than he does amongst MPs, expect a new system which returns the power to the parliamentary party, with the anointed successors being that Thatcher re-tread Sir Malcom Rifkind and the smarmy Tory boy David Cameron.
Too young at 38, Cameron cannot take on the mantle of leadership just yet, so the plan is for Rifkind to take over as caretaker, grooming "his boy" to take over when the time is right.
And all of this means that the Tory party will now be engrossed in another period of protracted navel-gazing and in-fighting, just at the time when the Party should be focusing on the forthcoming EU referendum campaign and getting ready to fight a long and arduous battle.
The only consolation is that Zanu New Labour will also be girding itself to fight a leadership battle but this is small consolation. While Zanu NL was tearing itself apart, the Conservatives could have taken the initiative and built up an unassailable lead for the "no" camp.
Thanks to Howard, having ignored "Europe" throughout the general election campaign, they will now ignore the issue through the first critical months when the "no" campaign could have been properly established. The "stitch-up" will not necessarily succeed, but it is made easier by the UKIP strategy of having deprived the Tory party of so many new MPs - many of whom would have opposed the modernisers.
But, for now, the politicians will be fighting their own narrow battles instead of concentrating on the issues to hand, further disillusioning the public. While they play, it will be up to us to fight the real battle.
Posted by
Richard
at
23:24
Printable Version
Print
Bye-bye Denis
I suppose the one good thing to come out of this election – albeit tangentally – is that the ghastly Denis MacShane has been replaced as minister for Europe.
His place has been taken by Douglas Alexander, a former researcher and speechwriter for Gordon Brown, a man considered to be a key ally of the chancellor. He is said to be distrusted by some Blairites yet will be the key figure in promoting the EU constitution during the referendum campaign.
The new man will sit in on Cabinet meetings, something which MacShane never got to do. Although he does not get a vote, this does suggest the post has been upgraded.
Whether Alexander will be any better or worse than his egregious predecessor remains to be seen but, for the moment, it is bye-bye Denis.
Posted by
Richard
at
21:29
Printable Version
Print
Crystal ball gazing
The corrected Corby vote puts UKIP's Ian Gillman at 478 votes, against a majority of 1,517, so it is clear that he did not affect the outcome of the election. The number of seats potentially affected by the UKIP/Veritas axis stands therefore at 27.
If this is the current situation, however, at the next general election the situation could be even worse.
There can of course be argument as to what extent the "UKIP effect" did change the course of the election but it is interesting to see that in some seats, there are some indications that it did have an impact.
In Bournemouth West, for instance, held by Sir John Butterfield (Con), his vote in 2001 was 14,417, dropping to 14,057 on 2005, while his majority was whittled away from 4,718 to 4,031. In the same period, the UKIP vote increased from 1,064 to 2,017, suggestive of a "UKIP effect".
But, on the basis that the UKIP vote increases the same amount in the next election, I have gone through the current results and worked out, provisionally, that some 15 extra Conservative seats could be lost to the "UKIP effect" in the next election.
These include Devon West, Eastbourne, Guildford, Totnes and the Wrekin, these would be in addition to the current 27 potentials, which would bring Conservative losses to 42.
All this, of course, is theoretical but there is good reason to believe that – all things being equal – UKIP could maintain its rate of growth or even improve its performance. For instance, with a prolonged EU referendum battle, it could improve its profile and attract greater support.
But, crucially, the most probable year for the next general election is 2009 which, this time, coincides with the Euro-elections, which might even be held on the same date. That would put “Europe” firmly on the agenda and could significantly benefit UKIP.
Clearly, the Conservatives can afford to ignore neither "Europe" nor UKIP at the next election, if they are to stand a chance of winning.
Posted by
Richard
at
17:55
Printable Version
Print
The "UKIP effect"
Comment flying around on the internet is drawing attention to the posted results for the East Midlands constituency of Corby.
According to the local newspaper, Peterborough Today the seat returned a record turnout of 81.3 percent with Ian Gillman of UKIP gaining an incredible 12,078.
Labour's Phil Hope retained the seat with 20,913 votes while Andrew Griffith, the Conservative challenger gained 19,396 votes to take second place. With the majority to Labour of only 1,517, if the figures are correct, this is dwarfed by Gillman’s 12,078, making this potentially the 28th scalp to the UKIP/Veritas axis.
The results are repeated on the BBC website and in the Saturday edition of The Daily Telegraph but they are nevertheless hard to believe. If they are true, then there was an electoral phenomenon in Corby which needs explanation.
However, provisionally, I am adding it to the list of the UKIP/Veritas "scalps" which means that, potentially, the Labour seats could have been reduced by 19, bringing down its overall majority to 28. For convenience, the complete list is now:
Battersea (Lab hold) Maj: 163 - UKIP: 333
Burton (Lab hold) Maj: 1,421 UKIP/Veritas: 1,825
Carshalton & Wallington (LD hold) Maj: 1,068 - UKIP: 1,111
Corby (Lab hold) Maj: 1,517 – UKIP: 12,078
Cornwall North (LD hold) Maj: 3,076 – UKIP/Veritas: 3,387
Crawley (Lab Hold) Maj: 37 - UKIP 935
Dartford (Lab hold) Maj: 706 - UKIP: 1,407
Eastleigh (LD Hold to Chris Huhne) Maj: 568 - UKIP: 1,669
Gillingham (Lab hold) Maj: 254 - UKIP 1,191
Harlow [Lab hold) Maj: 97 – UKIP/Veritas 1922
Hereford (Lab hold) Maj: 962 - UKIP: 1,030
High Peak (Lab hold) Maj: 735 - UKIP 1,106
Hove (Lab hold) Majority 420 - UKIP 575
Medway (Lab hold) Maj: 213 - UKIP 1,488
Portsmouth North (Lab hold) Maj: 1,139 - UKIP 1,348
Romsey (LD hold) Maj: 125 UKIP: 1,076
Sittingbourne & Sheppey (Lab hold) Maj: 79 – UKIP/Veritas: 1,118
Solihull (LD Gain) Maj: 279 - UKIP: 99
Somerton & Frome (LD hold) Maj: 812 - UKIP plus Veritas: 1,531
Staffordshire Moorlands (Lab hold) Maj: 2,438 - UKIP: 3,512
Stroud (Lab hold) Maj: 350 - UKIP: 1,089
Stourbridge (Lab hold) Maj: 407 - UKIP: 1,087
Taunton (LD gain) Maj: 573 UKIP: 1,441
Thanet South (Lab hold) Maj: 664 - UKIP (Nigel Farage) 2,079
Torbay (LD hold) Maj: 2,029 - UKIP 3,726
Warwick & Leamington (Lab hold) Maj: 306 - UKIP: 921
Watford (Lab hold) Maj: 1,148 - UKIP: 1,292
Westmorland & Lonsdale (LD gain) Maj: 267 - UKIP: 660
Unsurprisingly – with the exception of Booker - none of today’s newspaper commentators seemed to have noticed the "UKIP effect" and even UKIP, in a "thank you" e-mail from Roger Knapman to party faithful this morning, seems not to have noticed its own "achievement".
What is evident, though, from provisional data, is that UKIP is slowly – almost under the radar – making steady gains in a hostile electoral environment. Seats fought over the last three elections have increased from 194 and 434 to 497, while the national share of vote has increased from 0.34% and 1.47% to 2.38%, with deposits saved increasing from one in 1997 to six in 2001 and 45 in this current election.
Total votes stood at 106,001 in 1997, at 390,910 in 2001 and at roughly 610,000 this time round. Given the tenacity of the Party, even where funding had dried up, fielding 497 candidates was a considerable achievement and there is no reason to expect that the Party will be any less tenacious in the next general election.
If current trends continue and the "UKIP effect" means anything at all, UKIP could cost the Conservatives the next general election.
Posted by
Richard
at
12:51
Printable Version
Print
Booker
The first story Booker's column this week reminds us of how tangential the general election really was, demonstrating yet again, how much of the government agenda is dictated by Brussels.
His subject is the retail distribution of newspapers and magazines – not a riveting issue in its own right but one with considerable implications. He starts the article with the question, "Could the selling of newspapers and magazines by your local newsagent, even their delivery to your door, soon be a thing of the past?", and takes it from there.
"In the name of bringing Britain into line with EC law," he writes:
…a document to be published this week threatens to strike a devastating blow at the system whereby all such periodicals are distributed. The industry fears that, without a change to the policy set in train by Patricia Hewitt, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, up to 12,000 retailers may no longer be able to afford to handle newspapers and magazines, and as many as 1,000 periodicals could be forced to close.For his second story, Booker picks up on the research undertaken by this Blog (here and here), reporting that the "untold story of the election was the absurdly disproportionate impact of the intervention of the UK Independence Party."
At present wholesalers can bid for exclusive rights to distribute periodicals in some 100 "territories" across the UK. Although this system has flaws, its advantage is that it allows all periodicals, regardless of their sales, to be distributed on equal terms throughout the country. When the Office of Fair Trading was asked by Ms Hewitt to assess whether this system conformed with EC "competition" law, they concluded – as will be set out in an opinion to be published this week – that exemption from the EC rules could be given to newspapers but not to magazines.
The trouble is that, once one part of the distribution system is opened up to competition, the whole thing comes crashing down. If supermarkets can make their own arrangements for magazines, undercutting the monopoly, the wholesale distributors would have to make up their losses by charging more for the business which remains.
The two main trade associations, representing the newspaper and periodical publishers, commissioned Professor Hugh Dobson, a business economist, to carry out a study into the likely consequences, based on confidential trade data. He concluded that the increased charges resulting from this "supermarkets' charter" could so distort the market that it would no longer be economical for up to 12,000 retailers and 1,000 specialist magazine titles to continue.
This was precisely what happened when a similar system was introduced in the USA. Although corner shops are often so frustrated by the inefficiencies of the present system that the National Federation of Retail Newsagents is backing the OFT's proposed changes, the publishing associations believe they would be swapping the frying pan for the fire.
There is a parallel here with what is happening to our system for delivering mail. The Post Office monopoly ensured that mail could be distributed to all parts of the UK for the same price. But now that EC law is seeking to "liberalise" the postal market, by opening it up to competition, private firms can afford to cream off its more lucrative segments, such as bulk delivery of business mail in London, thus depriving Royal Mail of the profits which enable it to deliver to Stornoway at a uniform rate.
A similar threat is now being extended to our distribution system for periodicals. Without the corner newsagent or village shop, we may eventually have to rely for our daily and weekly reading on Tesco or Asda – all in the name of giving greater choice and "better value to the consumer". When Tony Blair was told about this at a recent meeting with magazine editors, he was clearly shocked and promised "personally to look into the issue". But when he discovers that it is all being done in the name of our "closer alignment with EC law", he may realise that there is nothing he can do about it.
Unfortunately, the column went to press before I had become aware that I had missed out Crawley from the list, published in a later posting, so Booker writes that in no fewer than 25 seats which the Tories narrowly failed to win, the UKIP vote was greater than the overall majority. (For simplicity, references to Veritas are omitted).
"If most of those votes had gone to the Tories," Booker adds, "a fair assumption, they would thus have won 26 more seats, Labour 17 fewer, the Lib Dems nine fewer. This would have wiped out most of the Lib Dems’ 11 net gains, giving them only two seats more than in 2001. Mr Blair's majority would have been cut to a mere 32, redrawing the electoral map." He continues:
The net effect of the UKIP intervention may thus have been not only to cost the Tories a swathe of seats such as Harlow, Battersea, Hove, Torbay and Westmoreland, but to deprive the Commons of strongly Eurosceptic MPs, while assisting the return of Europhiles. In Eastleigh, for instance, UKIP kept out the Eurosceptic Conor Burns, ensuring that it was held for the Lib Dems by the rabidly Europhile ex-MEP Chris Huhne.Given the number of Conservative Party members (and MPs) who read the Booker column, the cat is now truly out of the bag. Even last night, on the BBC 10 o’clock news, there was a report of Tory "fury" at UKIP having deprived the Conservatives of a comfortable win at Harlow.
An unresolved riddle of the 2005 election must therefore be what might have been the result of Michael Howard taking a more robustly intelligent line on the "European" issue, rather than stuffing it away out of sight. If the Tories hope to win next time, this is one of the first lessons they must ponder.
For his third story, Booker provides another illustration of how far the government of this nation has been given over to Brussels, with a poignant story about how the last remaining British-owned airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress has been stopped from flying by EU rules.
"It seems curiously symbolic," he writes:
…that this summer's celebrations of "Victory in Europe" will not include fly-pasts by Britain's last surviving Flying Fortress. For those of us old enough to remember B-17s darkening the skies of southern England in 1943 and 1944, as they flew out for daylight raids on the continent (rather fewer of them returning), there is peculiar irony in the fact that the last of them, the Sally B, owned and run at Duxford by a charity, should have been grounded by a regulation from "Europe".Speaking for myself, ever since he was eleven, I have been taking my son to Duxford airshows where we have watched the magnificent Sally B in flight, and, 15 years later we regularly attend the shows to watch her flying. The fortress has a special place in British and American history and we will miss her greatly, as indeed will all regular show goers.
The Sally B's website tells the sorry tale of how, under EC regulation 785/2004, the B-17 must now be classified for insurance purposes alongside commercial airliners, prohibitively raising its premiums to the equivalent of £1,000 for each hour of flying time. It is painful to read the letters from a British minister and the head of our Civil Aviation Authority, explaining how, since this is a Brussels regulation, they have no power to grant an exemption for the B-17, although it may seem absurd that the law has been drafted on such a one-size-fits-all basis.
So the last of the "Forts" that helped save Europe 60 years ago, and which serves as an official memorial to the 79,000 US aircrew who lost their lives, can no longer fly again. Bless you, "Europe".
In this context, there are more people who regularly attend airshows than those who go to football matches. As the owners of Sally B have not been at all reticent in identifying the reason why this magnificent aircraft can no longer fly, we can expect at least some airshows to be regaled with what amounts to anti-EU propaganda. It is doubly ironic, therefore, that, having played its part in saving Europe as a flying aircraft, Sally B will take on this role again as a ground exhibit.
This brings us to Booker’s fourth story, in which he updates us on the continuing story of the eviction of the bushmen from their homeland in the vast Central Kalahari game reserve, made worse by the way our own government, in collaboration with the European Union, has connived in their persecution.
When Britain gave Botswana independence in 1966, Booker writes:
…its constitution guaranteed the bushmen the right to live in the reserve for ever. But since 1996 the Botswanan government has used any method, including torture and blocking vital water supplies, to force the bushmen into a degrading settlement on the edge of the reserve which they call ‘the place of death’.Once again, the malign influence of the EU is to the fore. If only people were more aware of what was going on – beyond that band of devotees who read the Booker column every week – we would all be better off.
One reason for this is that the reserve is now being prospected for more of the diamonds which make Botswana the richest nation, per capita, in Africa. The Botswanan government does not want the bushmen claiming any interest in them. But since Botswana is one of those areas of foreign policy Britain has handed over as an EU responsibility, whenever our High Commissioner has visited the Kalahari he has done so with EU colleagues, happy to accept the government line that the evictions are only taking place to bring the bushmen all the benefits of modern education and health care.
Now, thanks to the interest taken by the outside world in this crime against humanity, led by the campaign group Survival International, a landmark court case is being fought on the bushmen's behalf, depending in part on that Article 14 of the 1966 constitution. But so determined is Botswana's government to get its way that it now plans to repeal that constitutional guarantee.
The US government may protest at such blatant skulduggery. But the EU will not, because it supports Botswana's official policy. And our own government will continue meekly to agree with our EU partners, despite the fact that it was Britain which insisted on that guarantee being put into the constitution in the first place.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:02
Printable Version
Print
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Getting a little worried
Turning away from the post-mortems in this country, let us look at what is going on in Ireland. According to the Irish Times, the government is proposing to change the constitution to ensure that future major adjustments in the EU through treaties could be voted through by parliament without a referendum.
The plan is to put a subsidiary question in the referendum on the European Constitution that would allow such a change to go through. Presumably the two questions will be counted separately, but one can never tell.
The analysis given in the article, that enumerates all the areas in which the veto will be abolished without a necessary referendum indicates that there is more than a hint of fear that the Irish will say no to the constitution. If other countries say no as well, even setting France aside, there is reasonable chance that it will have to be taken away and a different document brought back with a few changes at the edges.
If the Irish, on the other hand, agree to changing Article 46.2 of their Constitution then introducing such things as QMV on every aspect on the common foreign and security policy, a sore point in Ireland, which sees itself as a neutral country, or a European Public Prosecutor, will not have to be put to a popular vote.
Quite convenient really. But aren’t they scared little bunnies?
Posted by
Helen
at
20:21
Printable Version
Print
Missed one
Thanks to an eagle-eyed reader, we have to add Crawley to the list. Labour’s incumbent Laura Moffatt held the seat with a majority of 37 against a UKIP vote of 935. Together with Harlow, this brings the notional number of "scalps" gained by the UKIP/Veritas axis to 27 seats.
Potentially, Zanu New Labour gained an extra 18 as a result of this activity. And, finally getting the maths right (try staying up for over 40 hours and see how you perform) it means its overall majority could have been reduced to a round 30 instead of the current 66.
It remains arguable as to whether all the "anti" votes would have gone to the Tories but there can be no argument that some of them would. UKIP/Veritas had an absurdly disproportionate effect on the election. This has to be the political "own goal" of the century.
Posted by
Richard
at
17:39
Printable Version
Print
UKIP's 26th scalp
After a second recount, Labour's former foreign minister, Bill Rammell, scraped in with a majority of 97 to take Harlow, the last declared seat of the general election.
With John Felgate of UKIP polling 981 votes and Tony Bennett taking 941 for Veritas, the combined anti-EU vote was 1,922 (ironic – 1922 committee), which dwarfs Rammell's majority.
Even allowing for the possibility that some of the "anti" votes would not have been cast for the Conservatives, it seems entirely reasonable to postulate that their activities cost Tory challenger Robert Hafton the seat in this case.
This brings to 26 the number of seats which UKIP/Veritas potentially prevented going to the Conservatives. Assuming the maximum effect, this means that Labour would have lost 17 more seats, bringing its overall majority down to 32 from 66 (yes I did get the maths wrong in the previous post, and again in an earlier version of this post- call it post-election fatigue).
In this scenario, the Tories would have emerged with 223 seats – well above the magic 200 figure, while the Liberal gains would have been limited to a pitiful two.
Nevertheless, no one is pretending that the "UKIP effect" is totally down to the anti-EU parties. Michael Howard’s decision to play down what was in fact a quite reasonable EU policy certainly did handicap the Conservative Party in taking on UKIP and Veritas.
Nor can it be assumed that all the votes cast for UKIP/Veritas would necessarily have gone to the Tories but there is also another matter to consider.
In many areas, the key UKIP activists were ex-Tories and it is arguable that, had they not been fighting for UKIP, some could have been working for the Conservatives. There was, therefore, an opportunity cost which could also have influenced the final outcome.
Whatever the extent of the fact, I think it is unarguable that the UKIP/Verita effect on the election has been largely counter-productive. Potentially the only positive effect is to ram home to the Tories that they must take the "Europe" issue more seriously.
However, given that the MSM are not highlighting the "UKIP effect" – and even UKIP itself does not seem to realise the effect it has had – the chances are that even this effect will go largely unnoticed.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:46
Printable Version
Print
The lies of Barroso
We will return to election analysis later today but, in the meantime, José Manuel Barroso, and the repercussions from his holiday on board the luxury yacht of Spiros Latisis, have returned to the news.
We are told by The Financial Times that Barroso is set to give up responsibility for regulating shipping competition, despite his spokeswoman having insisted on 20 April he would not give up such cases.
Barroso took on the competition dossiers because of potential conflicts of interest affecting Neelie Kroes, the Dutch competition commissioner, who had been a board member at Royal P&O; Nedlloyd, the sea-freight company.
No decision has been made on which commissioner will take on the portfolio but Barroso is now telling us that he always intended to pass on the job, saying: "My orientation was not to personally retain such files on a permanent basis, but to reassign such files to another commissioner as soon as my commission has settled its working ways."
Equally, Barroso denies any conflict of interest or any connection with his holiday. The move, he says, is simply down to his "very heavy workload."
His denials, however, are sounding less credible by the day. In the current edition of the Spanish magazine la clave is an article entitled "the lies of Barroso".
This alleges that the commission has approved a €522 million scheme for oil pipelines between Bulgaria and Greece without revealing that construction of the infrastructure would be undertaken by a group in which the Latsis family is the main shareholder.
The approval was given a week before Barroso revealed details of his holiday, whence his spokeswoman denied any business links between the commission and Spiros Latis. Gradually, though, the net seems to be closing round the commission president.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:01
Printable Version
Print
Friday, May 06, 2005
UKIP won it for Labour
Corrected version. See also update: here.
The incredible, untold story of the general election is the effect that UKIP (and to a lesser extent Veritas) has had on the outcome. Overall, on current results, the combined votes of these two parties affected the outcome of 25 seats which might have otherwise gone to the Tories.
They are as follows:
Battersea (Lab hold) Majority: 163 – UKIP: 333In all, this translates to 16 seats which would have been lost to Labour and nine to the Lib-Dems, potentially reducing Blair's overall majority to 34 – an entirely unworkable majority.
Burton (Lab hold) Majority: 1,421 – UKIP plus Veritas: 1,825
Carshalton & Wallington (LD hold) Majority: 1,068 – UKIP: 1,111
Cornwall North (LD hold) Majority: 3,076 – UKIP plus Veritas: 3,387
Dartford (Lab hold) Majority 706 - UKIP: 1,407
Eastleigh (LD Hold) Chris Huhne Majority: 568 – UKIP: 1,669
Gillingham (Lab hold) Majority 254 – UKIP 1,191
Hereford (Lab hold) Majority: 962 – UKIP: 1,030
High Peak (Lab hold) Majority: 735 – UKIP 1,106
Hove (Lab hold) Majority 420 - UKIP 575
Medway (Lab hold) Majority: 213 - UKIP 1,488
Portsmouth North (Lab hold) Majority: 1,139 - UKIP 1,348
Romsey (LD hold) Majority 125 – UKIP: 1,076
Sittingbourne & Sheppey (Lab hold) Majority: 79 UKIP plus Veritas: 1,118
Solihull (LD Gain) Majority: 279 – UKIP: 990
Somerton & Frome (LD hold) Majority: 812 – UKIP plus Veritas: 1,531
Staffordshire Moorlands (Lab hold) Majority: 2,438 – UKIP: 3,512
Stroud (Lab hold) Majority: 350 – UKIP: 1,089
Stourbridge (Lab hold) Majority: 407 – UKIP: 1,087
Taunton (LD gain) Majority: 573 – UKIP: 1,441
Thanet South (Lab hold) Majority: 664 – UKIP (Nigel Farage) 2,079
Torbay (LD hold) Majority: 2,029 - UKIP 3,726
Warwick & Leamington (Lab hold) Majority: 306 – UKIP: 921
Watford (Lab hold) Majority: 1,148 – UKIP: 1,292
Westmorland & Lonsdale (LD gain) Majority: 267 – UKIP: 660
Had UKIP (and Veritas) not intervened (or the Tories had managed the threat), the political environment would have been transformed.
For a start, Kennedy would not have been crowing about his "successes" – with his gains cut from 16 to seven, the Tories would be lauding a major victory and Labour would be thinking very hard of how it was going to survive, with Blair firmly in the departure lounge.
Amazingly, the MSM has not picked this up, but this seems to me to be the penalty the Tories are paying for neglecting the EU issue. Had Howard pushed the Tory EU policy, I believe that the UKIP/Veritas effect could have been contained, and the Tories could be 25 seats better off.
In effect, UKIP has done more damage to the Tories in this election than in all the other elections combined that it has fought and transformed the political environment.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:48
Printable Version
Print
Whose victory will be celebrated?
No, this is not another analysis of what the election night may bring. I nominated my colleague some time ago as the blog’s election correspondent and that is what he is. He will report on election night as soon as he has recovered from it.
Looking ahead, we must recall that this week-end we shall be celebrating VE Day and on Monday Russia will be celebrating Victory Day (and that is what I call it, not Europe Day, thank you very much).
Victory Day always brings up one of the greatest problems modern Russia and its people face: an inability or a refusal to come to terms with the past. Although Russians are taught a great deal more about the Great Patriotic War, they know far less about it than most westerners.
They do not know about the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the help that gave the Germans against Britain. They do not even know that the war started in 1939. They do not quite realize the atrocities Soviet troops and the secret police inflicted on the Balts, Poles, Ukrainians and Moldovans in 1940.
There is no understanding in Russia about the way Stalin had abandoned soldiers to their fate and refused to sign the Geneva Convention or allow the Red Cross to help Soviet POWs. There is no knowledge of the SMERSH troops that stood behind the army, shooting all those who tried to retreat.
There is little understanding of the fate of the POWs who managed to come back or of the hundreds of thousands deported from various parts of the country after the war. Though the name Vlasov is known, it is not realized that there were more Soviet citizens in Nazi German uniform at the end of the war than any other non-German group (and there would have been more if the Nazis had allowed it).
Above all, there is a refusal to acknowledge that the liberation of Eastern Europe turned sour almost immediately through the behaviour of the troops, the secret police and the forty year long occupation afterwards.
Not only is this unknown but, recently, Putin has been making the sort of statements that do not encourage one to believe he is ever going to acknowledge Soviet guilt. After all, according to him, the end of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Speak for yourself, buddy.
By and large, western Europe has allowed the Russians to get away with their highly tendentious statements about the war and its aftermath. But things have changed since the accession of the former Communist states to the EU, in particular the Baltic ones, who had lost something like a third of their population in the two Soviet occupations of 1940 and 1944.
(It is worth remembering that one reason why troops could not be transported fast westwards in 1941 was that the trains were steaming to the east with their cargo of deported Balts, Poles, Ukrainians and others.)
This is all coming to a head with the sixtieth anniversary of the ending of the war. Western leaders are, naturally enough, going to Moscow to stand with Putin and honour the Soviet Union’s undoubted sacrifices and achievements in the war.
President Bush is going as well and he is unlikely to have time to raise the subject of democracy with Putin this time. Before Moscow he will visit Latvia and after it, Georgia.
Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, is insisting that President Bush is not sending anybody any messages. However, he has also said that the message was the celebration of the defeat of fascism and the end of communism. Alas, that is unlikely to be viewed with favour by President Putin. His friends in western Europe would rather such subjects were not raised.
The President of Latvia has agreed to go to Moscow but the Presidents of Estonia and Lithuania are staying away. They feel that President Putin should at least apologize for the devastation his predecessors had inflicted on their countries.
Far from apologizing, Putin and the Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov have been boasting. What would have happened to these countries, said Ivanov, if we had not defeated fascism? The point at issue is not what would have happened but what did happen.
Even the Nazi-Soviet Pact, according to President Putin can be understood in the context of history. In fact, it was probably a glorious achievement, though he has not said that yet.
President Bush wrote recently to the Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga:
“During this trip, I will mark the sacrifice of America and many other nations in defeating Nazism. In Western Europe, the end of World War II meant liberation. In Central and Eastern Europe, the war also marked the Soviet occupation and annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and the imposition of communism.”No matter what Mr Hadley says, a letter like that does send a message, one that western Europe might like to endorse.
Posted by
Helen
at
00:05
Printable Version
Print
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Margot is not a happy bunny
The fragrant Commissar has expressed her irritation, according to a story in the Times. It seems that the British government, afraid that it might be accused of condoning Euro-propaganda, wants to prevent citizens from finding out about the EU.“We have an obligation to make sure that information and the chance to put questions is accessible to citizens.”
Well, no, since you ask, that obligation does not extend to her answering the many questions that went up on her blog since its inception. In fact, it no longer seems to extend to her posting anything on that blog but, perhaps, she has parted with all the information she ever possessed.
Actually, things are not as bad (or good) as the fragrant Commissar makes out. After all, anyone who does want to have information about the EU can look things up on the web and, even, ask the existing Commission offices. Normally, they are very free with all their material, and very interesting much of it is. (Well to a sad nerd like myself, they are interesting.)
Not satisfied with what they have, the Commission wants to open many more direct information centres across the EU. The British Government, through Sir John Grant, our man in the EU, has asked not to have any of them in Britain.
“The Government’s decision became public yesterday when the Commission unveiled plans for a network of 393 Europe Direct centres, costing €10 million (£6.8 million) a year, that will provide information on EU matters in each of the 25 member states except Britain.The idea that somehow businesses will not have enough information about grants is nonsense. All they have to do is ask their local councils.
The network will have 47 centres in Germany, 39 in France, 43 in Spain,39 in Italy and eight in Ireland. The €840,000 annual budget allocated for Britain will not be spent.
The centres, part of an EU campaign to fight growing Euroscepticism among European citizens, would have provided information to the British public about EU treaties, European policies and legislation, the workings of the European institutions and how to apply for grants.”
No, clearly, the crucial part of this whole exercise is the need to counteract eurosceptic feelings across the EU. And the Government is correct in thinking that the presence of these direct information centres, which are about as likely to provide any information that is not completely positive as my cats are to ignore a saucer of milk, will be viewed as propaganda by a large proportion of the population.
Still, one cannot help wondering why there is a need for so many centres in Germany, France, Spain and Italy. They surely know all there is to know about grants and aid. And they surely do not need convincing out of their euroscepticism. Or do they?
Posted by
Helen
at
22:28
Printable Version
Print
And counting…
The big surprises are still to come and this blogger is going to be in the thick of it tonight, attending one of the counts.
Unfortunately, our constituency does not declare until 4.00 a.m., so it is going to be a long night and posting will not be possible until the morning.
Already, however, one prediction of the naysayers seems to have been confounded. Our experience is that turnout at the polling stations is marginally up from the last election and, given the massive increase in postal votes, this suggests that turnout is going to be significantly up.
Reports from colleagues and other sources indicate that this phenomenon is nation-wide, but it would be wrong to believe that this necessarily favours Zanu New Labour. Our impression is that the Labour vote is on the slide, and the votes are going variously to the Lib-Dims and Conservatives, with the greater proportion going to the party with the greatest chance of winning – hence the mixed messages from the polls.
Further, the run-up to the this election has been characterised by the highest pre-election proportion of “don’t knows” or “undecideds” in living memory, up to 25 percent on the eve of poll. This has, undoubtedly, slewed poll results.
Anyhow, as we have maintained consistently on this Blog, the more important poll is the EU referendum but, to some extent, its outcome will be determined (or at least influenced) by the results we get tonight and tomorrow morning.
And, when the counting end, the real battle starts.
Posted by
Richard
at
20:00
Printable Version
Print
Do they know something we don't?
According to Reuters, IBM is planning to cut up to 13,000 jobs world-wide. This would amount to about 4 per cent of its present work force.
“The world's largest computer company said it would reduce bureaucracy and scale back in slower-growth countries, using global teams instead of single-company operations to deliver some services. One specific move would be to eliminate an unnecessary layer of pan-European management, it said.”How interesting. We have been told for years that integration of European economies was the best way forward and everyone was looking to dealing with businesses in pan-European terms.
It seems IBM is reversing that trend. It is getting rid of “an unnecessary layer of pan-European management” and, presumably, concentrating on individual countries instead. (Not that it is going to do western Europe much good, consisting as it does of slow-growth economies.)
So, I ask again: do they know something we don’t?
Posted by
Helen
at
11:59
Printable Version
Print
Another German tax reform (perhaps)
Not everything in the world revolves round today’s British election. In Germany they are still trying to figure out how to salvage their economy. And they have come up with another tax reform, this one aimed at small businesses that were closing down or, worse from the government’s point of view, moving out of Germany, because of the destrcutive inheritance tax.
Accroding to today’s Daily Telegraph, the German cabinet has approved plans to abolish inheritance tax for small family owned firms and to cut corporate tax rate from 25 to 19 per cent, bringing Germany’s combined federal, regional and local tax rate for businesses down to 32 per cent, nearer to the EU average.
The reform, particularly that of the corporate tax rate is said to be prompted by stiff competition from the East European countries, many of whom have gone for low corporate taxes (though sometimes for high other ones).“Searching for new ways to lift Germany out of the worst slump since the 1930s, finance minister Hans Eichel said small and medium-sized family firms could be handed down to heirs free of tax - provided they keep operations going for ten years.
The concession is limited to firms worth less than €100m (£68m). The tax rate is to be tapered down by one tenth each year.”
More to the point, a number of them have introduced or are thinking of introducing a flat rate tax that is much more likely to encourage growth, deter evasion and simplify tax paying for most of the victims.
After all, one does not have to be an economist on the Milton Friedman level to see what is wrong with the German proposal to create special deals for small family owned firms (a proposal that crops up periodically in this country as well).
It adds another level of complication and another level of bureaucracy; it acts as a disincentive for firms that might like to grow or expand their ownership; and, above all, it encourages further and more complex evasion strategies.
Posted by
Helen
at
10:53
Printable Version
Print
Pain in the offing
Nicely suppressed by the MSM, yesterday ministers from 17 EU member states called for an end to Britain's rebate on its EU budget contributions. This was at a meeting in Lisbon to discuss the perennial issue of the budget settlement for 2007-2013.
The 17 nations were: Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. All of them also opted for a budget for the period equal 1.14 percent of gross national income.
The group is calling itself the "friends of cohesion" and this is the sixth time they have met. This time though, they were joined by regional policy commissioner Danuta Hubner, the Polish commissioner who is said to be obsessed by the single issue of getting more money for her home country.
The commissioner's presence raises the temperature of the on-going negotiations and puts the EU's net contributor states - Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Sweden and The Netherlands – in direct conflict with the majority, which comprise recipient states.
Brussels is still expecting that the budget to be agreed by June, with the Luxembourg foreign minister warning that "there cannot be a larger Europe with less money".
The chances of quick agreement, however, continue to look remote. Increasingly, it looks like one of the first tasks of the British presidency will be to break the deadlock. Given the pain involved, one almost hopes for a Blair victory today.
Posted by
Richard
at
08:31
Printable Version
Print
Expect some big surprises
Although The Times online offers the headline: "Polls show landslide for Blair", reliable information indicates that the true picture may be very different to the extent that we may see some big surprises once the general election results come rolling in.
The Times is not the only one to give the game to Blair, suggesting a Labour majority of 100 to 130, but early returns from Conservative marginals indicate that the Tory vote is not only holding up but increasing, shares of 60 percent plus being widely reported.
As interesting, in some constituencies, the Labour vote shows signs of collapsing, in some cases slashed by half, down to below 20 percent. Lib-Dems are picking up some of the votes but the Tories are the major beneficiaries.
Even the smaller parties, such as UKIP, are doing well and in some cases, where strong support might be least expected, UKIP may retain deposits, having doubled its 2001 vote.
Thus, while polls are predicting a Blair victory, knowledgeable commentators are pointing to 1970 when the pundits confidently predicted a Wilson victory, only to find Heath standing at the door of No. 10 the next day.
The Times, however, does concede that tomorrow's result promises to be the most unpredictable since 1992, and that will certainly be the case, with many local results that defy national trends. Lib-dems could do particularly well in constituencies where they provide the strongest challenge but, overall, the Tories are set to make major gains.
There is an outside chance that, by Friday, we could be looking at a Conservative government – albeit with a wafer-thin majority. More realistically, we could be looking at the "dream scenario" where Labour's majority is cut to around 30, with the majority of votes cast in England going to the Conservatives.
Either way, bearing in mind that the Conservatives are the only major party to reject the EU constitution, and are prepared to fight for a "no" vote in the referendum, things are looking brighter than they have for a long time.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:01
Printable Version
Print
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
A sensible comment from Mr Blair?
Surely not. But we are nothing if not broadminded on this blog and are ready to acknowledge that even Our Tone might occasionally be right.
It seems that he has made it clear that he dislikes EU summits or European Councils as they are officially known. My colleague rather crossly reminds me every time that these meetings are not summits but the “cabinet of the European government”. Well, I don’t know. Cabinets should meet a little more often and make more detailed decisions. Besides, experience tells one that when a political structure acquires a different name, that tends to stick. However, I would never argue with my colleague on this, or any other matter.
To get back to Blair: he has been known to mutter “acerbically” to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that a particular meeting was “A joy as ever.”
So, the theme of the British Presidency will be, apart from the perennial one of cutting down red tape and regulations (yawn, not again), fewer summits or Councils. In fact, Mr Blair wants to go back to having just one, at the end of the presidency.
That is how it used to happen, but round about 1998, emergency Councils were introduced to decide … well, it is hard to recall what the particular emergency was at the time.
Some of us did predict that what started as an emergency would probably become the norm and that came to pass. It is now considered to be the way things are that each Presidency should have two Councils. Mr Blair will have only one, unless something important does crop up.
This is where we hit a snag. What is important? Would a French no and/or a Dutch no considered be important enough to call an extra meeting to discuss the future? Would an unresolved budget?
We shall see. As it happens, nothing much is decided during those Council meetings, anyway. At least not in the open and only a kremlinological close reading of the various Presidential Conclusions can throw up minutely detailed differences between them. The real decisions and agreements during other meetings, quietly and unobtrusively.
Posted by
Helen
at
19:10
Printable Version
Print
News from the Low Countries
April 30 is a holiday in the Netherlands – Queen’s Day. That is when the Dutch celebrate their Queen’s birthday.
By a sheer coincidence, no doubt (though some have called it Goebbelian, which is a little hard) that was the day in which it was made public that back in the days of the country entering the economic and monetary union, the guilder was deliberately devalued by 5 to 10 per cent.
In other words, the Dutch people had 5 to 10 per cent of their salaries, pensions and savings written off. And for why?
According to former Finance Minister Zalm, getting a higher price for the guilder was “a politically unreachable goal”. People’s salaries and savings? Pooh, who cares about that?
Mr Zalm had also assured people that prices would not rise and inflation would not, in any circumstances, follow the adoption of the euro. It seems that he was not entirely accurate, or so the Director of the Dutch Central Bank says now.
“We could ascertain that the Guilder was 5 to 10 percent undervalued against the D-Mark. It is always difficult to establish a balanced exchange rate, but one can say without doubt that the Guilder was undervalued.News like that is best released on a holiday, when people might not pay attention to it. Unfortunately, this did not precisely work, as, with the referendum approaching, even holidays do not interfere with interest in the way politicians manipulate information, particularly when it has to do with European integration.
With the exchange rate fixed and unable to adapt itself, the prices adapted themselves. This was later followed by a multiplying effect; our competitive position strongly weakened because of extreme salary increases.”
Meanwhile, in the other part of the Low Countries, Belgium, things are not looking too bright. They are not due to have a referendum and, indeed, if Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has anything to do with it, they may well do away with democracy altogether.
The Flemings are becoming more and more disgruntled by what they see as their hard work being squandered by the Walloons, who seem to be natural recipients of government funds in one way or another.
On top of which, the latest figures on economics make sad reading. This is what the Economist City Guide to Brussels says:
“Belgian workers are the most expensive in the world, according to a recent survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. Belgian employers spend an average of €53,577 (£36,480) a year on each worker—more than Britain (€46,451, £31,628)or America (€33,195, £22,602), and marginally ahead of both Sweden and Germany.But take-home pay is much lower than the headline figure. The reason that Belgian workers are so costly is the very high payroll taxes the country needs to fund its health and social security systems. One trade-off for such good services is an unemployment level that is now close to 13%.”
The figures do not show where the highest level of unemployment is. None of this is good advertisement of the eurozone or the whole concept of further European integration, unless, of course, we use the old socialist argument: if socialism does not work, it is because there is not enough of it.
So far, European integration has not produced the economic growth and political stability it keeps promising. I expect, we need more of it to achieve what it has not delivered so far.
Posted by
Helen
at
18:20
Printable Version
Print
L'escroc Chirac speaks again
The French President has made another TV appearance, trying to rally the yes vote in France. Opinion polls are becoming a little more even than they were before but the fact remains that despite the united voice of the political establishment and the media, there are a lot of French voters out there who do not want to vote for the Constitution.
In order to overcome this problem, l’escroc Chirac is throwing everything into the battle, disregarding in his desperation how it will all look to other countries. There are, after all, referendums coming in the Netherlands, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and one or two East European countries.
In Sweden a number of Social-Democrat MPs are working towards a referendum in that country as well. (One wonders what the fragrant Commissar or her acolytes and spokespersons might say about that?)
What are they all being told by the French president? According to the BBC website:
“Responding to questions from two French journalists, Mr Chirac denied that the EU constitution would destroy the French social model and replace it with an Anglo-Saxon style economy.
On the contrary, he said, the treaty was "essentially of French inspiration" - it was "the best possible" choice for France.
He called the text the "daughter of 1989", the year the Berlin Wall fell, and "especially the daughter of 1789", referring to the French Revolution.
It would only increase French and German influence in Europe, ensuring that the two founding nations had a decisive say in the new, enlarged EU of 25, he said.”
Frankly, the no campaigns in various countries could not wish for a better present than a clear statement that the purpose of the Constitution is to increase Franco-German influence, whether it happens to be true or not. As a matter of fact, the sceptics in France are right to worry about the EU taking off as an entity all of its own, away from its French beginnings.
In the meantime, something like 25 per cent of the electorate remains undecided. Faites vos jeux, messieursdames.
Posted by
Helen
at
12:03
Printable Version
Print
All so dreadfully familiar
"We are faced with an outpouring of state propaganda, funded with public money, and supported by almost every branch of the mainstream French media, all in the service of a Yes vote."
So claims French, right-wing Eurosceptic leader, Philippe de Villiers. Opposition to the constitution is being undermined by an onslaught of state-funded propaganda "worthy of Fidel Castro", he adds, warning supporters that they would face an "incredible bludgeoning" by the political and media élite.
This was at a rally of 250 supporters in Caen this week, reported by The Daily Telegraph today, with de Villiers noting that "On the radio, in the newspapers, on all television channels, there is just one single editorial voice: for the 'yes'".
He brandished a copy of the draft constitution that is being posted to all homes, along with an "explanatory" leaflet, that he said was biased in favour of the treaty. "It's unreadable, even with glasses, and that's not an accident," he told the crowd of small shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, and right-wing students.
"People are going to say, 'Oh, I can't read this, I'll just read this helpful synopsis'. It's a trick worthy of Fidel Castro," he said.
This is all so dreadfully familiar, and just a foretaste of what it will be like here when the referendum campaign starts (if it does). These scum really do not believe in democracy and nothing must be allowed to get in the way of their treasured project.
Posted by
Richard
at
08:03
Printable Version
Print
A reminder
The fragrant Commissar Margot Wallström seems strangely shy these days. Another week and a day and no posting on her blog. Nor has she responded as yet to any comment (apart from the clearly planted one on sex slavery and even then, her acolytes and spokespersons seemed angered when the words United Nations were mentioned).
We feel compelled to remind her of her duty to provide us with information and communication, not to mention entertainment. What does she have a blog for? What are all her assistants, spokespersons and press officers for?
In short, Margot, why are we waiting?
Posted by
Helen
at
00:48
Printable Version
Print
Hubris
They think they are so wonderful that they can conquer the world. More to the point, these dismal little apparatchiks think that all they have to do is pass a law and the problem – whatever it is – is solved.
And so it came to pass that these lamebrains passed a law against that scourge of the internet – spam. And the result?
The rate of Spam detected by IE Internet in April increased slightly to just under 40 percent. Spam originating in Europe increased by over 80 percent to 8.16percent last month, "suggesting" that anti-spam legislation adopted by the EU has had no significant impact to date.
When will these idiots ever learn? Sorry, silly question… they are incapable of learning.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:06
Printable Version
Print
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
The first anniversary
We did not miss the fact that May 1 was, among other things, the first anniversary of the EU’s largest and most contentious enlargement that took in eight former Communist countries in eastern Europe, Malta and the Greek part of Cyprus.
It is in our opinion a little too early to decide exactly what effect enlargement has had on the EU as a whole or the new members.
The Commission, needless to say has been crowing. None of the problems have materialized – there has been no mass migration, no great inflow of criminal activity into the West and everyone has benefited economically, especially in the new countries.
Much of that is bunkum. Nobody seriously expected a multi-million migration but the figures, what with complete inefficiency in Britain and serious mismanagement in Germany, are unknown.
They are high enough for west Europeans to feel more than a little uneasy about being undercut by East European workers. This fear has made any attempts at necessary economic and welfare reforms in France and Germany impossible. Even the Commission cannot pretend that the economic situation in those countries is rosy.
The great inflow of supposed liberal ideas has not materialized either, as can be seen quite clearly with the fiasco of the Services Directive. It takes more than a few East Europeans to destroy the protectionist mindset of the European Union.
Besides, just how hard are those East Europeans fighting for any kind of liberalization? Those who have appeared in Brussels are likely to have a very similar mindset, many of them being old Communist apparatchiks.
As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, they may protect their rights to lower taxation (and obviously, we, on this blog, think that is an excellent idea) but their liberal ideas all seem to evaporate when it becomes a question of a bigger EU budget and greater redistribution of funds.
It is true that the new members with the obvious exception of Malta are doing economically better than the old ones. But they were doing even better before they joined. It is the reforms they introduced as they emerged from Communism, many of which they have had to retract, that produced an economic upswing.
Cyprus benefits from its position, many of the big firms using Nicosia as a base for their dealings with the Middle East.
Nor must one forget the amount of aid that has already poured into these countries, all of which is added to the rosy economic figures. Its long-term benefit is unlikely to be all that great, as my colleague’s unfolding saga of structural funds and their use in Greece demonstrates.
The East Europeans wanted to be in the EU because they wanted to return to Europe and they had been told that the way back was through the so far not implemented acquis communautaire.
They also wanted security from the Big Bear in the east and that was to be provided by membership of NATO. However, at the first crisis, the Iraq war, membership of the two organizations added to the tension between West European and East European countries, most of the latter supporting the US and its allies.
That is merely the first sign of coming tensions over the common foreign and security policy. The East Europeans are not as anti-American or pro-Russian as the French and the Germans. President Chirac’s infamous outburst against these upstarts who, in his opinion, do not represent Europe (l'escroc is learning that he is not the only one with pretensions to that role) did not help matters.
So there we are. While the Commission crows, other analyses have been more cautious. The problems have remained, the tensions have grown and the positive developments would have happened anyway.
What, one wonders, are we going to say on the second anniversary?
Posted by
Helen
at
14:12
Printable Version
Print
Labels: enlargement
Environmentalists harm the environment
It is not precisely a secret that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the supposed discreditation of all Communist and Socialist ideas (I say supposed because they are, as it happens, alive and well in most of the western academia) drove many of the erstwhile supporters into the green environmentalist movement.
When you think about it, many of the political arguments and the methodology are quite similar. The two groups seem different because the true environmentalist is against industrialization and any kind of progress, the twin dogmas of the Marxist religion.
This is not a particularly important distinction. For one thing, the industrialization they are arguing about is completely out of date, both Marxists and green environmentalists still seeing smoking chimney stacks everywhere and being unable to understand that it is industrial progress that can actually clean up the environment.
The most important common factor, however, is the political thinking. For one reason or another both groups remain convinced that the only way to achieve whatever aim they have in mind is through state control, either actual ownership or regulation. And both are completely wrong.
Not only they are wrong, they harm their own aims. Socialists have promised greater welfare for all and faster economic development. They failed miserably.
Green environmentalists have promised a better, cleaner environment and they are failing. Most of the regulations brought in under the influence of green environmentalist thinking actually make things worse.
There is no getting away from the fact that the environment is cleaned up more efficiently in richer societies. But the green environmentalists want to keep the poor societies in poverty and make the rich ones poorer.
European regulations, whether they are to do with the Common Fisheries Policy or hazardous waste inevitably result in greater environmental problems, sometimes a catastrophe.
It is also reasonably clear to all that people look after what is their own and ignore or destroy what does not belong to anybody. Therefore, a true environmentalist ought to advocate private property and light regulation just as a true lover of peace is always against unilateral disarmament.
I was interested to read a column by one of America’s best journalists, Jonah Goldberg. In it he explains that conservatives and free-marketeers have finally started saying that they, too, are environmentalists. They have always been that, but the so-called moral high ground had been hijacked by the regulatory freaks, who had managed to convince everyone that they alone were in favour of the environment.
(I plead guilty to snarling at a particularly irritating Swedish environmentalist eurosceptic, when he stated smugly that nobody could be against the environment and, therefore, they could not be against his proposals of making sustainability and green regulations part of the European eurosceptic platform.)
Of course, these people are irritating but just as we had to argue it through with the self-righteous unilateralists, many of whom were Marxists and communist sympathizers, but many simply misguided, so we have to argue our case over the environment.
Luckily for us, as Mr Goldberg points out, some of the more serious environmentalists are beginning to see that their movement has reached a dead end.
“In other words, all of the serious arguments are about means, not ends. For decades, greens have insisted their means — heavy-handed government command and control — were the only way to those ends. Obviously, there are some exceptions:Some organizations have raised money to buy land and then manage it themselves.But at the national level, where impressions are formed, the enviros have become indistinguishable from any other special interest group that wants the government to do their bidding.
Don’t take my word for it — google “The Death of Environmentalism” by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. “We believe,” write these two respected veteran liberal greens, “that the environmental movement’s foundational concepts, its method for framing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded. Today environmentalism is just another special interest. Evidence for this can be found in its concepts, its proposals, and its reasoning.””
Well, there may be a slow movement away from the disastrous, regulatory environmentalism in America, but in the EU it is flourishing and is in power.
The Common Fisheries Policy remains a key part of the EU system with every disastrous regulation producing a new one. It takes sheer genius to reduce cod stocks to the point when the fish becomes an endangered specie (though that is based on faulty and inadequate research). Of course, the CFP is, in the first place a political decision imposed on the fishermen and fishing communities but many of the attempts to improve it are imbued with green regulatory environmentalism.
The combination of the Hazardous Waste Directive, the Landfill Directive and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive has created enormous environmental problems through dumping, it being no longer possible to dispose of waste legally.
Small food businesses find that every year brings more “environmentally friendly” regulations about their own waste disposal, which either makes it too expensive for them to carry on, their closure contributing to the environmentally unsightly boarded up shops in various high streets or forces them into illegal dumping.
One can carry on indefinitely. Naturally, nothing much will change while environment remains an EU competence, in the hands of environmentalists, regulators and people, who know like to have their snouts in the environmentally friendly trough.
Posted by
Helen
at
13:35
Printable Version
Print
Labels: fish
He's got it!
Christopher Fildes in the business section of The Daily Telegraph today writes about the "nullists", people who decide not to bother voting.
One of the "strongest cards" of these nullists, he asserts, "may turn out to be Europe". So much of our law is now made in Brussels and all that remains for the Westminster Parliament is to defer to it and to permit Whitehall to enforce it with misplaced enthusiasm. Non-voters in this election complain, with some justice, that choosing domestic politicians makes not the slightest difference.
Fildes then continues: "A super-government over the water, with a self-imposed duty to draw more power to itself and to intervene everywhere, must be contrary to Nullist instincts...".
And there he has it – not a "super-state" but a "super-government". That is where so many of the Eurosceptics go wrong. Brussels has no ambitions to become a super-state. It is and always intended to be a super-government, leaving the trappings of the member states in place but ruling over them.
At least now, one more journalist has "got it". It would be nice to think that others would follow.
Posted by
Richard
at
11:18
Printable Version
Print
Latsis and Barroso
A small correction to yesterday’s story about the financing of the Lamda shipyard upgrade.
Contrary to the information given, we are talking here about state aid, not EU funding. Thus, when Dr Latsis hosted (then) commissioner designate Barroso and wife on his luxury yacht, he was waiting for the commission to give permission to the Greek government to give one of his companies the sum of €10,349,269.
Without that permission, the payment would have been illegal under state aid rules, so Latsis was wholly dependent on the goodwill of the commission in order that one of his companies should get the money - from Greek rather than European taxpayers. The permission was forthcoming a month after Latsis had given Barroso his luxury holiday.
Posted by
Richard
at
02:18
Printable Version
Print
The tide is turning
A second opinion poll, released yesterday, indicates that sentiment is changing in the French EU referendum campaign.
This is another Ipsos poll, carried out for Le Figaro and Europe 1 radio, which reports that fifty-three percent of decided voters will say "yes" in the referendum, up five points from the last Ipsos poll.
The finding follows the TNS-Sofres-Unilog poll published last Saturday that put the "yes" vote at 52 percent, with nearly a quarter of the 1,000 respondents saying they had still not made up their minds.
A separate poll also released yesterday by the Louis Harris institute put the "no" camp at 51 percent, a drop of two percentage points from 53 percent.
Given standard polling error, the indications are now that the two camps are very close, although the "undecideds" are still a potent force. With just under a month to go before the referendum, anything is possible but, on current trends, it does seem that the tide is turning in favour of the "yes" camp.
There is a possibility that we may get our referendum after all.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:34
Printable Version
Print
Monday, May 02, 2005
"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"
Once seen, never forgotten, Kenneth Williams pronouncing that line as Julius Caesar, being slaughtered in the Senate in Carry on Cleo.
Life seems to keep imitating, if not art precisely, then entertainment. We all remember the Clintons announcing that there was a huge right-wing conspiracy, which, undoubtedly forced Bill into leching and assaulting every woman who came near him, carrying on in a way that would have made Sid James blush in the Oval Office and, above all, committing perjury and suborning others to do the same.
(And I am not even going to talk about Whitewater, Vince Foster and the strange carryings on in the travel section of the White House.)
All of that was part of that vast right-wing plot. They made him do it. They made Hillary lie like a trooper and they made the Clintons move truckloads of what most certainly did not belong to them from the White House as they were finally leaving.
Now we have SecGen Kofi Annan crying infamy. He has gone one better than the Clintons. It is not just a vast right-wing plot, it is a “lynch mob”. The implication that it is somehow racist to oppose corruption, inefficiency, bloodthirsty kleptocratic tyranny is, perhaps, not quite what one should expect from the Secretary General of the United Nations, that persists in setting itself up as the highest court of international morality and legality.
Nor are we too impressed with the further implication that being African gives SecGen Annan and his appalling son the right to do whatever they feel like doing with gadzillions contributed by the taxpayer.
Meanwhile more scandals are unearthed. Many of them centre round sexual abuse by UN troops and officials of women and children in war-torn African countries. One would think that SecGen Annan might have displayed some solidarity with the people of his Continent but he has done little but shrug the problems aside.
Then there is the story of the UN troops in DR Congo, attempting to disarm the various militias. Unsurprisingly, the whole vastly expensive exercise was unsuccessful. Who is going to disarm in that particular situation?
The first group to hand over its weapons will be slaughtered. Some of the Congolese groups and tribes may have heard what happened in Srebrenice, where the men were disarmed by the UN, then handed over to the Serb militia to be butchered. (By the way, the whole episode was investigated by the Dutch government but not by the UN. Why is that?)
And so we come to the ongoing saga of the oil-for-food. SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo, who now seems to reside permanently in Nigeria) maintains that he was exonerated by the interim Volcker report.
Not so, say several members of that commission, two of whom, Robert Parton and Miranda Duncan have resigned in protest of what they see as a de facto cover up for senior UN officials, including, one must assume the SecGen.
Other complaints have been voiced about Paul Volcker’s impartiality and the Commission’s alacrity in dismissing any evidence that pointed to greater direct involvement on the part of the SecGen.
In particular, there is the looming testimony of Pierre Mouselli, a former business partner of Kojo’s, who will be questioned by the congressinal investigators next month. M Mouselli has claimed repeatedly that he met the SecGen in the company of his son and that said son’s business activities, including his involvement with Cotecna were discussed.
Clearly M Mouselli is a leader of the lynch pack.
The SecGen, in the meantime, has tried to appeal to everybody’s better feelings (except those of the potential lynchers, presumably, as they have no better feelings, being completely unable to recognize Annan’s saintly nature).
“I’m suffering on vairous levels. As a secretary-general and as a father dealing with his son. It’s all very heavy and difficult.Hmm. It is, of course, easier to handle pressure when you are never held responsible for any of the catastrophes, massacres, misappropriations that have happened while you have been in charge and under all that pressure.
There hasn’t been too much to laugh about. There have been those difficult periods when you wonder, ‘What’s it all about and were are we going?’
I’ve been under pressure for how many years now? Almost 15 years. I can handle the pressure but certain things touch you.”
Meanwhile, escaping from the lynch mob, SecGen Annan presided over the quinquennial meeting of members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It seems that there is trouble with North Korea, that has just tested another device and Iran, that is pushing its luck again with the EU troika, Britain, France and Germany. The mullahs have once again announced that they are not going to play ball and will resume nuclear construction.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, escaping temporarily from his own scandals to do with visas to East Europeans, explained that he was prepared to deliver a stern warning to his counterpart Kamal Kharrazzi.
All in all, a normal working day in an intenational organization and not a lynch mob in sight.
By an interesting coincidence in the book section of yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph George Walden reviewed Nic Dunlop’s The Lost Executioner: A Story of the Khmer Rouge.
There are few tales so full of horror as that of the Khmer Rouge and its atrocities in Cambodia. There are few tales so frustrating as the attempts to bring some of the monstrous executioners and torturers to some semblance of justice.
Mr Walden rightly points out that in all the chatter about Abu Ghraib
“we no longer comprehend pure evil, or do not want to”.The prisoners whom Comrade Duch, the anti-hero of the book tortured and murdered in Tuel Sleng would have thought that they had died and gone to paradise if they had found themselves in Abu Ghraib.
Both the book and George Walden’s review bring out the distasteful part played by the UN and the various NGOs “stationed” in Cambodia in 1992-3, during the turbulent period that eventually produced the democratic regime.
“These organisations, shielded from reality by their expensive lifestyles, and blinded to what was happening by their neutralisty stance between killers and victims, stood by while the Khmer rouge regrouped and launched a campaign of terror to derail the elections the UN was there to supervise.No doubt, this, too, contributed to the pressure SecGen Annan (at the time merely Head of Operations) has been under for 15 years.
UN bureaucrats stuck stubbornly to their brief. The word ‘genocide’ was banned in favour of the phrase ‘the policies and practices of the recent past’, and terms such as ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘non-intervention’ were officiously mouthed as the violence spiralled around them.
To general amazement 96 per cent of Cambodians ignored terrorist threats and turned out for the elections.”
Oh and by the way, there has been no pressure from various international legal luminaries to try the Cambodian butchers.
Posted by
Helen
at
23:31
Printable Version
Print
In the lap of luxury
"With her dynamic and futuristic profile and interiors, RM Elegant will be taking her rightful place among elite of the world's motor yachts.
This yacht is sure to set the standard for style and opulence in the new century. She is being created for those who appreciate truly luxurious living, and are ready for sheer joy of life aboard a design masterpiece. From the moment you step aboard, the highly trained crew of 32 will be ready to anticipate your needs and provide an outstanding level of services."
So opens the charter company’s website and, just in case you are tempted, the daily hire rate is a mere €65,000 a day.
As they gawp at this impressive piece of hardware, berthed at Athens’s Flisvos Marina when it is not out on charter, European taxpayers may not know that this ultra-modern 237.53ft (72.40m) Elegant was built by in 2005 by Lamda Shipyard, a firm that specialises in building and refitting luxury yachts for passing billionaires.
But what will particularly impress them is that they, as European taxpayers, have just contributed €10.349.269 to the shipyard, by way of an EU grant awarded by the commission under its "Shipbuilding Framework for regional aid" programme.
This munificence was approved by commissioner Mario Monti on 22 September 2004, case reference N 617 /2003, for "modernising and upgrading the yard's facilities".
Payment was only authorised, according to commission documentation, after meetings with representatives of Lamda Shipyard on 28 June 2004, and information supplied by the Greek government on 7 July 2004 and further "clarification" submitted after that date (unspecified).
Astute readers might also suspect that "Lamda" is not an entirely unfamiliar firm, and they would be right. Lamda Shipyard is a subsidiary of Lamda Development which is – yes, you've guessed it – one of the Latsis group of companies, in which Dr Spiros Latsis, the Greek multi-billionaire has major financial interests.
Looking at the key dates of this generous commission grant, the application was made on 5 December 2003 but it seems to have run into slight complications, which may be the reason why there was a meeting between representatives of Lamda Shipyard and the commission on 28 June 2004 and then further correspondence with the Greek government which continued until after July 2004, with the final approval being given in the September.
Our astute readers will quickly realise that, between the application being made and approved, one José Manuel Durao Barroso, then commission president designate, and his wife enjoyed a lavish free holiday on Dr Latsis's own private luxury yacht.
Yet, when the news broke that Barroso had enjoyed this hospitality, his chief spokesman, Françoise le Bail, declared that as far as she knew, his host had no "business ties with the EU".
But, apart from everything else, it now appears that a Latsis company was awaiting a decision from the commission about the payment of a €10 million grant, which was not approved until after Barroso had enjoyed his holiday.
This is, of course, a complete coincidence and in no way indicates that Barroso should have declared a potential conflict of interest. In any case, I am sure that European taxpayers totally approve of their money being paid to a shipyard which enables hard-working billionaires to be kept in the lap of luxury.
See also, correction in later post.
Posted by
Richard
at
18:30
Printable Version
Print
Brown and Cabinet talking through their hats
The big news after the non-event of revealing the legal non-advice on the Iraqi war (exactly what makes a war legal and who decides that on the basis of which legal structure?) is Gordon Brown’s statement that in future British soldiers should be sent to war only with the approval of Parliament.
Mr Brown was actually a little woolly in what he said, as he is still trying to play each side against each other on whatever issue happens to be to hand.
“Now that there has been a vote on these issues so clearly and in such controversial circumstances, I think it is unlikely that except in the most exceptional circumstances a government would choose not to have a vote in Parliament.John Reid, formerly Defence and now Health Secretary, supposedly a close ally of Tony Blair’s (possibly because the man is the Prime Minister) rushed in to support Gordy:
I think Tony Blair would join me in saying that, having put this decision to Parliament, people would expect these kinds of decisions to go before Parliament.”
“This is already our policy, of the whole Cabinet, since we did it. The Prime Minister decided that some time ago.This is supposed to reassure wavering Labour supporters who might be worried enough about the Iraqi war to vote Lib-Dem.
That's why we had three debates on substantive motions before going into Iraq.
This is and has been for some time the policy of the whole Cabinet led by the Prime Minister.”
The chances are that anyone who is going to vote in this election over Iraq or, to be precise, the WMD and dossier fiasco, since events in Iraq itself have moved on, will have made the decision already.
Still, we should look a little more closely at those comments. In the first place, it is clear that when people like Brown and Reid say Parliament, they mean the House of Commons, it being the part that can be controlled by the government, the whips, various lobbying and pressure groups.
Before long we shall be told that the House of Lords should have no right to make decisions that concern the lives of British servicemen and women (the ones who have been deprived of the vote thanks to either chicanery or inefficiency in the MoD).
Secondly, it would appear that the Cabinet, if, indeed, they do agree with Mr Brown and Dr Reid, assume that the make-up of the House of Commons will always be the same. NuLab or OldLab, they all seem to share the opinion that, contrary to historical evidence, they have some sort of a natural right always to govern us (or at least sit there pretending to do so).
Thirdly, and very importantly, this is another sneaky change to the British constitutional structure. Going to war has always been a Royal Prerogative, exercised by Her Majesty’s Government. This may or may not be a good idea. But if a big change like that is introduced and one of the few areas in which there is a separation of powers is destroyed, it ought to be done clearly and openly not through statements to the media.
Fourthly, there is the question of how we define war. Will Parliament have to debate and decide each time British soldiers are sent somewhere under whatever auspices, or only when it is done to help our allies, the United States and Australia?
Which brings me to the fifth and, possibly, most important point. If Mr Brown and Dr Reid, not to mention the rest of the Cabinet, really do think what they say they think, then they had better vote against the forthcoming European Union Bill.
As we have written before, the Bill in its original form consisted of a great deal more than just the usual amendment to the European Communities Act and the provision for a referendum on the Constitution. It included Articles that gave enormous powers to the Foreign Secretary.
The Bill fell in the scramble before Parliament was dissolved but will have to be brought back, though if it is a Labour Government on May 6, Prime Minister Blair may well decide to wait till the news of the various referendums on the Continent comes through.
Let me remind our readers what else is in the European Union Bill if it is brought back in an unchanged form:
“Section 5 is entitled Implementation of common foreign and security policy and tells us thatIn other words, if the Bill becomes an Act the Secretary of State will acquire enormous powers to by-pass Parliament completely, should a particular policy, even if it involves sending troops in, be part of the common foreign and security policy.
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for one or more of the following purposes –
a) Implementing an obligation of the United Kingdom created and arising by or under the common foreign policy provisions or a related agreement, or enabling such an obligation to be implemented;
b) Enabling the exercise of rights enjoyed or to be enjoyed by the United Kingdom under or by virtue of those provisions or such an agreement;
c) Dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, such an obligation or such rights.
(2) The powers conferred by this section include power to amend enactments or subordinate legislation.
The section goes on to deal with the creation of summary new offences and the methods whereby the Secretary of State may make regulations. These are our old friends the Orders in Councils, otherwise known as Negative Statutory Instruments.
Negative SIs are published by order of the relevant Secretary of State and placed before each House, where they lie for 40 days unless somebody manages to initiate a debate and win it to reverse the Order.
This process is virtually impossible in the House of Commons, where even if such a motion is passed the Instrument goes to the relevant Standing Committee, where it is dealt summarily, committees being filled in proportion to the number of MPs each party has in the House.
In the Lords there is a possibility of praying against and Order and debates do happen. They rarely lead to anything. There have even been occasions when the government lied quite blatantly, saying that one House annulling an Order was inadequate and,therefore, the vote was ignored.
In certain cases, as the relevant section of the European Union Bill, the Secretary of State can avoid the distinctly non-onerous procedure altogether, if he can insert a “declaration … that the urgency of the matter makes it necessary for the regulation to be made without [Parliamentary] approval”.”
This will not change, even if there is a referendum and a no vote on the Constitution. The referendum, let me emphasise, will not be on the Bill. How can it be?
For the purposes of the Bill, the common foreign and security policy (though not the treaties) is defined as that in the proposed Constitution. Please, do not relax too soon. Changing definitions to do with European Treaties is a matter of very little import.
There have been many Statutory Instruments, barely noticed in Parliament, that did just that: changed various definitions, extending executive power by stealth.
I wonder if Mr Brown or Dr Reid or the other members of the Cabinet actually realize any of this.
Posted by
Helen
at
16:50
Printable Version
Print
"Quand je vois ça je vote 'oui'"
Tony Blair's trouble in keeping up with current events seems to extend to the EU referendum situation, where the indications are that he is not abreast with the polls showing the French "nons" are losing ground.
Asked what would happen if the French voted "no", yesterday he said: "I honestly don't know… My belief is that people will try to find a way round it. Whether it is possible to find a way round it I don't know."
This was on the Breakfast with Frost programme and his "lukewarm remarks"are seen as suggesting that, if Labour wins a third term, Blair will do little to try to save it during the British presidency. However, given the latest French results, Blair may find that that he is still faced with a battle which is getting increasingly rough.
According to The Independent today, one of the reasons why the French "yes" campaign has been able to reverse the tide is an inspired poster campaign showing sinister-looking pictures of five "non" supporters on the far right and far left, the caption proclaiming: "Quand je vois ça je vote 'oui'" ("When I see this lot I vote 'yes'").
This, as we have pointed out before, was a tactic employed by the "yes" campaign in the British 1975 referendum, when maximum exposure was given to the two public figures who, at the time, evoked the most negative responses: Wedgewood Benn and Enoch Powell.
Should the French "no" vote collapse, and Blair is forced to go ahead with a British referendum, we can certainly see prominence given to a number of obscure figures, not least Graham Copp, head of research for the Centre for a Social Europe, a left-wing front organisation set up by the otherwise invisible "Vote-no" campaign.
One might also expect such luminaries as UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom (he of 'fridge fame) to be in great demand, especially by BBC news services. Against him, even Blair and his assorted Euro-luvvies will look sane.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:37
Printable Version
Print
Which planet are they on?
According to the ddp news agency in Berlin, German trade unions are blaming companies (i.e., employers) for the mass unemployment. In his Mayday speech at the central rally in Mannheim yesterday, DGB [Confederation of German Trade Unions] Chairman Michael Sommer complained that "naked greed" prevails in the boardrooms of many companies.
He criticised "the increasing lack of responsibility among managers," who often regard employees' rights just as an obstacle. A new policy is needed to curtail these "misguided practices", he said.
IG Metall [Metal Workers' Union] head Juergen Peters called on the federal government to take "concrete steps" as a result of the capitalism debate. It is necessary to implement EU-wide minimum standards with regard to wages and company taxation, as well as a coordinated, EU-wide investment programme, and publicly subsidised employment, he said.
Ver.di [services sector trade union] chief Frank Bsirske demanded the introduction of statutory minimum wages. It is possible to stabilise the domestic economic situation and at the same time, help the employees, he added. The free fall of the wages has to be limited effectively, Bsirske said in Munich. He stressed: "Employment must not lead to poverty."
Bsirske criticized the federal government for its labour market reform programme, "Hartz IV", which has brought nothing but new job fears and, according to the statistics, five million unemployed. But it has not led to the creation of new jobs, he stated.
The chief of IG BCE [Mining, Chemical, and Energy Industrial Union], Hubert Schmoldt, in his speech in Ludwigshafen sharply attacked also the CDU [Christian Democratic Union]. With demands for less protection against dismissal and laws on opening hours, the CDU is "gradually" moving away "from the social market economy and Ludwig Erhard's inheritance", he said.
Oh, and by the way, the German electronic giant, Siemens is struggling to find a buyer for its loss-making phone-making division but has had few takers, despite the firm offering £340 million – equivalent to a year’s losses – to anyone prepared to take the unit off their hands.
However, companies expressing an interest, such as the US giant Motorola and the Chinese technology company Huawei, have cried off, owing to rigid German labour laws which would require the new owners to keep the 7,000 work force intact. They would also make it difficult to cut wages or increase working hours.
Without a new buyer, though, the chances are that the division, which has been hived off as a separate company, will be put into liquidation and all the workers will be made redundant.
Posted by
Richard
at
00:38
Printable Version
Print
The Council of Europe may send the shock troops in
Maybe they have been reading this blog. First the OSCE made some comments about sending a delegation or two made up of representatives of newly democratic countries to Britain, to see how it is done. Postal votes? Hmm. What a good idea. Beats the vote early, vote often instructions.
That was going to be an exercise in studying democracy. But, it seems, that there might be something more serious coming from the Council of Europe, described by the Scotland on Sunday as the organization
“which oversees democracy and human rights across the continent”.I wouldn’t put it quite as strongly as that. The CoE’s record on the Communist and post-Communist states is patchy; some of its members, acquired in haste, leave a good deal to be desired as democracies; and it has failed rather spectacularly in ensuring that the European Union became a democracy.
For all of that, the Council of Europe does have something of a record in monitoring elections and producing reasonably useful reports.
It seems that there is some discussion about sending in lawyers to investigate the British electoral system as it has evolved under the present Labour government and, possibly, to recommend improvements.
In the opinion of Murdo Macleod, the newspaper’s correspondent:
“The news is a major embarrassment for the UK, which is a founder member of the CoE, because the organisation usually investigates the voting systems of countries with little history of democracy, such as the former Eastern Bloc nations.If he were not a journalist he might ponder on the fact that news should be a major embarrassment for the UK, not because of its role in the founding of the Council of Europe but because until recently this country was considered to be the mother or parliamentary democracy.
The move comes amid growing evidence of widespread misuse of the postal ballot system and the setting up of a new police hotline dedicated to reporting incidents of voting fraud.”
The Council of Europe has been alerted by various British MPs, who are also delegates to its Parliamentary Assembly.
“One of them, the Liberal Democrat MP for Gordon, Malcolm Bruce, has raised the issue with Eric Jurgens, who is the chairman of the CoE’s Council for Democratic Elections and a veteran of election monitoring. Although any investigation will still have to be approved by the Council which he chairs, the fact that Jurgens believes there is a reason to investigate is almost certain to ensure a probe will go ahead.”The new-fangled Department for Constitutional Affairs maintains that it has not been approached by the Council of Europe.
It is interesting that it should be a Liberal Democrat MP to raise the issue. News reaches us that at least one Liberal Democrat MEP has been accused of certain malpractices.
According to former MEP for Itchen, Test and Avon, Edward Kellett-Brown, Christopher Huhne, the well-known advocate of further integration has been using his European Parliament expenses to fund the printing of an election leaflet in Eastleigh. This is, of course, against all the rules of the European Parliament (and goodness knows those are lax enough). My own guess is that there will be many more complaints of this kind in the weeks to come.
The Electoral Commission has also come out of its long-lasting stupor to contact one of the largest unions, the GMB, to ask it for some explanation of the thousands of pounds it has spent on advertisements in national newspapers that condemn Tory policies. There are strict electoral rules about spending by third parties.
While we are on the subject, has anyone else noticed the huge Unison posters that have been appearing on street corners with messages that also condemn Tory policies? One hopes the Electoral Commission has noticed them.
We may note in parenthesis that the unions clearly do not believe the polls. Otherwise, why would they suddenly rush into the electoral fray, desperately attacking the Opposition, when the Government is, allegedly, about to be returned with another huge majority?
It has been noted before that Tony Blair is not content to be known as the only Labour leader to have led the party to two, probably three victories but wants to go down in history as a statesman of some importance. At the moment it looks like he will be known as the Prime Minister who reintroduced widespread corruption and electoral fraud into this country, for the first time since the mid-nineteenth century.
Posted by
Helen
at
00:10
Printable Version
Print
Sunday, May 01, 2005
The International Federation of Journalists lives in a world of its own
Well, actually, it lives in Brussels, which has not exactly enabled it to protect one of its own, Hans-Martin Tillack. Presumably, having made all sorts of statements, it did not really want to fall out either with the Belgian government or the European Commission. The IFJ is, after all, down the road from the Commission, on the Rue de Loi.
On May 3 the IFJ is having a special conference. Apparently the day is World Press Freedom Day. World Press Freedom Day? Exactly how much of the world has a free press?
Africa? Russia? Central Asia? Venezuela? Various Middle Eastern countries? Does the IFJ know what happens to journalists who express the mildest criticism of the Palestinian Authority or of Hamas? Is there a free media in Syria or, for that matter, Belarus?
Apparently yes, because the theme of the conference and the report that it will launch will be: How the War on Terror Puts Pressure on Press Freedom. Right, so it is the wicked West that is at fault again and never mind the attacks on journalists in, say, Putin’s Russia.
The IFJ seems to have been living in a fool’s paradise for some time. How else can one explain the sub-theme of the conference: ‘…the war on terrorism amounts to a devastating challenge to the global culture of human rights and civil liberties established almost 60 years ago…’
Excuse me? Global culture of human rights and civil liberties that has existed for almost 60 years?
Those 60 years saw, among other developments, Stalin’s second purge, the Communist purges in Eastern Europe, the murder of many millions of Chinese under Mao’s regime (and if there is a culture of human rights and civil liberties in China, I must have missed it), the rule of Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam and of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, not to mentionKim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il in North Korea.
Those 60 years saw the devastation of one African state after another to the point where human rights and civil liberties are not words most of the unfortunate people of that Continent can even begin to understand.
Those 60 years saw the rule of the two Assads and of Saddam Hussein, not to mention other tyrants in the Middle East and the Gulf region.
Shall I go on? Well, yes, the last couple of years saw a rapid movement back into autocracy in Russia, temporarily, we hope, in Ukraine, more permanently in Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan and all the other stans.
It seems the murder of Gongadze in Ukraine and the near murder of Anna Politkovskaya in Russia (to pluck two cases at random – there are many more) are not a challenge, devastating or otherwise to human rights or civil liberties, as established nearly 60 years ago.
Only the war against terror is. I don’t know about anyone else but I cannot take the IFJ seriously until they at least manage to retrieve Herr Tillack’s notes and documents from the Belgian police as well as silence the OLAF officials who continue to slander him with impunity.
Posted by
Helen
at
21:59
Printable Version
Print
Beyond parody
It will not be the first time that we have called EU law "mad". Booker and I even wrote a book once, called "The Mad Officials". But now we have an EU law which is officially mad, namely the Market Abuse Directive (MAD), 2004/72/EC.
According to the business section of The Sunday Telegraph, it really is mad – and the reason is not hard to see.
Due to be implemented in the summer by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the regulations made under the directive will cost the City about £50m in legal and compliance costs – yet the regulator has concluded that the rules will bring no financial benefits whatsoever.
The directive sets out accepted market practices and rules for the definition of inside information in relation to derivatives on commodities, and requires the drawing up of lists of insiders, the notification of managers' transactions and the notification of suspicious transactions.
But a cost-benefit analysis of the policy by the FSA states that, although the regulations will cost the City tens of millions of pounds, they will bring zero benefits in return.
According to The Telegraph, an FSA consulation document reveals that the new rules will create one-off costs for intermediaries of £17m, and of between £21m and £34m for issuers of financial products. The total one-off costs are therefore between £38m and £51m. In addition, there will be annual costs of £260,000 for issuers of financial products and £104,000 of annual costs relating to new anti-money laundering measures.
Next to these sums, the document states that the new rules will bring: "No incremental change in benefits." An FSA spokeswoman said: "We already have a market abuse regime here in Britain."
However, the FSA has no choice but to introduce the EU rules, despite its cost-benefit analysis. "We will be implementing a directive," said the spokeswoman.
Interestingly, The Telegraph reports that the FSA's consultation document appears on its website (currently unavailable). The abbreviated reference to the Market Abuse Directive is "eu-mad". It really is beyond parody.
Posted by
Richard
at
17:45
Printable Version
Print
Sinking ships
According to the International Herald Tribune, one year after joining the EU, Latvia, Cyprus and Malta have been admitted to the "waiting room" for membership in the euro zone and will formally peg their currencies to the euro for a two-year trial period before they can issue euro notes and coins.
They follow Lithuania, Estonia and Slovenia, which entered the so-called ERM II exchange rate mechanism last June. Slovakia plans to follow next year.
Is this the only example in history of rats queuing to join a sinking ship?
Posted by
Richard
at
14:26
Printable Version
Print
In praise of referendums
The Business today reminds us of that which most of us know already, that of the forty-four million people entitled to vote, the election this week will be decided by a mere 800,000 voters.
This rather puts into perspective the comments of Chris Patten on BBC Radio's Any Questions on Friday, when he expressed his detestation of referendums and his preference for dealing with the constitution through the normal process of parliamentary elections.
Should the mandate for ratification be given via a general election – just supposing that the electorate made this the central issue – the effect of Patten's preference would be that our acceptance or otherwise of the EU constitution would be decided by a mere 800,000 people.
That may be acceptable (or not) for the choice of government, which at least can be reversed after five years, but for something as permanent as a fundamental change in the way we are governed, such a situation can hardly be satisfactory. For all their manifest problems, therefore, referendums have their place. Putting the EU constitution to a referendum is the right decision.
Posted by
Richard
at
13:42
Printable Version
Print
Booker
Buried almost completely by the publication of the Attorney General's advice about the Iraq War, last week Tony Blair attempted to launch his manifesto for business, boasting in a full-page advertisement in The Times that that Labour was now "the party of entrepreneurs".
This is taken as the starting point for Booker's first story in the column, in which he reports that scores of successful British firms, many world leaders in their market, fear that in five months time they will be forced out of business, thanks to the chaos which has followed the handing over of air safety regulation from the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to the new European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
The crisis, he writes, has arisen thanks to an EU regulation laying down new rules whereby all firms engaged in aviation construction must qualify for Design Organisation Approval (DOA): rules which many smaller firms explain are unworkable. But unless they can meet these requirements by September 28, they will have to cease trading.
Again at the centre of this crisis is a familiar figure, Per Lindstrand, about which Booker has written before. He is, of course, the Swedish balloonist, whose Shropshire firm until 2003 led the world market in aerostats, huge balloons tethered to a wire, featured at many of the world’s top tourist sites.
When the EASA took over in 2003, Dr Lindstrand was forbidden to sell his products anywhere in the EU, thanks to a bureaucratic anomaly relating to the certification of the winch which hauls his balloons up and down. This gave his French rival a monopoly of the market, although its own winch has a dubious safety record.
Dr Lindstrand's case was taken up by his MP, Owen Paterson. But for 18 months he was put through a Kafka-esque obstacle course by CAA who, despite charging him £48,000, failed to resolve the problem, costing him millions of pounds in lost orders.
Last month Booker was able to report that, following a meeting with EASA, it seemed Lindstrand’s problem had been miraculously resolved. Dr Norbert Lohl, EASA’s certification director, signed the airworthiness certificate for his aerostats, including the winch, and he could now re-enter the market. But no sooner had he been let off the hook than the CAA came up with a new problem. Under the new rules, he had to get DOA approval for the makers of the winch and the software which controls it.
In other words, it was now necessary to show that the two firms responsible for the winch were competent to build a safe product, even though they had already demonstrated this, by contributing to a product itself certified as safe. The problem is there is no way a company which makes huge, 14-ton general purpose winches can qualify as a specialist aviation design company, as the rules require. The same applies to the computer firm which designed the software.
It emerges that the new rules have placed as many as 85 specialist UK firms in a similar predicament. Peter Smith, whose Berkshire firm designs entertainment systems for many of the world’s most expensive private jets, can see no way to comply with rules which require all the companies he deals with to obtain DOA approval, many of which are not prepared to submit to all the costs and bureaucratic hassle involved.
Mr Smith, who is in contact with many firms in the same boat, at least praises the CAA for trying to resolve a problem he sees as created by the EASA. Padraic Kelleher, the head of design standards at the CAA, last week admitted the new rules had created problems, but explained that the CAA is working overtime to solve them, and is confident that by September 28 most firms will have found a way to comply.
But most cannot see how this can be done. Mr Paterson, if he is re-elected, plans to raise this directly with Dr Lohl of EASA, who said in March that all UK companies having problems with their design status should apply directly to him for authorisation under the new regulations.
But unless this crisis is fast resolved, it seems scores of British firms will soon be driven out of business, by a classic example of "EU red tape lunacy". Labour's claim to be "the party of entrepreneurs" will look even more self-deceiving than it does already.
See also Tim Worstall who offers his view on the bureaucracy.
For Booker's second story, he returns to the controversy, dealt with in last week’s column, which arose over the failure of Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, to declare as an interest the fact that last summer he enjoyed the hospitality of Spiro Latsis, the billionaire head of a group of companies in Greece.
Defending Mr Barroso's decision that his holiday with Mr Latsis did not require a declaration of interest, a Commission spokesman said that, as far as she knew, the Latsis group had not benefited from any EU funding and had no business ties with the EU.
However, under heavy pressure from the Latsis lawyers, of which we warned in this Blog, Booker is obliged to "correct" references in the column to the ongoing controversy surrounding the contract awarded to a German company, Hochtief, for the construction and management of Athens International Airport, substantially funded with EU money.
He thus writes that:
In case a complex article should have given rise to any misunderstanding, I would like to make clear that in no way was it intended to suggest any connection between the Latsis group and the controversy surrounding the airport. Mr Latsis’s companies have never have had any connection with the main airport contract.Interestingly, it seems that one thing the Latsis lawyers were particularly anxious to deal with was the mention that a Latsis company is currently bidding, with Hochtief, for a huge, lucrative motorway project in Greece, financed with generous portions of EU structural funds.
Through Hellenic Petroleum, in which Latsis has a shareholding, they have an interest in the part-EU funded airport pipeline, but this was constructed under an entirely separate contract and before Latsis bought their share in Hellenic. I also overstated the Latsis group's interest in the ground-handling management of the airport, since the company in which it holds a 50 percent share is one of three holding ground-handling contracts. Latsis has no connection whatever with the airport's overall management.
The Latsis group's only direct involvement with Hochtief is that its development arm Lamda Developments is part of a five-company consortium, including Hochtief and other substantial companies, preparing to bid for an EU-funded motorway and road project in Greece. The Latsis Group's only business link to date with the EU was the contract, awarded after competitive tender, to EFG Eurobank Ergasias to handle all EU structural funds coming to Greece between 1999 to 2004.
There is not the slightest suggestion that the Latsis group's connections with the EU have been anything but above board. Mr Barroso should thus have been readier to explain his holiday last year with Mr Latsis, who is an old friend of 30 years standing.
In the interest of accuracy and clarification I am very happy to make these points. The Commission's refusal to answer questions about the Athens airport contract is an entirely separate issue, and one to which Mr Barroso might usefully address his attention.
You may draw your own conclusions from this as to whether Barroso thus had any reason to declare a possible conflict of interest when he indulged in his freebie holiday as a guest of Dr Latsis on his luxury yacht.
For Booker's final story, takes a line rehearsed on this Blog, that "so remote from the concerns of this election campaign have been the issues I regularly cover in this column that I have viewed it with some detachment."
During the past two elections he was "delighted to take part in many serious election meetings, of the kind which has generally vanished from British politics, often speaking to audiences of several hundred (even, at one Referendum Party rally, 10,000)." This time he had agreed to address only one meeting, for a friend who is a Tory front-bench spokesman. But after Flight's de-selection, we agreed my presence was a risk not worth taking with the leadership, and it was cancelled.
I am fortunate, writes Booker, to be in that small minority of voters who can vote personally for a candidate rather than a party: in my case David Heathcoat-Amory, Tory candidate for Wells, who, as a delegate to the convention drafting the "Constitution for Europe", has become a powerful champion of our democracy in the battle I see as overriding all others. Equally fortunate is anyone who can vote for one of the few MPs and candidates who have shown conviction and courage in thinking for themselves, such as Labour's Ann Clwyd and Kate Hoey, or those Tories who have defied party managers by putting "Europe" high on their agenda.
He concludes: "As one of the 2.6 million who last summer voted for the UK Independence Party, I would still vote selectively for some of their candidates this time: not least, in Falmouth and Camborne, the bearded fisherman Mick Mahon who, 16 years ago in a letter to The Times, first alerted me to the scandal of the Common Fisheries Policy. Considering how long I have since had to spend reporting on that disaster, Mick has a lot to answer for."
Posted by
Richard
at
00:01
Printable Version
Print









