They are beginning to notice

The Daily Telegraph has finally decided to send a reporter to Basra to see what is happening in the area of Iraq under British control. (Well, nominally, at least.) And guess what Adrian Blomfield found?

“But only in the past year has Basra established a reputation as one of Iraq's most radicalised cities, where the most extreme strictures of Islam are enforced by bearded men with automatic weapons.”

How very odd. I believe, this blog has written about this several times, most recently here. Then and before we suggested that the British media would do well to start paying attention to what is going on in Basra instead of bleating about the imminent but never quite realized civil war in Iraq.

We have mentioned Steven Vincent’s murder after he had published an article in which he had pointed out that the British authorities were singularly uninterested in developments under their very noses and, indeed, the murder of his colleague, Fakher Haider.

Well, better late than never, I suppose, but Mr Blomfield is a little surprised to find that

“Britain's previously praised "softly, softly" approach is being unravelled by a group that exerts authority at all levels of society. Terror is inflicted on Basra's civilians by up to 10,000 militiamen who owe their allegiance to Jameat commanders and are often issued with police uniforms but are essentially outside the force.”

Who on earth praised it? Not people who were trying to analyze the situation; not journalists who actually went there; not those few locals who dared to speak up.

Belatedly, we are told that

“Many blame the British for allowing Jameat to flourish and then not doing anything to stop its excesses.

"They haven't stopped Iranian infiltration," said a US commander. "Militia proliferation has been allowed to go unchecked.

"The Brits have done some great work but they've also misread the situation,which is kind of inexcusable." British officials say that in the post-invasion chaos it was impossible to check recruits. "We have raised our concerns [about Jameat] repeatedly and haven't had the response we require," said one diplomat.”

Well, blow me down. Perhaps, this will encourage our super-duper journalists to read some blogs. Just a thought.

COMMENT THREAD

Cornerstone

A collection of essays has been published by a group of Conservative MPs which calls itself the Cornerstone Group. It is, says the website designed to make a case for a proud, authentic Conservatism that can revive Tory Britain.

In fact, the essays constitute both a manifesto and a challenge to the MPs currently putting themselves up for the Tory Party leadership. Upon how they react will the Group decide their support and it is hoped that other Conservatives MPs will follow the lead.

It includes a requirement for a renegotiation of Britain's membership of the European Union, radical reform of health and education. and taking millions of low paid workers and pensioners out of tax, plus much, much more. The essays can be downloaded here and the ones particularly to look for are those written by Owen Paterson (pictured above) on pages 36-52. Owen's own press release, with the essays, can be seen here.

If support for the manifesto not forthcoming, the Group may consider putting up their own candidate.

COMMENT THREAD

She is finally engaging in the fight

It seems that the Fragrant Commissar has finally decided to engage in the fight directly. She is taking on the eurosceptics in her own condescending fluffy-bunny manner. (I think I had a teacher like her once, many years ago, and she had a terrible time with us.)

The person she is focusing on is John Archer (whom we know on our forum as well). First she lectures him on democracy, kindly explaining that the modern version is different from the ancient one. Well, yes, it is, but that is hardly relevant to the discussion of what modern democracy is about.

In a very understanding manner she says:

“Ok, let‘s talk about democracy: are you saying that democracy can only exist at nation state level? That a “demos“ can only be defined within national borders? To me this is outdated.”

Outdated or not, the European demos is not appearing, and the Fragrant Commissar remains an unelected, unaccountable legislator. Nation states are not necessarily democracies but so far no transnational organization has shown the slightest capability of being even remotely democratic. Furthermore, they tend to despise or loathe democratic structures.

And how about this? The Fragrant Commissar explains her views of what scepticism should be about:

“I am sceptical/negative towards bureaucracy and elitism and pompous people but I can also acknowledge the positive historical role – and I see a future role – of this European construction of cooperation.”

Stop sniggering at the back. The teacher is speaking.

Can one be sceptical towards oneself? Why not? But can the lady ever tell the truth? I think not. For we can all see a future role for European co-operation (and, indeed, a past role) but what she is part of is a future single state. That does not seem to have a positive aspect to it for those of us who believe in freedom and democracy rather than a huge centralized bureaucratic behemoth.

If Margot really believes what she says, she is stupider than anyone has really thought:

“I think that nationalism is a very dangerous phenomenon and offers no solutions to today‘s problems that travel across borders. In a globalised world States can no longer always act alone to solve problems. This is a challenge for democracy. The problem is not the integrated global economy; the problem is the lack of integrated global governance. Our institutions and political systems are still mainly national and not adapted to tackle the new circumstances. Global economic forces are a tremendous powerhouse of energy but it is up to global democratic politics to harness that energy and channel those market forces. Some of you think the EU should be just a free trade area. I disagree.I could say a lot more but I will leave it for another day.”

There is no particular reason why nationalism should be dangerous. It might be or it might not be. The two most dangerous ideologies of the twentieth century, Nazism and, especially, Communism were transnational and millions of people died as a result of them being implemented (thankfully unsuccessfully).

Surely, even someone as ignorant as the average Commissar should know that.

As for nation states not being able to cope with a global economy – well, I don’t know. There seems to be rather a lot of them who can do it very well. I am not talking just about the United States or India or Australia but smaller ones like Switzerland, Japan (which is climbing out of its recession), Singapore and various others.

And finally, global democratic politics? Just precisely how is that going to be set up, given that even democracies do not agree on exact definitions and most of the world is not run by democratic governments? How are we going to have a global accountability? As we do in the corrupt and unaccountable UN?

I assume the Fragrant Commissar considers herself to be a democratic politician. How very rum.

COMMENT THREAD

Counting their own teeth

Just for once, The Daily Telegraph leader hits the spot - sort of - as does the Garland cartoon – despite him being one of our least favourite cartoonists.

The leader takes to task Mr Blair and the "defensiveness" of his apology to Walter Wolfgang, the elderly Labour activist who had the temerity to voice what most delegates kept to themselves in Brighton this week about the Iraq war.

But the real scandal of the Wolfgang affair, says The Telegraph, was not that he was frog-marched from the conference floor, but that when he tried to get back in, he was detained briefly by the police under anti-terrorism legislation. "Surely there could be no more vivid illustration of how Labour has wrecked the historic balance between freedom and security than in an 82-year-old Jewish refugee from Germany being detained under terrorism legislation for no graver offence than having noisily accused a politician of lying," says the paper.

Actually, it illustrates just as clearly how the now contemptible Mr Plod has lost the plot, but we shall let that pass.

The substantive point, from the perspective of this Blog is the Telegraph assertion that Blair ties himself up in knots “because he does not understand the simple notion of a liberal society, based on principles of the rule of law and of limited government.”

“He must always tinker and control because - as a life-long politician with scant experience outside of that bubble - he cannot understand the simple human desire to be left alone.”

"Other politicians," the paper concludes, "should learn from this. If the Conservatives fail in Blackpool next week to take on the baton from Mr Wolfgang and hold the Government to account, they will no longer be worthy of being regarded as an Opposition."

Looking at the effluvia emanating from one of the leadership candidates – the youthful Etonian Mr Cameron – one can only admire the skill with which his campaign team managed to put together a "manifesto"” so utterly devoid of content. It is so much a parody of itself that it is beyond parody, even on this Blog.

"We need bold, confident and consistent leadership – leadership that recognises we must change to win,” proclaims the Cameron. And on Europe? "Now is the time to fight for an open and flexible Europe…".

Therein lies much of the problem, so amply illustrated by the Garland cartoon. For want of words which can properly describe just how utterly useless these people are, one can only suggest that they are so far up their own backsides that they only thing they're any good for is counting their own teeth.

COMMENT THREAD

Net wars

Give them a bone and they'll fight over it. This one is the internet, according to International Herald Tribune, with the EU bouncing the United States during negotiations in Geneva on how the system should be run.

Described as one of their sharpest public disagreements in months, this came after EU negotiators proposed stripping the Americans of what is claimed to be their effective control of the Internet.

Predictably, the EU is backing the rest of the world in wanting the creation of a new international body to govern the Internet – yet another bunch of tranzies – a demand that caught the Americans off balance and, according to the IHT, "left them largely isolated at talks designed to come up with a new way of regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century."

But for all that, the internet is not exactly controlled by the US government but by a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, a nonprofit organisation based in Marina del Rey, California, under the supervision of the US Department of commerce.

David Gross, the State Department official in charge of America's international communications policy, immediately cried “foul”. "The EU's proposal seems to represent an historic shift in the regulatory approach to the Internet from one that is based on private sector leadership to a government, top-down control of the Internet," he said.

Delegates have been meeting in Geneva for the past two weeks at the so-called World Summit on the Information Society, organised by the UN. They were scheduled to conclude in November at a meeting in Tunisia but, with the EU's latest demand, they are now deadlocked.

Needless to say, there is a strong political element here, with the EU and developing nations saying they wanted to send a signal to America that it could not run things alone. The Brazilian delegation to the talks stated, "On Internet governance, three words tend to come to mind: lack of legitimacy. In our digital world, only one nation decides for all of us," while Iran wants a UN body to govern the Internet.

Gross has responded@ "No intergovernmental body should control the Internet... whether it's the UN or any other." US officials argue that a system like the one proposed by the EU would lead to unwanted bureaucratisation, claiming that fears of US government influence on the Internet were overstated.

Further talks will now be needed before the Tunisia meeting on 16-18 November but, in the meantime, no doubt, the delegates will be exchanging views… by e-mail.

COMMENT THREAD

We are not the only ones

Some people accuse us on this blog of being unduly gloomy in our analysis of developments in this country and, often, the West. There are blue skies over there, they cry, pointing to stormy clouds. Well, behind those clouds, they say. And so there are. Probably. Right now, there are more stormy clouds than blue skies.

We are not alone in thinking this. An excellent piece by Melanie Phillips, who, as our readers will recall, was the only British journalist to challenge Verheugen at a get-together in Sanssouci, as described by her colleague, John Lloyd, was published in the Daily Mail and on her website.

Its title, The Death of Politics, tells you all or most of what you need to know. She opens by something we, too, have noted. The conference season is a great big yawn nowadays. Who really cares what those people say in the various sea-side hotels? Not even the political correspondents can work up any energy.

“Far from a quickening of its pulse, political life appears to be rapidly passing into a coma. Rather than a great clash of principles, it has degenerated into an unprincipled, unfocused and incoherent rearrangement of the stage scenery by politicians who appear to have not the slightest clue what script they are supposed to be articulating.”

Indeed.

She then goes through the three main parties and their performance. The Lib-Dims she describes rather wittily as a “shambles led by a donkey”, a much more appropriate phrase than the original one about the First World War officers.

“Yet so great is the malaise in our political life that they are talked about in all seriousness as a more potent challenge to the government than the Tories,the party which is still performing its long-running impersonation of a slow train crash.”

Phillips is deeply uninspired by the leadership contest, scornfully dismissing Ken Clarke as well as his opponents, because, as, she rightly points out, “none of them seems to be motivated by anything deeper than the desire to gain power for its own sake”.

“So while they are busy making speeches tacking to right or left as appropriate -- or both simultaneously -- or calculating on the back of an envelope whether David or Ken will scoop up David’s or Liam’s or Malcolm’s votes when they drop out, they are letting the Government get away with one policy disaster after another with at best only a pallid protest.”

Well, indeed, the Opposition does seem to have gone AWOL. One of the great dangers of that is to the government of the day, who become completely oblivious to reality. This happened to some extent to the Conservatives in the eighties. It is certainly happening to Labour now.

As Melanie Phillips says:

“As for Labour, although it remains the only show in town because of the weakness of the Opposition, it is itself still riven by the poisonous feud between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the tension between New and Old Labour. Tony Blair remains an utterly devalued Prime Minister, isolated within his own party and unable to get his way however many czars and advisers and delivery units he establishes.”

What has brought about this parlous state of affairs? Phillips gives an interesting explanation, which, naturally, we do not disagree with as it is not that far off our own:

“One important reason is that all three parties are stuck in the politics of the past while the world has utterly changed around them. They have all lost their identities in a universe where old certainties have been torn up and divisions that once defined the political landscape no longer exist.

Instead of parties opposing each other, they are now deeply divided within themselves. Over taxes or public spending, whether the public services should be run by the state or the market, or moral issues such as family life,gay rights or drug legalisation, it is hard to say what any of these parties believes because they are so divided. Indeed, if you shut your eyes you cannot tell a Tory social liberal or Europhile from a Blairite believer or a LibDem.

This is because three parties are still structurally organised around issues that are no longer the ones that divide people -- while the issues that do divide people very profoundly cross all party lines.”

“What we are suffering from is a dearth of political leadership. There is no-one with a deeply held vision and the charisma to put it across that can galvanise the country. That is because the best and brightest no longer go into politics;and that is because this is no longer where the power is. Influence now lies elsewhere -- because politicians have made the big issues off limits and because power has drained away to bodies such as the EU.”

Phillips does not say so, but it is hard to avoid a conclusion that a complete realignment is needed. Of course, people at the top now do not see it that way, as a realignment would cause them some difficulties. It may happen, however, whether they like it or not.

COMMENT THREAD

Nice one

Courtesy of The Independent, we learn that the EU flag fluttering outside the European Parliament building in Westminster was yesterday declared illegal.

For this development, says the paper, we must thank the UK Independence Party. They made a formal complaint to Westminster Council after discovering that planning permission has not been granted for it.

Under UK law, all flags - apart from national ones - must be OK'd by local authorities before being fixed to buildings, since they are officially classified as advertising material. The EU flag is not a national flag.

"The general public should be protected from this sort of false advertising promoting worthless tat," reckons UKIP's bullish MEP Nigel Farage. "This is the most important victory for consumer power in decades."

Not quite, but certainly a small but important gesture.

COMMENT THREAD

A white elephant in the making

I have been following the adventures of Council Tax refusnik Sylvia Hardy with more than usual interest, having been banged up myself for the heinous crime of withholding a small amount of money from the Police precept, after PC plod has so singularly failed to protect our neighbourhood from a rash of burglaries.

It really does seem to say it all, when the establishment will go to any length to protect its income-stream, even to the extent of locking up pensioners, when many a criminal wanders abroad without the slightest fear of having his collar felt.

But there are two aspects to this issue – the first, about which Sylvia Hardy has been voluble, is the fact that our taxes seem to increase exponentially, without any regard for peoples' ability to pay. The second, though, is about the sheer waste of money, the awareness that so much of our hard-earned money is squandered.

It is in that context that I return to the theme of defence spending, using this to illustrate just how much money is pouring down the drain on a scale that simply beggars the imagination.

This is perhaps why the scandal is so little reported, as the sheer amount of money involved is too huge to conceive. If, after all, it takes 11 days and nights to count to a million, it takes 30 years to count a billion and, in the latest mad project from the MoD, it is proposing to spend £14 billion… an amount of money in pound coins that would take an individual 420 years to count.

I am, of course, talking about the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), the largest single defence procurement project for the Army ever planned. This has grown over three years from its original estimate of £6 billion to the current £14 billion, all to equip the Army with three Brigades of medium-weight armoured vehicles, linked by a sophisticated computer and communications network to form a networked whole – all to service that equally mad EU project the European Rapid Reaction Force.

What brings it to the fore is a report this week from DefenseNews which indicates that the United States, which pioneered the so-called "net-centric" concept on which FRES is based, and was planning to spend $123 billion on its own version called the Future Combat System (FCS) is now having second thoughts about the whole idea.

Regular readers of this Blog will know that the central idea was to replace the heavy tanks and armoured fighting vehicles of conventional forces with lightweight, air-portable vehicles, which could be transported rapidly anywhere in the world to deal with brushfire wars and other crises.

To make up for the lack of protection afforded by heavy armour, the idea was to use sophisticated technology to deal with weapons, plus saturating the area of operation with high-tech sensors, all linked with each other and with field vehicles. That latter idea is supposed to give the fighting forces the capability to detect enemies before they come in range, and to take out their "assets" with long-range and stand-off weapons, before they can pose a threat.

But, last week, at a demonstration of some of the new FSC hardware at the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground, Army Secretary Francis Harvey told reporters that the Army simply does not have the technology available to allow light vehicles to survive "future anti-armor threats".

This actually confirms what we have been seeing for some time. Instead of getting rid of its heavy Abrams tanks and its Bradley armoured fighting vehicles, the Army has committed to upgrading them, while it is increasingly buying a wide range of heavily armoured vehicles to deal with the threats it is experiencing in Iraq. On top of this, it is investing in more specialist military landing ships, which can transport heavy armour to any port on the globe within three weeks.

What this tells us is that, in the age of suicide bombers, the terrorist with the hand-held RPG7 anti-tank weapon and the increasingly sophisticated mines and roadside bombs, the whole concept of lightweight rapid reaction forces is technically flawed – and that is even without taking into account political considerations.

Yet, such is the political inertia of the European decision-making process – combined with out own – and the criminal lack of scrutiny of this issue by either the Conservative opposition or the media – that the British government remains committed to spending £14 billion on a system that may well prove to be a white elephant.

To put that in perspective, that is equivalent to taking a thousand pounds from twice the population of London – every man, woman and child, or from some 14 million Sylvia Hardys.

COMMENT THREAD

Foxing the opposition

Conservative leadership challenger Liam Fox is to take on the high ground of Euroscepticism, according to The Daily Telegraph, and pull the Tory MEP group out of the strongly integrationalist European People's Party (EPP) in the EU parliament.

This is something Iain Duncan-Smith tried to do during his brief tenure as party leader and is something none of the other leadership candidates have been prepared to consider. David Davis, for instance – who rests on his undeserved reputation as a Eurosceptic – has said that membership of the EPP is a decision for the MEPs, while Clarke, who is still a vice president of the European Movement, could hardly be expected to make a stand on this issue.

In a speech today, Fox will argue today that the EPP's most recent manifesto commits it to press for the realisation of a "united states of Europe", with a European army and police force and tax raising powers for the European Parliament. It believes in powerful trade unions, redistributive taxation and a high minimum wage," he is scheduled to say.

The Telegraph, in its lead editorial, thinks this is a good move, a remedy that "could restore Tory health".

Rightly, it says that "the seating plan in the European Parliament does not set many pulses racing," but it observes that Tory membership of the EPP quite justifies the charge that they say one thing in Britain and do another in Brussels. It was this perception of dissembling that, in part, contributed to the best-ever UKIP vote and the worst-ever Tory vote in the 2005 election, it argues. Thus, concludes the paper, if the party adopted the policy set out by Dr Fox it would be taking a major step towards restoring its integrity - and recovering its electability.

The Telegraph could, of course, be right – especially if – as is eminently possible – the next general election falls on the same day as the Euro-elections. But Fox is probably carrying too much baggage to make a serious dent in the lead of the two main candidates, Davis and Clarke, although if his input does put the EU on the agenda, he will have done the Party a service.

COMMENT THREAD

A dreadful malaise

Quentin Peel in the Financial Times today laments the failure of the British EU presidency and then expands his cri de coeur to address the more general malaise of the EU. The trouble is, he writes, that there is a failure to debate the issues of Europe at a national level. He adds:

On that score the British are as bad as any. National parliaments are divorced from EU decision-making. This was a vital issue the constitution sought to address. It also tried to make the Brussels institutions more open and transparent. Now it is said these questions should be dead and buried. That is absurd. Democratic legitimacy and economic reform are inextricably linked. You cannot have progress on one without the other.

But there is more to it than that. Inherently, like it or not, the subjects dealt with by the EU are not those that engage the "man in the street". Even those which hold a glimmer of interest to the handful of people who have wider interest, the repetitive "drag" of the same issues, coming up again and again, do create some difficulties.

Looking at my evening Google Alert on the EU, for instance, the first item up is a piece about how the EU "can do more to block an Iranian bomb". Yawn… been there done that one, and the story is going nowhere for the moment.

Then we have the latest spat over the Turkish accession talks, the number two story covering the European Parliament decision to demand that Turkey acknowledges its Armenian "genocide" ninety years ago. Sorry, there are not going to be many people interested in that – it was ninety years ago, for goodness sake. And as for the Turkish accession… well, it ain't going to happen.

Maybe I can elicit a flicker of interest in the fact that Schröder is refusing to give up the chancellorship just yet, and has told Britain that he will represent Germany at the EU summit next month. Er… so what?

Well perhaps I could interest you in the reaction of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka to the decision by the EU to impose sanctions on what it regards as a terrorist organisation? I suppose it is something one ought to be interested in, but…

Ah, how about the FT story on… "The failure by many member states to tackle their budget deficits is not just a sign that the EU's half-hearted structural reforms have failed to boost growth". Er… no. EU member state deficits? Now tell me something new.

Here's something, the Basle II regime has been ageed by the European Parliament… or the Parliament agreeing to minimum rules on compensation for railway delays? Yea, yea… I know, this will do it: EU energy chief – by the unlikely name of Andris Piebalgs – is going to warn on oil prices. Whoopee do…

So there’s your problem, Mr Peel. Frankly, the EU is just, er… well… boring. Now, did you know that Ruth Kelly is going to ban vending machines selling chocolate, crisps and fizzy drinks, under moves to outlaw junk food in schools… there's a real story for you.

COMMENT THREAD

French commandos go in

This time it is not some former French colony that is being favoured by the French commandos but a ship off Corsica that had been “hi-jacked” by the local unions.

Trouble started on Monday when news went round Marseille that the National Corsica Mediterranean Company, owner of Pascal Paoli, was going to be privatized. Up with this the Corsican unions would not put and they went on strike and, as befits French or Corsican strikers started rioting.

That was sorted out with the help of tear-gas and truncheons but about thirty masked but unarmed strikers seized the Pascal Paoli and took it off to the Corsican port of Bastia. This morning fifty commandos, in their regulation black outfits, abseiled from helicopters and took the ship over in 10 minutes, taking it back to Marseille.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy professed himself to be pleased by the speed and efficiency of the operation.

Would it have happened so smoothly with Euro-commandos? (above)

COMMENT THREAD

A bonfire of frogs' legs

So big was the package which arrived today that the postman could not get it through the letter-box. This was the consultation on the new Draft Food Hygiene (England) (No 2) Regulations 2005, bringing UK law into line with the latest EU regulations, including – you will all be pleased to know – "Creating an offence for failure to comply with certain aspects of Commission legislation on Trichinella in meat" - a condition not found in the UK in living memory.

Readers will also be delighted to learn that the Commission has also provided a "Model Health Certificate for Imports of Chilled Frozen or Prepared Frogs' Legs Intended for Human Consumption", the statutory form demanding to know, amongst other things, the "animal species" from which said frogs' legs were obtained. Presumably, this is to comply with the "Frogs' Legs from Species other than Frogs Regulations", buried somewhere in the deepest recesses of the Commission.

So much for Barroso’s latest weeze , his proposal unveiled yesterday with great fanfare to "withdraw one third of screened proposals". This, for the uninitiated, is Eurospeak for "deregulation" which, of course, does not actually involve getting rid of any regulations but simply means not proceeding with 68 draft laws of 183 in the pipeline.

Sadly, this does not include the "frogs' legs regulations" which are already passed, but Presidente Barroso still feels that: "This initiative shows that the Commission is firmly committed to producing better legislation… We have looked at everything on the table," he says, "and cleared away what we don't need and what the Council and Parliament were never going to agree to."

However, vice-president Günter Verheugen wants to go further. "This is just the beginning. We want to tackle red-tape and over-regulation on all fronts," he adds. "EU regulation makes sense where it adds value – but where it doesn't, we'll scrap it."

That was enough for The Independent to headline this morning that: "EU announces a 'bonfire of the red tape'", not revealing whether the bonfire actually contravenes the EU's own emission controls and whether financial provision has been made for the carbon credits needed under the emission trading scheme.

The Telegraph, however, wants "Bigger bonfires, please", and hang the cost, noting that the EU's mighty legal edifice, known fondly to all as the acquis communautaire, will be a harder nut to crack. Each law, it says, has to be unpicked one at a time. On some, a single country out of 25 can veto repeal. On others, the EU can be held to ransom by a blocking minority of states and there always seems to be one of those in Brussels whenever vested interests are at stake.

Mr Barroso's grand ambition, it adds, "is to slash and burn the acquis down to 50,000 pages." "Don't hold your breath," it tells us. And get that form filled in.

COMMENT THREAD

Wait a minute, she has said this before

There is a definite feeling of déjà vue around the fragrant Commissar’s most recent, nauseatingly coy and self-righteous posting. The picture of all the Commissars standing together has been on the blog before as has the following:

“My contribution was the ideas for “Plan D – for dialogue, debate and democracy” where I presented a list of actions for better listening to citizens, better explaining what we do and how to act locally. Member states have to take the main responsibility for organising it but we can hopefully push and pull those not yet ready… This is not a rescue operation for the Constitution but something that will go far beyond the life time of this Commission. Democracy takes time and to build a new democratic infrastructure in Europe will be a tremendous challenge.”

I distinctly remember replying to that tosh about democracy taking a long time by pointing out to the fragrant one that many of the member states (including her own) already have democracy and do not need unelected, unaccountable officials to teach them.

As for dialogue and listening, we have definitely discussed it before. And the question one keeps asking as part of the dialogue: which bit of no don’t you understand. Answer comes there none. The words “day” and “groundhog” spring to mind.

We do, however, catch a glimpse of the fragrant Commissar for Disinformation at work:

“Had a breakfast meeting with representatives from the so-called Roundtable of Industrialists. I made them angry by saying that they could do more for sustainable development and more to promote corporate social responsibility. (Maybe I should stop accepting breakfast meetings – it is not my best time of the day…) They said it was already taken care of…”

Yes, I imagine they were quite angry. These are busy people after all, leading the sort of organizations that might, if left to themselves, actually drag Europe out of the economic swamp it has been dumped into. Why should they waste time listening to fluffy-bunny Commissars producing trite nonsense?

I particularly liked the start of the posting about her losing the parameters on her mobile phone and the wonderfully puerile comparison she draws between that and the Commissars losing their parameters, what with the no votes on the constitution, the stalled budget and so on.

Where, one wonders, will they be able to find those parameters again? Then it occurred to us on this blog that she is clearly talking about a section of the new European security force. As there are not enough soldiers, meters will have to be drafted.

The 32nd Battalion of the Parameters will, like all other Paras, wear red berets and will go in immediately after the Marinemeters, to sort out difficulties caused by stalled budgets. Once the immediate problems have been sorted, the Engineermeters and Sappermeters will follow to construct the necessary infrastructure.

I offer the fragrant Commissar this solution free of charge, gratis and for nothing.

COMMENT THREAD

Running on empty

The papers are full of it today, the Blair speech – all 5,427words of it. The Daily Telegraph was even kind enough to publish the whole transcript on its website, for those brave enough to read it – and for those who could not bear to watch the delivery.

But, whatever the reviews, good or otherwise, no one seems to be remarking that standing before the conference was not only the prime minister and leader of the Labour Party but also – and for a few months yet – the holder of the EU presidency.

Yet, eight years on from when Blair was going to put us at the "heart of Europe", this time the dog did not bark. Noticeably absent was any high-flown European rhetoric, the best he had to offer was this passage:

Nations, even the largest, need to work together for their common good. Isolationism is as backward as protectionism. For a country the size of Britain, there is no securing our future without strong alliances. When I became Prime Minister I took a decision: always be at the forefront where decisions are made not at the back where they're handed down.

That is why at every point, no matter how difficult we remain strong partners in Europe. By all means let us fight for reform in Europe; but to isolate ourselves from the world's largest commercial market in which over 50 per cent of our trade is done, is just a crazy policy for Britain in the 21st century.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the EU. More like it is a grudging acceptance of the status quo, a surly recognition that we’re in the damn thing, so we might as well make the best of it. No Europhile could have walked away from that conference and proclaimed that here was a committed European. Nor would they have liked the bit that followed:

Britain should also remain the strongest ally of the United States. I know there's a bit of us that would like me to do a Hugh Grant in Love, Actually and tell America where to get off. But the difference between a good film and real life is that in real life there's the next day, the next year, the next lifetime to contemplate the ruinous consequences of easy applause.

I never doubted after September 11th that our place was alongside America and I don't doubt it now. And for a very simple reason. Terrorism struck most dramatically in New York but it was aimed then, and is aimed now, at us all, at our way of life. This is a global struggle.

So, the Blair policy is still one foot in the European camp and the other foot in American, still the stale old Foreign Office paradigm that does not seem to recognise the shift in global alliances, the emergence of the Anglosphere, the growing power of Australia, India and the rest.

He talks of his "campaign for justice in Africa", the "push for peace in Palestine", acting against global warming and fighting behind the standard of democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq (tucked in with the rest), Kosovo and Sierra Leone. These, says Blair, are each a "progressive cause". Britain in these last eight years has been at the front, he says, not always succeeding, but never a spectator.

With this it comes clear. He is rooted in the past, in the last eight years of his premiership. He has no "vision", nothing for the future, no initiatives. This is a man who has run out of ideas.

Given a strong opposition, this would become increasingly evident, and all too soon it would apparent to the nation that Blair was running on empty. But there is no opposition. The final legacy of Howard has been to condemn the Conservative Party to five months of navel-gazing, and now that the famous leadership contest "reform" has failed, there are at least three more to follow, with then the final, undignified contest (caught here - above).

But then, so far, the candidates have not offered anything exciting. They lack vision, lack initiatives and have nothing for the future. They too are running on empty. As a nation, ill-served by our politicians, we are in a bad way.

COMMENT THREAD

God save the royal person

A happy little story in The Times today comes from Austria, where the minister for women's affairs has demanded wholesale changes to her country's national anthem to purge it of sexist references.

Mentions of the "fatherland", "great sons" and "brotherly choruses" should be replaced by gender-neutral terms such as "homeland" and "joyful chorus", says Maria Rauch-Kallat. And, it is a sign of the times that her quest is considered to stand a fair chance of success.

Whatever, Frau (or is it Mz) Rauch-Kallat, of the centre-right People's Party, has declared the anthem "discriminatory". "The federal hymn should be part of every Austrian's identity... Women's politics are also the politics of language and of shaping consciousness," she says.

If she gets her way, says The Times, national anthems across Europe could be in for a shake-up, because all too often they celebrate male heroism hand in hand with national identity.

The Italian anthem opens: "Brothers of Italy...". The French Marseillaise, the most blood-soaked of national anthems, begins: "Children of the fatherland..." and complains about soldiers who "come to slaughter our children, our wives".

Germany's Deutschland über Alles is unthinkable without the fatherland, and in its second verse makes women seem like a quaint tourist attraction: "German women, German loyalty, German wine and German song/ Shall retain in the world/ Their lovely old ring."

Perhaps the least sexist of all national anthems is Britain's God Save the Queen, ventures the newspaper. Since 1745 it has swapped King for Queen, depending on the monarch of the day. But that is to reckon without the little-used fourth verse, which offers the sentiment: "That men should brothers be/ And form one family/ The wide world ov'er." And then there is that bit, "Rebellious Scots to crush" in the sixth.

But then, surely the term "Queen" is sexist? In a degenderised land of "chairs", "firefighters" and "police officers", it is high time that the distinction between king and queen was abolished. Clearly, "royal person" would be more appropriate.

And, by the way, Austria apparently has the only national anthem in Europe written by a woman. Sung to the tune of a 1791 Mozart cantata, was written by the late Paula von Preradovic in 1947, two years after the modern Austrian state was formed.

One trusts that the next, degenderised version is written by a multi-gender, multi-ethnic team, with full representation from cultural minorities, the disabled and the gay and lesbian communities. Perhaps this time, instead of Mozart, it might be based on a tune by Beethoven? The title "Ode to joy" springs to mind.

COMMENT THREAD

Lies, damn lies and…

No, we are not talking about statistics, this time, but letters from ministers. Following postings on this Blog and Christopher Booker's articles in The Sunday Telegraph on the Europeanisation of Britain's armed forces, there have been a flurry of letters from MPs to the MoD, in response to questioning from readers.

In each case, the procedure is the same. The MP writes to the ministry and back comes an anodyne, reassuring letter from the relevant minister, invariably denying everything. The MP passes the letter on, and then closes down his brain, his duty done.

Several such letters, however, have found their way to us and one, in particular, from Lord Drayson. That his response beggars belief is to put it mildly. According to the minister for defence procurement, we – i.e., the government – are not "preparing to integrate Britain's Armed Forces with the EU's planned 'Rapid Reaction Force'". There is, writes Drayson. "no such force, nor is there any plan for one".

There you have it. There is no European Rapid Reaction Force and no plan for one. This is actually written by a minister, in a letter addressed to Sir Patrick Comack MP. "The media frequently use the name in error to refer to a catalogue of troops that member states in 2003 declared themselves able in principle to make available for EU operations," Drayson writes.

Of course, we know different. The ERRF was outlined at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, which proposed a Headline Goal of 60,000 troops plus appropriate aerial and naval support, to be deployable within 60 days and sustainable for a year, to be in place by 2003. The record of the meeting states:

The European Council underlines its determination to develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises…

Building on the guidelines established at the Cologne European Council and on the basis of the Presidency's reports, the European Council has agreed in particular the following: cooperating voluntarily in EU-led operations, Member States must be able, by 2003, to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least 1 year military forces of up to 50,000-60,000 persons capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks.

And, if Drayson is in doubt, he should perhaps talk to Geoff Hoon who in Parliament a few months later happily answered questions on the ERRF, telling MPs that merely that there was no "standing European Rapid Reaction Force". "Existing national or multinational forces, declared under the Helsinki Headline Goal, will be made available to the EU on a voluntary, case-by-case basis when required for a crisis management operation."

That was again his line in November 2000, when he declared that the "objective of the European Union in setting the Headline Goal is to ensure the ability of nations to be able to generate forces rapidly in response to a crisis," once again adding that "there will be no standing rapid reaction force".

Anyone who wants to read of the history of the development of the ERRF can refer to this official EU source, which clearly Drayson has not read.

But then, why should he bother? As we observed earlier, lying has become a way of life for ministers, a normal and routine tool of government. But does Drayson really think we are that stupid?

COMMENT THREAD

Belgium yaps at France

In response to Nicolas Sarkozy’ slightly odd proposal to extend the Franco-German motor to include Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland, Guy Verhofstadt (left), Prime Minister of Belgium lost his rag, not to put too fine a point on it.

According to AFP, what annoyed him particularly was the invitation extended to Poland, a newcomer to the EU and one whose economic situation is no better than that of most of “Old Europe”. (But then, according to AFP, the G6 does not include Spain, which would make it G5.)

Angrily M Verhofstadt explained that if there was a gridlock in EU decision-making or reform, it had nothing to do with disputes between large countries and small.

"It is not so much the opposition between big and little states which blocks the decision-making process, but opposition which reigns between big states."

As it happens, the gridlock is created by the centralized EU system, which is daily expanding to take in more and more areas in European political life. Then again, M Verhofstadt ought to know something about gridlock in decision-making. The Belgian system is so complicated, one wonders whether any decision ever does get implemented (apart from the banning popular political parties, that is, which immediately reappear under a different name).

Why M Sarkozy made the statement he did is not entirely clear, although the fact that the next presidential election campaign effectively kicked off while M Chirac was in hospital must have something to do with it.

Why Poland was invited to join the G6 is even more interesting. On one level, this makes sense, as Poland is one of the large countries, the largest of the new East European states.

On the other hand, it is probably the one that is having the worst economic problems and the one in which reforms have fallen behind. We shall see how the new government will fare.

There is, however, the matter of foreign policy. Poland (as well as the other East European member states) has notoriously been reluctant the Franco-German “European” line in foreign matters. President Kwasniewski was heavily courted and applauded by President Bush and the policy is unlikely to change. Furthermore, as we have written several times, Poland has been conducting her own policy on the eastern border, building up friendly relations with Ukraine and not so friendly ones with Belarus and Russia. In this she had the full support of another member state, Lithuania.

M Sarkozy may well feel that it is time to try to bring the East Europeans back into line and that President Chirac’s infamous outburst may not have been the right way of going about it.

There is one more aspect to the relationship between France and the new member states. The former was opposed to the EU’s enlargement to the east for several years, partly for economic and partly for political reasons.

The economic reasons were straightforward: the poor, largely agricultural countries were likely to siphon off EU money. This has not happened yet but will eventually.

The political aspect is more complicated. The accession of East Europeans, it was felt in France, would tilt the EU’s centre even more heavily towards Germany politically but, frighteningly, also towards possible Anglospheric influence. When accession became unavoidable and imminent the French government spent huge sums to promote France and French culture in all the countries.

Poland is special. Of all the East and Central European countries it is the one that was traditionally Francophile. While others learned German and, possibly, English, the Poles learned French. No longer. Poland is becoming Anglophile. Young Poles learn English and, despite the alarums and excursions on the subject of Polish plumbers, try to get temporary jobs in English speaking countries.

Would-be President Nicolas Sarkozy, one assumes, is keenly aware of the problem and this may have been his initial attempt to deal with it. By doing so, however, he seems to have antagonized one of France’s more stalwart supporters within the EU: Belgium.

COMMENT THREAD

Personality or principle?

Mark Steyn is on fine form today in The Telegraph, dissecting Ken Clarke, his leadership ambitions and the Conservative Party.

"A party out of power for a decade," he writes, "naturally finds itself somewhat short of household names, and, as one of its last surviving big beasts, Ken lingers vaguely in the memory…"

Therein lies the problem, with the Party clutching at the illusion that, because the EU constitution has been booted into touch "it's safe", as Steyn puts it, "for the Tories to elect a Europhile leader because his ability to stiff them has been severely constrained."

"Only Ken can go to Europe", adds Steyn, is a weird post-modern inversion of the "Only Nixon can go to China" rationale: Mr Clarke wants to get credit as a straight-talking man of principle for refusing to equivocate about his willingness to sell Britain out to a European superstate, while simultaneously preserving his political viability on the grounds that, even though he's willing to sell out, nobody in Europe's interested in buying.

Steyn points out that the cynical argument in favour of a Clarke leadership victory is that "he'd be the final nail in the Tory coffin and open up space for a new party on the Right and a long-overdue realignment in British politics." But it never works out like that. More likely, Ken's men would lose just slightly not too badly enough to linger on ineffectually and diminish British conservatism for another half-decade.

Steyn's view is that this is a time for strategy, not tactics. It is in that department that Clarke fails to meet the minimum qualifications for even the squishiest "Conservative" leader. He adds:

On Europe, the Conservatives ought to be committed not just to bland assurances not to worry, no need to frighten the horses, old chap, everything's on the back boiler now, but to an explicit reassertion of national sovereignty: over-Europeanisation as represented by, for example, the Convention on Human Rights is an obstacle to the effective defence of the realm, and if Tories won't stand up for national security, what are they for?

What indeed, you might ask, and it is extremely timely that Steyn should be articulating the question that many others, behind the scenes, are asking. For sure, there are enough Party members who are stupid enough – or lack sufficient moral base – to fall for the Clarke line that the Conservatives should put power before ideology but, as one recent correspondent wrote in the Telegraph, if that was enough, then there is always New Labour.

Steyn thus argues for principled Conservative leader, concluding his piece with a finely honed pay-off line: "I don't know quite what the leader of a culturally confident British Conservative Party would look like," he writes. "But, if you had to construct his precise opposite, he'd be a lot like Ken Clarke."

In a letter shortly to be published by The Daily Telegraph, twenty or more Conservative MPs will argue that electoral success will not be achieved by personality but by principle. Steyn reminds us that Clarke is the "personality", but will the Party be wise enough to go for principle?

COMMENT THREAD

Tainted by corruption?

A humdinger of a story about corruption is enmeshing the part-French government owned Thales defence contractor, a multibillion dollar international enterprise which rejoices in the slogan "The world is safer with Thales".

It is facing allegations from Michel Josserand (below), former chief executive of Thales Engineering and Consulting (THEC) that it paid out millions of dollars in bribes and sold chemical weapons to the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Josserand has also told police investigating Thales that the company took part in the construction of an Iraqi chemical-weapons plant disguised as a factory that made powdered milk.

In an interview with newspaper Le Monde, yesterday, he went on to claim that the paying of bribes by Thales was widespread - in violation of French law and international conventions. Josserand estimated that Thales pays out between 1 and 2 percent of its global revenue ($12.5 billion in 2004) in illegal commissions, having constructed a secret internal system to make the payments.

The Thales Group has "categorically and totally" denied the accusations and has decided to take immediate legal action for defamation against Le Monde and Josserand.

Nevertheless, Paris prosecutors are investigating the corruption allegations, which surfaced after irregularities were discovered in the company's bid to build a light railway in the southern French city of Nice. Josserand, whose THEC division won the contract, was fired by Thales and placed under formal investigation in May after the group filed a criminal complaint against its former employee.

Josserand now describes himself as a scapegoat now living in fear for his life and has said he has informed police about bribes paid out for contracts in Greece, Argentina, Asia and elsewhere in France - often via several foreign intermediaries such as construction companies.

"Having said that, Thales was only following the practices of the major U.S. companies," he said. Thales had little choice but to pay bribes if it did not want to be excluded from markets, he also said.

The accusations come at a bad time for Josserand's current employer, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), which is bidding for the prestigious US Air Force air tanker contract, after it was withdrawn from Boeing following irregularities in the initial award. EADS is now considering whether to dismiss Josserand, but it will have to move fast if mud is not to stick. The company is already facing new difficulties following its decision, as 80 percent owner of Airbus, to seek launch aid from European governments to develop its A350 airliner.

In the US Congress, the word is that this bolsters chances that the Senate will approve legislation already passed by the House to prohibit the U.S. military from buying Airbus tankers. Any association with corruption, however tangential, will not improve its chances.

The allegations are also potentially embarrassing for the MoD, which has just awarded a major contract to Thales for development of the Army's £14 billion Future Rapid Effects Systems. Thales is also prime contractor on a number of prestige British defence contracts, including building the UK's "Watchkeeper" unmanned aerial vehicle.

How ironic it would it would be if the MoD's "Europe first" procurement policy was tainted by corruption.

For more background, see also here.

COMMENT THREAD

It never rains but it pours

As the various negotiations between Angela Merkel and Gerhard Schröder proceed apace (at the pace of an arthritic snail, as it happens), the EU has decided to get in on the act.

This time it is not Commission President Barroso who is demanding that the Germans get their act together (a somewhat inappropriate attitude) but Joaquin Almunia, the Commissar for Economic Monetary Affairs.

The problem, as ever, is the Growth and Stability Pact and while member states have largely forgotten about its existence, the Commission has not.

Germany is once again on track to break the budget deficit rule of 3 per cent. According to Deutsche Welle

“The Federal Statistics Office said in August that Germany's budget deficit in the first half of the year was 36 billion euros ($43.3 billion), or 3.6 percent of GDP, putting the country on track to violate the pact for a fourth year in a row.

Eurostat, the European Union's statistics office, believes Germany's deficit will be closer to 4 percent because it doesn't look at the sale of outstanding accounts to the former state-run enterprises Deutsche Telekom and Deutsche Post as deficit-reducing measures.”

It seems rather unfair as France and Italy both managed to get into the euro by rearranging ownership of assets and pensions but Almunia is indicating that he has had enough.

He is threatening to invoke the punishment that is his right under the rules of the Pact. Germany could be fined €3 billion in the circumstances. It has been pointed out before that fining a country that is having problems with its budget deficit is hardly the most sensible solution as that will increase the problem.

Germany has suggested that, as part of the budget negotiations, various expenses to do with the eastern part of the country should not be included in the calculations to do with the Growth and Stability Pact.

Whether the biggest country and largest net contributor to the EU budget will be punished by the Commission remians questionable. In any case, all German eyes remain firmly fixed on the political stalemate.

COMMENT THREAD

Tanks for the memory

As the tortuous progress towards the Turkish accession talks grinds its way across the political agenda, with the deadline set of 3 October when the parties sit down for their first set of formal talks, the signs are not looking good.

Basically, the European Union does not want as a member a Muslim state of 90 million inhabitants, with a GDP that would drive a coach and horses through the CAP. But, such is the momentum of talks, and the political ramifications of framing an outright rejection, that the European politicos dare not tell Turkey that the deal is off – that it never has the remotest chance of being agreed.

Instead, we are seeing complex technical "difficulties" raised at every stage, not least to do with the situation in Cyprus, where declarations and “counter-declarations” are flying about, matched by accusations and counter-accusations about whether the EU has acted with “good intentions”.

Throughout all this, however, it is a given that Turkey actually wants – or intends to – join the EU but, once again, when you look at the situation on the ground, things do not look quite as certain as they appear.

In a strongly militaristic society, one clue is to look at what happened last year, immediately after the parties had agreed to start accession talks. As reported at the time, a story immediately emerged that the German government was looking to sell Turkey several hundred of its Leopard 2 tanks, surplus to Bundeswehr requirements.

Somewhat giving the game away, German defence minister Peter Struck said that the progress Turkey has made on opening negotiations to join the European Union mean arms sales should no longer be a taboo subject, but it was not to last. Only days later, on 18 October 2004, Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gül, denied the reports that Turkey wanted to buy the tanks.

Nevertheless, the arms brokers of Europe have been beating a path to Turkey’s door, and there were strong hopes that she would buy the Eurofighter. But not only has that sale not materialised, it is now looking extremely remote. Instead, Turkey has done a deal with the United States to upgrade its fleet of 218 F-16 fighter jets, which are being modernised at a cost of nearly $4 billion, on top of which Congress is about to authorise the sale to Turkey of $35 million of air-to-surface weapons for the fleet, pending sale of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, deliveries of which are expected in 2012.

As for the tanks, in DefenseNews this week, the Turkish government has decided that its own industries should build its own third-generation main battle tanks. It has commissioned a consortium of three private armoured vehicle makers to draft a feasibility report on the best way to advance the $10 billion-dollar programme.

The magazine reports that a defence analyst in Turkey says the decision to go ahead "will be more strategic than commercial", but it will also be political. In that we have seen in UK defence procurement policies, a move towards closer European integration, the policies in Turkey now seem to point in the opposite direction. Should the accession negotiations fall apart, therefore, it will be no surprise, leaving Turkey only to say, "tanks for the memory".

COMMENT THREAD

The Polish prime minister

Contrary to expectations, it looks like Poland's next Prime Minister is probably going to be Jaroslaw Kaczynski, after a late swing to his Law and Justice party.

Read all about it on the Beatroot site. You can also get a view from the front line from Polblog, which is definitely worth a look.

COMMENT THREAD

What's his game?

You will never go far wrong in this world if you stick to the dictum: "never trust a French politician" – even, or especially, if his name is Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of the UMP party and a strong contender for the French presidency in 2007.

So when, during a speech on Saturday, concluding a party conference on Europe, he declared that the French-German "couple" should no longer direct the EU in the way it had done for the previous 50 years, you have to wonder what his real motive is. "We must open the French-German couple to four other big European countries, which among them represent 75 per cent of Europe's population," he says. "This group of six must become the motor of the new Europe."

Apart from anything else, this will rather tick off the other 19 countries, and flies in the face of the "Community method" which accords more status to the smaller countries than strictly their size would merit.

But friend Sarkozy even has a name for his directoire, the "G6" - France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Spain and Poland. It should make collective proposals to other EU leaders, which the other members could accept or reject. That really would go down well with the Commission which has the sole right, under the Treaties, of making proposals.

Nothing of this seems to faze little Nick. "If we are able to develop this method," he said, "we would answer - without institutional reform - two major defects of Europe as it exists today: Europe would act, and she would act under the impulse of responsible politicians, not anonymous bureaucrats."

How he imagines he could get this through without "institutional reform" is not made clear, and we do wonder sometimes just how much French politicians actually understand how the EU works. No matter, Philippe Douste-Blazy, the foreign minister, also supported the creation of this "vanguard group" – also known as the "hard core", presumably not of the "porn" variety.

It, according to PDB, should take the lead on economic and monetary policy, defence, foreign policy, internal security and justice, notwithstanding that . "It is indispensable that those states that want to do so can progress together and more quickly, while leaving open the possibility for other members to join them later," he said. "This common project, this 'house within a house', will be more integrated, more demanding, more concentrated."

Back to our Nick, who describes himself as the leader of France's most pro-European party, he also proposed several other initiatives to haul the EU out of the "grave crisis" caused by the rejection of the constitutional treaty by French and Dutch voters. He said the EU's ambition should be to exploit the benefits of globalisation, while countering its injustices. "Europe must invent humane globalisation," he said – whatever that is.

The Union, according to Sarkozy, should promote research at an EU level, helping to found European universities. It should also co-ordinate policy to address such issues as energy, health, immigration, and ageing populations.

And, to demonstrate that we really cannot expect anything significant by way of a free trade agenda should he get elected president in 2007, the man called for the revival of the "community preference" ensuring that "Europe bought European" goods - especially from its small companies. That invoked criticism of Mandelson for failing adequately to defend Europe's interests. The EU should make more use of the World Trade Organisation's anti-dumping clauses, said this supposed free-marketeer.

Rounding off, Sarkozy then defended the CAP and attacked the British budget rebate as an anomaly that had to be suppressed. He also repeated his opposition to Turkey's ambitions to join the EU, a goal supported by L'Escroc and the UK.

Plus ça change, and all that.

COMMENT THREAD

A question of money

Despite the concerns over the use of the EU's Galileo satellite system, it is as well to remember that this grand project is still in the planning stage, with its financial future far from assured.

A reminder of this came yesterday when Pascale Sourisse, the CEO of Alcatel Alenia Space – one of the consortium members which is building the system – told Le Figaro that a further €400 million was needed before the system can be launched.

Originally, another €1 billion was needed to cover the costs of commercial operators in the early days of the system, but the European Space Agency and the EU commission have contributed €600 million, leaving EU member states to finance the rest. However, says Sourisse, "The talks are difficult as an agreement requires the unanimous agreement of all parties."

In July Alcatel vice-President Olivier Houssin had said Galileo is expected to enter service at the end of 2010, but in June the German government warned the entire project would be "threatened", if the consortium in charge of the operation refuses to involve more German companies.

Sourisse now says that talks are ongoing to decide a "balanced share of responsibilities" between the participating countries, adding that it was "urgent for an agreement to be found... I hope we will be able to agree before the end of the year."

Considering that agreement was supposed to be reached this month, it would be interesting to know where the British government stood but, on this as with so many other important issues, it remains silent.

COMMENT THREAD

Polish poll update

According to AP, exit polls are indicating that Polish voters - as expected - have ousted the scandal-prone, left-wing government of Prime Minister Marek Belka, giving a majority to two center-right parties that promise tax cuts and clean government.

An exit poll for Polish government television showed the social conservative Law and Justice Party winning 27.6 percent of the vote and the free-market Civic Platform 24.1 percent. The governing Democratic Left Alliance finished with 11.3 percent.

COMMENT THREAD

Blair's contribution to history

In his column in The Sunday Telegraph today, Booker picks up the threads on the extraordinary but largely unreported developments on EU defence issues.

Noting that, despite his grandiose rhetoric last summer, it may now be as obvious to his EU colleagues as it was predictable at the time that Tony Blair plans to do as little as possible with his six months as the EU's President, Booker then remarks that the Finnish presidency is preparing to take a different view.

Picking up from this blog, he reports that Finland's prime minister, Matti Vanhanen, is highly alarmed at the EU's drive to establish its own "defence identity", independent of Nato and the US. Finland, he writes, will use its presidency, he says, to rebuild "political and defence bridges between Europe and the United States", which he fears are crumbling.

Booker also pick ups on our report that a Chinese state company has been set up to play a key role in operating Galileo, the EU's navigational satellite system, in which China already has a 20 per cent share. This is significant because the Galileo project, planned as a rival to the US GPS system, is at the very heart of the EU's defence identity.

Continues Booker, just as worrying to Washington is that the EU, after the recent Beijing summit, has now formed a "strategic partnership" with China, America's most obvious potential enemy.

He tells us that, last week, General Lance Lord of the US Air Force Space Command last week announced plans to "to deploy an electronic warfare unit capable of jamming enemy satellites". It was obvious, says Booker, which satellite system he had in mind.

In fact, this is something we flagged up last October, when we drew readers attention to US Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1, issued on 2 August 2004, entitled Counterspace Operations.

In the foreword to that document, the Honourable Peter B Teets, Undersecretary of the USAF stated that "space is the high ground" and talked about "denying that high ground to our adverseries". He went on to ask: "What will we do ten years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary chooses to leverage the global positioning system of perhaps the Galileo constellation to attack American forces with precision?"

Even then, the USAF had started development on a range of "micro-satellites", with the potential to destroy enemy spacecraft, so small that ten could be loaded in a reusable military orbiter and despatched into space.

This was the XSS-10, which was successfully launched on 29 January 2003. In April of this year, its successor, the XSS-11 (see above right), was test flown. It is undoubtedly this vehicle that gives substance to General Lord's announcement that the US has plans to "to deploy an electronic warfare unit capable of jamming enemy satellites". It may not even be jamming, he has in mind, as the XSS-11 could just as easily carry an explosive warhead which could blast Galileo out of the skies.

It is closer towards that day that EU president Blair has taken us. So, remarks Booker, it is all very well for his EU colleagues to accuse Mr Blair of doing nothing as President. But it was he who signed the deal in Beijing last month which could range Britain and the EU on the side of their new "strategic partner" in any future war.

Britain's presidency may turn out to have made a rather more significant contribution to history than we will one day care to remember which, at the current rate, will see our soldiers in blue cravats, mincing around with an EU flag outside the European Parliament, while US satellites blast us out of space.

COMMENT THREAD

Ending the rule of law?

A certain amount of excitement has been generated by the recent decision by the Court of First Instance, which according to Matthias Storme of the Brussels Journal

“undermines the rule of law and the principles of the constitutional state and of democracy.”

Since, according to the same writer, the ruling says

“that decisions of the United Nations Security Council take precedence over national constitutions, European law and even the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).”,

one cannot help doubting the seriousness of the problem.

Anyone who thinks that it is horrifying that a decision should take precedence over “even” the ECHR does not necessarily understand the basic concept of the rule of law or of the “principles of the constitutional state and of democracy”. The fact is that the ECHR in itself undermines those principles and, indeed, the rule of law.

The decision was taken over the case of Ahmed Yusuf Ali, a Swedish citizen of Arab origin. His name appeared in 2001 on a list of persons suspected of being linked to terrorist organizations. In particular, he ran a money-transfer facility for Somalis world-wide and there is more than a hint of a suspicion that this was used to transfer money to terrorist organizations.

The list was established by the UN Security Council and transferred into EU law immediately, though, as it happens, this would come under Pillar 3, that is inter-governmental agreement.

Yusuf Ali’s assets were frozen by the Swedish authorities, who are also bound to respect the decision of the UN Security Council. However, he and his lawyer Thomas Olsson, decided to appeal against the EU decision.

The argument was two-fold: in the first place, Mr Yusuf Ali argued that EU legislation cannot apply to individuals – a dubious proposition since EU legislation in this case taking the form of several Regulations, which are directly applicable, works through that of the member states and that can and does apply to individuals.

The second point was probably more valid: Mr Yusuf Ali and Mr Olsson argued that he had not been allowed to defend himself in a court of law, which, they ought to have stated, is against the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. But they did not say this. It was, they argued, against the European Charter of Human Rights, an unsatisfactory transnational document that can be used to over-rule the democratically enacted legislation of supposedly sovereign states.

Matthias Storme finds the whole idea horrifying:

“Though terrorism should be combated by the international community, Wednesday’s verdict effectively implies that decisions of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party can gain precedence over the European Human Rights Convention. China is a member of the Security Council and its position can determine the outcome of Security Council decisions. What is the value of “human rights” which in the hierarchy of values rank lower than the preferences of the Chinese CP.”

That was, of course, the argument used by those who opposed the United States going to the UN before invading Iraq. Then it was valid. In the case of the European Human Rights Convention, it is less so. The ECHR is a document of the Council of Europe, whose members nowadays include Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Russia and all the former member states of Yugoslavia. Their judges sit on the European Court of Human Rights. Not China, perhaps, but hardly people one would go to for guidance on the rule of law and democracy.

The Court decision, as is usual, lists all the various Security Council Resolutions and the treaty articles related to the common foreign and security policy:

In accordance with Article 11(1) TEU:

The Union shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy covering all areas of foreign and security policy, the objectives of which shall be:

– to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter,

– to strengthen the security of the Union in all ways,

– to preserve peace and strengthen international security, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter …”

Sad but true. We have all signed up to this. (Well, our governments have on our behalf and I do not suppose that many Swedish lawyers protested at the time.) And the role of the European Union courts is to ensure that the treaties are complied with and European integration proceeds apace.

Much of the debate seemed to revolve round the question whether the Regulation in question went beyond EC rules, which can impose sanctions on third countries. The court upheld the argument that sanctions can be imposed on individuals and organizations in order to interrupt their economic dealings with third countries. In this case, the third country was Afghanistan, at that point the home of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden (wherever he may be now). Therefore, EC rules were not breached.

The debated part of the decision that concerns the question of legal supremacy is stated in the press release of the Court of First Instance:

“The Court of First Instance finds that, according to international law, the obligations of the Member States of the United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations prevail over any other obligation, including their obligations under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under the EC Treaty. This paramountcy extends to decisions of the Security Council.

Although it is not a member of the United Nations, the Community must also be considered to be bound by the obligations flowing from the Charter of the United Nations, in the same way as are its Member States, by virtue of the Treaty establishing it. First, the Community may not infringe the obligations imposed on its Member States by virtue of the Charter or impede their performance. Second, it is required to adopt all the provisions necessary to allow its Member States to fulfil those obligations.”

The debate is, therefore, about the supremacy of UN or EC legislation. The member states come into it only as entities that are obliged to fulfil one or the other. Democracy and rule of law have nothing to do with any of this. What we are witnessing is a fight between two transnational organizations (known not so affectionately as tranzis) for supremacy.

Once we have acknowledged that one transnational organization (be that the Council of Europe or the European Union) has supremacy over our own laws, enacted within our own consitutional structure and accountable to the people of this country, the idea that the UN has supremacy over them is not that shocking.

The freezing of assets of criminals and suspected criminals (the financing of terrorism is a criminal offence in the UK and most other countries) may be an arguable piece of legislation but is, in fact, there in British law.

As long as we remain part of the UN (and Sweden is, as well as the UK) we are supposedly bound by the Security Council decisions. But the legislation, in this case, is EU legislation implemented by the Member States. And that is non-negotiable, until such time as we or Sweden decide to become independent sovereign states.

I imagine, even after that there will be legislation to deal with terrorists and those who finance them.

COMMENT THREAD

The next member of our government?

Poland goes to the polls today to elect its new government, an event which is given remarkably little attention in today's newspapers, despite the fact that, whoever becomes the prime minister will form part of our government, through the European Council.

At least The Sunday Times does do a piece, although it is way down in the “book”, predicting that Jan Rokita, 46, the Anglophile leader of the centre-right Civic Platform party, will be the victor.

He is an "avowed admirer" of Thatcher and Blair, and could prove a useful ally in the coming battle over the EU budget, which has been so assiduously avoided by the Blair EU presidency.

However, there is much more to Rokita than the determinedly Ango-centric account given by the Sunday Times. He is, amongst other things, an Atlanticist, favouring much closer defence ties with the United States, and thus could give strong backing to Finland in its forthcoming presidency, when it argues against the EU assuming a separate defence identity.

For more detailed coverage of the Polish elections, you can do no better than have a look at the excellent Beatroot blog. As always, if you want the news in detail, the blogosphere is the place to go.

COMMENT THREAD

Bored?

Then look at this in The Sunday Times.

COMMENT THREAD

A small but important gesture

The Northern Echo obviously had fun with Wear Valley District Council and its "illegal" EU flag outside its Crook Civic Centre base in County Durham.

After the council had been displaying the flag for several years, local crusader Jim Tague made a request under the Freedom of Information Act as to whether the council had the correct permission. When it transpired that it did not, the council replaced it with a St George's cross.

But, what is particularly chilling about the issue is the response of the Wear Valley spokesman, who told the paper: "We are looking to get it put back up again - with the appropriate permission." In other words, the officials never give up.

However, as Neil Herron points out, the European Union is a political project, so a local authority which flies the EU flag could be in breach of Section 19 of the Local Authority Guidelines on Publicity... i.e., you cannot use public money to attempt to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a political matter. So, he writes, a local authority flying an EU flag must be asked politely to remove it.

We await to see whether more campaigners throughout the country move in on errant councils and, while they are about it, take on the many hotels who seem to think it is a good idea to fly the EU flag. See this forum post for more detail.

Next target, this Blog understands, is that affront to our national identity, the "European Community model" driving license, adorned with the offending symbol, intentionally used reinforce the sense of "European identity" or, as one EU commissioner put it, to provide "another piece of Europe in your pocket".

Shortly, we hope to have details on the availability of a source of Union Jack stickers, of a size to conceal the symbol and assert our own national identity. Affixing it will be a small but powerful gesture of defiance, a way of showing our rulers that we do not accept their distorted values.

And, small though it might be, it is not that small. After all, if the symbolism of the flag was not so powerful, why does the EU invest so much time and effort in promoting it?

COMMENT THREAD

It's time to get nasty

Thank goodness, at last, the Conservative leadership contest is beginning to develop a bit of life, with the Telegraph headline today announcing: "Mudslinging starts as Cameron turns on leadership rivals".

This was David Cameron depicting his two main rivals as potentially disastrous choices for the party which, in the opinion of the Telegraph was a sign of the Tory leadership contest turning "nasty". Others, of course, might see it differently, with Cameron spurning the "nicey-nicey" unreality of the contest so far and breaking out into the real world.

Anyhow, he predicted "national suicide" if Conservatives were to adopt the attitude to Europe taken by Kenneth Clarke and also suggested that the party would "sleepwalk to another defeat" under the leadership of Davis.

Says the Telegraph, Cameron's comments were interpreted by some Tories as a sign of desperation from a candidate whose campaign is generally thought to have been faltering but the paper also thinks that in a contest that until now has been almost devoid of "mudslinging", the interview could pave the way for more negative campaigning.

In its own editorial, however, the paper takes the candidates to task for their failure to provide an alternative to the government's European agenda:

Their policy - the "repatriation" of fishing and overseas aid - is not only pathetically limited in its ambition, but actually impossible to deliver unless the party is prepared to consider the ultimate sanction in any negotiation: walking away. This is not something any of the current leadership contenders have had the courage to admit.

Reflecting precisely the sentiment of this Blog, the editorial then goes on to say that the forthcoming Conservative conference "would be depressing if delegates were to be offered more empty rhetoric about repatriation and renegotiation."

Instead, the candidates should be setting out a confident vision of how, exactly, they would achieve the restoration of sovereignty. No one wants a return to the savage internal Euro-squabbles of the 1990s, but the party's interests - let alone the country's - are not served by fudging the issue.

And there's the rub. As long as the candidates pussy foot around the issues, being ever so nice to each other, no one is being offered a real choice. It seems that Theresa May casts a long shadow but she now needs to be kicked into touch. It's time to get nasty.

COMMENT THREAD

One rule for them…

One of the more nauseating politicians in the European Union is Guy Verhofstadt, prime minister of Belgium, who set new standards for deviousness and lack of principle. Amongst his other less attractive characteristics is a slavish Europhilia and it is thus especially significant that, once again Belgium is being ruled by the European Court of Justice as failing to comply with EU laws.

This time, according to an agency report, it is for breach of EU nitrate regulations. More specifically, it is the Flanders and Wallonia regions that have fallen foul of the rules, which govern the application of artificial and natural fertilisers on farmland, and the storage of animal waste.

The EU commission lodged the case against Belgium in November 1999, claiming the regions were not applying EU laws sufficiently and the court has now agreed that Flanders breached the code of good agricultural practices, the identification of vulnerable zones plus the accompanying action plans and reporting obligations.

Wallonia was ruled to be in breach of the obligation to designate sensitive areas and to draw up action plans.

When you hear all the garbage emanating from the mouth of Verhofstadt about "European values" and the wonders of European integration, you would think that the very least this ghastly little hypocrite could do is ensure his own regions obey the very law that he holds in such high regard.

COMMENT THREAD

Spain hits back

Back in July, as our readers will recall, the German constitutional court decided that the European Arrest Warrant was against the German constitution in that German citizens could not be extradited unless the case went through a German court.

As a result, Mamoun Darkanzali, a man who has been accused of financing terrorist groups by the Americans and by the Spaniards. It is, as we said at the time, unfortunate that the Karlsruhe court, having threatened to insist on German constitutional sovereignty on various issues, it finally decided to dig its heels in, so to speak, over the issue of a putative terrorism financer.

At the time, the Spanish courts threatened to retaliate and that is what they have done. According to EurActiv,

“Spain has now hit back. One of its highest courts has indicated that in respect of German extradition requests, it will no longer use the EU procedure,but will revert to the old long-winded rules. If Germany does not present the correct paper-work within 40 days, said the court, it will release prisoners. Around 50 people currently held in Spanish jails are under extradition requests from Germany.”

So much for European co-operation.

COMMENT THREAD

Basket case

In the Telegraph business section today, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes a story headed: "Italy faces meltdown as finance chief walks".

Italy, he tells us, faced the risk of further credit downgrades after its finance minister resigned yesterday just days before unveiling the new budget, protesting that he was "scandalised" by the conduct of his own government.

This is Domenico Siniscalco (above), a Cambridge economist and technocrat, recruited to tackle the country's dire finances. He is saying that he is throwing in the towel after 14 months because it was impossible to get anything done. The last straw was his failure to unseat Italy's central bank governor, Antonio Fazio, caught on police surveillance tapes conspiring with private bankers to block a Dutch take-over of Italy's Banca Antonveneta.

With delightful candour, Siniscalco has called the governor an "institutional monster" clinging to his job despite the ruinous effects on Italy's reputation. The two men were scheduled to share a table together at this week's IMF meeting in Washington after avoiding each other since the summer.

He also launched a blistering attack on the "economic dilettantism" of premier Silvio Berlusconi, who faces re-election within months. "I'm resigning because of the government's absolute paralysis. The problem is not so much Fazio but the fact that nobody seems able to resolve the problem. It's not that I'm bitter. I'm scandalised," he told Corriere della Sera newspaper.

Clearly, this is a seriously frustrated bunny talking because he goes on to say: "I have talked to Berlusconi about the budget and the bank since August but to no avail. I tried everything - front door, back door, from below - nobody can say I didn't try. It's true that I lost but so has the country."

His abrupt exit, which Ambrose describes as "lending an air of fin du régime to the Berlusconi government", is slated to prove the death-blow to plans to slash Italy's soaring budget deficit in 2006 with cost-cutting reforms. Mr Siniscalco had pledged to break with Italy's tradition of fiscal legerdemain and one-off tricks, offering €21billion (£14billion) in real cuts.

Fitch credit rating agency said it now feared a "budget blow-out" as Rome moved into electoral mode, putting the country's AA rating at risk. It has been on negative watch since June. The agency said the national debt is already forecast to rise from 106.9pc of GDP last year to 109pc in 2006, but could now start galloping upwards on a dangerous trajectory.

Furthermore, the IMF warned this week that the deficit is likely to reach 5.1pc next year, with growth of just 1.4pc after zero in 2005. And Vicenzo Visco, an ex-finance minister, also puts the boot in. He says the real reason for the resignation was the melt-down of Italy's public accounts. "Fazio is an excuse. The truth is that he couldn't put together a budget and couldn't allow this stain on his record."

Not to be outdone, HSBC has warned in a recent report that Italy is in grave crisis and may be forced out of the eurozone, chiefly because its has failed to kick its inflationary habits since exchange rates were fixed irrevocably a decade ago. Unit labour costs have soared compared to northern Europe, leaving Italy trapped inside the currency bloc with an exchange rate over-valued by some 20pc. HSBC said Italy's export performance was "truly appalling" and likely to get worse.

Amazingly, the EU has so far backed away from a major clash with Italy over its breach of the Stability Pact's 3 percent limit, responding to good faith pleas from Mr Siniscalco for more time. However, Ambrose now thinks that Brussels will almost certainly take a much tougher line if budget discipline now appears to break down altogether.

For the moment though, City Comment has the last word. Italy has failed to adapt to the rigours of the euro, it writes, losing 40 percent in unit labour cost competitiveness against Germany since 1995. It continues to lose 3percent a year. Anybody who thinks Rome has the self-discipline to take the hard way out of this crisis - by wage deflation - must be joking

And this is the basket case that forms part of the wonderful construct of the European Union at the heart of which Mr Blair so much wants us to be. Strewth.

COMMENT THREAD

Wiffle

I wish it was otherwise, but the latest speech by David Davis, trailed by The Daily Telegraph this morning, simply does not cut the mustard.

This was the speech in which Davis was "to reassure Tory MPs of his Eurosceptic credentials" when he was to call for a "new model for Europe", which will allow Britain to promote its own national interest, a speech in which Davis himself claimed to offer: "clear thinking, right values".

Headed "Britain's place in the world", his recipe for an "open Europe" was prefaced by a declaration of "the need to reshape our policy towards the European Union." What is required, he said, thus fulfilling the promise, "is a new model for Europe, which will also allow Britain to promote its own national interest."

Observing that this was "not on offer from the present government", he tells us that the "Conservative vision, to which I hold" is of a profoundly different kind of Europe. It consists, says Davis, "of free co-operation between independent European nations, collaborating where that makes sense, imposing their own priorities where universal agreement is impossible - within the framework of a lightly regulated Single Market to which all must subscribe." He continues:

…much of what the EU does today is not part of the "core business" of the Single Market, and there is no good reason why it should be compulsory for all members to take part in every EU initiative. The seeds of the approach are already there. Not all are within the Euro. Not every country participates in the Schengen agreement on movement across frontiers.

But, the man says, "we should go further". We need to create a structure in which it is possible for member states to choose to take back powers to their own countries. And this, he tells us: "is a radical vision". But it is "the only option that reconciles today's competing views. It recognises differences, it respects national feeling, and it ends the wrangling of competing ideologies for control of the EU."

He suggests it is "the only realistic way forward". This is because it is based on a clear quid pro quo: the return of certain powers to Westminster in exchange for the right of other states and groups of states to integrate further on the terms they wish. He adds:

At the last election, we Conservatives said that we would re-negotiate, for example, the arrangements which currently apply to fishing, overseas aid and asylum, and that we would restore our opt-out from the Social Chapter. The vision I have suggested would make the return of these and other powers possible. It is the only way to create that Open Europe which we want to see.

One really does hate to be disparaging, but I think we are a little tired of "visions". What we really want is clear, unequivocal undertakings as to how those "visions" might be achieved. It is here that Davis fails.

He must know that the return of "certain powers" to Westminster breaches the fundamental principle of the Community, the irreversibility of the acquis communautaire. The only way this can be changed is through a treaty revision, which requires the calling of an intergovernmental conference (IGC) and unanimous agreement of all 25 member state governments, followed by unanimous ratification of all those states, some of which have constitutions that require referendums.

Three hurdles thus obstruct Mr Davis's "vision" – calling an IGC, which requires a majority vote, and the unanimous assent to and ratification of a new treaty. Assuming an IGC is called, it takes only one member state to block the process.

Thus, for the "vision" to have any substance at all, Mr Davis must set out what he would do if one or more of the colleagues says "no". Would he, as John Redwood once said, then have an "interesting discussion" or would he reassert the supremacy of the British Parliament and unilaterally abrogate some parts of the treaty, even at the risk of precipitating the withdrawal of the UK from the EU?

Unless or until Mr Davis is prepared to address that question, and offer clear answers to it, anything he says is pure wiffle. We have heard it all before, from any number of Tory politicians and is "vision" is as meaningless coming from his lips and it has been from theirs. And, if he thinks that speech will reassure anyone of his "Eurosceptic credentials", he is sadly mistaken.

COMMENT THREAD

Matters of no importance to the British media

Our readers will remember all the endless horror pictures from Louisiana and New Orleans and the shrieks emanating from the entire British media (not just the BBC) about the terrible lack of preparedness in the world's richest country; Bush's inadequacy; the horrors of racism and poverty in the United States.

Strangely enough, there was far less news from Mississippi, also a southern state, also with a large black population (not all of them poor) and also badly hit by Katrina. But then, of course, Governor Hailey Barbour (Republican) very quickly brought matters under control there, while Governor Blanco of Louisiana (Democrat) has spent her time weeping on camera and admitting that she had no clue what day of the week she said anything. But hey, that is all Bush’s fault.

Now we have Rita storming its way towards Texas and a fairly well organized exodus from Galveston and other places. Do we get front-page headlines and pictures in the British papers? Not on your life. News that shows American ability to organize is not news. News that shows how much depends on state rather than federal arrangements is definitely not news.

The Daily Telegraph who did so much gloating about Blair attacking the BBC but who had been extraordinarily nasty and ignorant about the problems around Katrina (remember all those deeply unfunny Garland cartoons?) has a very pretty picture of the hurricane on its front page. Only when you get to page 14 do you get anything about Texas at all, with the leading piece headed This Time the White House Will be Prepared.

Only on page 15 is there a rather inadequate account of what is going on and what has been organized. Other newspapers do no better.

Never mind, Glenn Reynolds reports on Instapundit that, thanks to media hysteria over Katrina, there have been some problems with the Texas evacuations. I expect big headlines about that tomorrow.

In the meantime, we have had news about Rita: up to 24 people have been killed as a bus burst into flames. Yippee!!!

What else has the British media not found interesting (or less interesting than Kate Moss or Charles Kennedy)? Well, there is the appointment of the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, allegedly a fillip for Bush in his “beleaguered” presidency. It was also, apparently, according to our hacks, a surprisingly easy appointment as they had expected a big fight. Well, they were wrong. What else are they wrong on?

While there has been a great deal of interest in John Roberts’s views on abortion (something of an obsession with the American liberals and, therefore, the British media when it bothers to write about American affairs) little has been said of one interesting aspect of the Roberts hearings.

This is what the Wall Street Journal Europe wrote in its editorial on September 20 [subscription only]:

“Perhaps the most encouraging exchange of the week was Judge Roberts’s reply to GOP Senator Jon Kyl on the growing trend in U.S. courts to cite foreign precedents to justify their decisions. ‘Domestic precedent can confine and shape the discretion of the judges,’ Judge Roberts said. ‘Foreign laws, you can find anything you want. If you don’t find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it’s in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia, or whatever.’ Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy have been especially aggressive in pushing this foreign legal buffet line on the High Court. But we’re glad to say it doesn’t sound as if the new Chief will be joining them.”

Needless to say, this blog is very glad about that, too, and wishes that some of our own judges would start thinking more seriously about the need for rigour in legal precedence.

So, no good news from the United States. What about other countries?

How much reporting did we get about the successful elections in Afghanistan, despite the presence of British troops and monitors? Very little. Far more had been written before while the remnants of the Taliban and various Al-Qaeda groups did their best to disrupt by threatening, exploding bombs and killing candidates and officials.

Despite all the above, well over half the population of the country voted, proudly displaying their inky fingers as the people of Iraq did before them.

Many thousands of women voted and several hundred candidates stood successfully, in the sense that they campaigned, survived and have garnered some votes. If Ms Alibhai-Brown in the Guardian or former Vogue editor turned columnist Ms Vicky Woods in the Daily Telegraph wrote about this, I must have missed it.

Then there is the North Korean agreement. We have had a certain amount about what might turn out to be one of the most important developments in international relations (or it might not) but one and all, our hacks and hackettes presented it as a climb-down for the United States. Tee-hee, Bush is bested again.

Really? Nothing about the fact, that unlike Iran, still mollycoddled by Britain, France and Germany, North Korea appears to be ready to do a deal? What about the fact that after years of procrastination, China has fallen into line and joined the United States, Russia, Japan and South Korea to put pressure on its client state.

Of course, the agreement that requires North Korea to drop all nuclear developments (including those that it denies having) before it gets any aid from the United States may not work but, equally, it may. By no stretch of the imagination it is a defeat for Bush.

And finally, to the events in Basra. We have had incoherent, contradictory stories about events in the last few days, all reported, for some reason from Baghdad. Are there no British journalists in Basra, which is under British control? It seems not. But then, it is dangerous for journalists in Basra.

The American Steven Vincent was kidnapped and murdered after publishing an article that described the way the Shi’ite militias under the benign gaze of the British authorities were infiltrating the police in Basra as well as establishing something akin to lynch law. As our readers will remember, when asked about this, the British military told Mr Vincent that it was “not their job, mate”. And as our readers will also remember, this blog suggested that Basra was trouble waiting to happen and it might be a good idea if the main stream media woke up to the fact.

Well, it did not wake up. It did not even mention that another journalist was kidnapped and murdered in Basra. All over the world the case Fakher Haider, who wrote for the New York Times was reported. In Britain the Guardian mentioned it because Mr Haider had written for them as well, and even it refused to go into too many details.

The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune reported on Monday, September 19:

“On Sunday, Haider filed reports on the arrest by British forces of two high-ranking members of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. Members of the Mahdi Army had threatened violence earlier in the day if the men were not released.

Shortly after midnight, two cars,one of them a sedan and one a police car, parked outside Haider's apartment building, said witnesses at the scene, who said they could not be identified without jeopardizing their lives.

Three of the men, who had AK-47 assault rifles, entered the apartment building as frightened neighbors emerged from their homes, said Haider's wife, Intisar Abbas Hamza. They then entered the apartment and ransacked it, she said.

The gunmen took Haider's phones,his pistol and some videotapes, Hamza said. As they prepared to leave, they told her they were only going to interrogate him for a few hours and bring him back.

Haider told his wife not to worry and then quickly wrote down the phone number of a friend and fellow journalist, telling her to tell the friend to call the Basra's governor's office. The gunmen were standing by at the time, Hamza said.

In recent months, Haider had confided to friends that he was worried about the increasingly violent atmosphere in Basra. In July, gunmen in a pickup truck chased his car and fired at him, and he narrowly escaped after driving off the road and firing his pistol into the air, he told a friend, who asked not to be identified.”

On the same Monday we had the reports of the still not fully explained prison raid (or possibly not), the attacks on the British troops and the apparent readiness of the Basra police to work together with the terrorists (called, for some reason, insurrectionists).

As the British media had not followed the story and the journalists know nothing about the situation in Basra, all we have had is hysterical outbursts about Iraq collapsing into civil war (as it has been predicted fruitlessly for years) and whether this means that the whole American fight for democracy and against terrorism is in shambles.

But then, the British MSM hacks do not read blogs. Otherwise they might know a bit more about good news coming from Iraq and Afghanistan.

There seems to have been no analysis of the peculiar situation in Basra. In most of the rest of Iraq the police has been co-operating with the coalition troops and police – in Basra the police is co-operating with the terrorists. In fact, the only way you can distinguish the police from the terrorists is by the fact that the police is usually in uniform.

In the rest of Iraq terrorists (insurrectionists to the hacks) are handed over to the Iraqi police and coalition forces by the local population – in Basra the local population is terrified of going to the police as they know that the force is in cahoots with the Shi’ite militias.

In the rest of Iraq the coalition forces talk of strengthening democracy – in Basra, the British authorities shrug their shoulders and refuse to worry about the place turning into an “Islamic Republic”. The British ambassador in Baghdad expressed the, presumably, accepted FCO view that Britain had no problems with Iraq becoming a theocracy. And if that cannot be achieved, the FCO, one assumes, will settle for Basra being one.

Is this not something our journalists should investigate instead of screeching about “dumb Yanks” getting it wrong?

We, on this blog, certainly intend to report on the situation. Alas, we cannot get accreditation to Basra or question the British military authorities. But we can read the reports on the blogs and by journalists who are actually there. And, at least, we and our readers know what is going on in various parts of the world.

COMMENT THREAD

Taking the 'special' out of the US-UK relationship

“For nearly a century, the United States has had no more militarily potent and reliable ally than the United Kingdom. From the First World War to the current conflict in Iraq, the U.S. and U.K. have operated intimately and with unprecedented success in numerous theaters under diverse conditions.”

So begins an admirable summary of the paper, "The Wrong Side of the Hill - The 'Secret' Realignment of UK Defence Policy", to be published by the Centre for Policy Studies in two week’s time, the summary itself published on the Center for Security Policy website. A pre-publication version of the paper can be downloaded from this site.

COMMENT THREAD

A mystery man in the race?

As the Conservative leadership race enters into its cliffhanging finale, Tory Right-wingers, we are told by The Daily Telegraph, are planning to unveil a surprise candidate. We are also told that this could destabilise the campaign of front-runner David Davis.

One thing for sure, there are at least 20 mainly Euro-sceptic MPs who feel unable to back any of the front line candidates and these have been holding secret meetings to devise a policy agenda and consider who should lead them.

One of the MPs involved told The Daily Telegraph that a set of principles behind which the group would unite - including a hard line against European integration and policies aimed at helping the poorest in society - would be announced within days. When published, readers might find that one part is not terribly dissimilar from this and this.

One surprise though is The Telegraph reporting on speculation that Michael Ancram, the shadow defence secretary, might become the Right's standard bearer. Ancram himself has refused to comment, but has positioned himself as a firm Eurosceptic and recently made a speech critical of Ken Clarke.

Nevertheless, Ancram's Euroscepticism has not extended to speaking out against the current wave of European defence integration, and he has recently expressed his satisfaction with the "bi-polar approach to defence collaboration with both European partners and the US", not apparently realising that this is no longer a realistic option. This might also suggest that his Euroscepticism is only skin deep.

Thus, far from Ancram being the standard-bearer, we may see a "mystery man" emerge to take the shine off Davis, who is already distrusted by "many hard-line Eurosceptics" for his role as a whip who helped to force through the Maastricht Treaty and as Europe minister under John Major.

Today, however, we are told that Davis will seek to reassure Tory MPs of his Eurosceptic credentials in a speech on foreign policy in which he will call for a "new model for Europe". This supposedly will “allow Britain to promote its own national interest.” Davis will also reject Mr Clarke's claim that the proposed EU constitution is dead, declaring: "The euro may be failing and unpopular and the European constitution in cold storage, but the drive towards integration, centralisation, bureaucratic intervention and one-size-suits-all policies is set to continue.''

However, the arrival of a new candidate – whoever he might be - will create a new element of uncertainty in the contest. The view among senior Tories, says The Telegraph, is that a third of the party's 198 MPs remain either genuinely undecided or are refusing to say who they will support.

And while Davis remains the front-runner, claiming the support of 48 MPs with suggestions that a further two dozen are poised to back him, his recent canvassing efforts, it seems, have alienated potential supporters and his actual support may be a good deal less firm than is indicated by the figures.

With supporters of Ken Clarke admitting they were "frustrated" that more MPs had not yet come forward to endorse the former chancellor, we could possibly, at last, be in for an interesting contest.

COMMENT THREAD

Giving up on Kyoto

Having acquired almost iconic status, and become a useful stick with which to beat president Bush, it seems that the EU itself is planning to give up any attempt at following through the Kyoto agreement when it expires in 2012.

According to Reuters, EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas, in Ottawa for an informal meeting of environment ministers, told reporters that the Union did not expect a binding agreement to emerge from major talks designed to find a way of replacing the Kyoto climate change accord

The talks are to be held in Montreal in late November and Dimas is recognising the reality of global environmental politics, saying: "I would like to have an agreement (on future cuts) in Montreal but that's unrealistic."

This reflects statements made last week by Canadian officials, who have also been saying that they did not expect a breakthrough in Montreal. Instead, talks are to focus on finding common ground between Kyoto signatories and those nations which did not commit to the accord's cuts.

"The best we can realistically aim at is agreeing to start negotiations for the (period) after 2012," says Dimas. It is almost getting to the match the Cold War era where, at the height of the tension, often the best negotiators could achieve were vague commitments to “talks about talks”. At this rate, Montreal will be producing more emissions than collectively, the Kyoto signatories aimed (but have spectacularly failed) to cut.

COMMENT THREAD

Humiliation compounded

As predicted by Frank Gaffney in our earlier posting, Russian and Chinese "diplomacy" on Iran has prevailed and the EU has backed away from its attempt to have Iran immediately called before the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme. This represents a humiliating climb-down for the EU and marks the ultimate failure of its "soft power" approach to world affairs.

Despite bellicose language from the over-mighty EU, all we got at a meeting in Vienna today of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors was a statement from Russia, China and non-aligned nations rejecting the reference to the UN Security Council, citing fears that trade sanctions could draw sharp retaliation from the oil giant.

Iran, predictably hailed the climb-down as a "significant victory" with Iranian negotiator Javad Vaeedi claiming that Iran's "strong diplomacy" had pushed the EU to drop its Security Council push. "Our firm stance, China and Russia's backing and also a lack of legal basis caused the EU's withdrawal," he told reporters in Vienna.

So far, therefore, years of "soft-power" diplomacy have got the EU precisely nowhere, with Iran now cock of the walk, still intent on pursuing its nuclear programme. One wonders what the EU will do for an encore.

COMMENT THREAD

A parallel universe

The experience of writing a blog on the machinations of the European Union, and the more general political environment in which it operates tends to engender a perspective different from that conveyed by an increasingly superficial and trivia-obsessed mainstream media.

It is, for instance, our firm contention that one of the most central issues that defines our very existence as an independent nation is its ability to pursue a foreign policy that reflects the national interest, rather than the promoting the objectives of supranational entities such as the European Union. And, at the heart of any truly independent policy is our capability to wield the "big stick", the maintenance of effective and independent armed forces.

For that very reason, we have taken a special interest in what we perceive to be the growing Europeanisation of the armed forces, an interest defined not purely by a fascination for an important subject but because the outcome of current changes will determine whether we survive as an independent nation, able to take our own decisions on the global stage.

In this context, we read with interest that charges relayed by The Times this morning that "Blair is a bad president" – temporary president of the European Union, that is, just in case someone thinks they have suddenly missed a major consitutional change in the way our own nation is run.

The essence of the story relayed by The Times is that Britian's "much-trumpeted presidency of the European Union" has failed to address the Continent's most urgent problems and that the British government has displayed "sheer logistical incompetence".

Blair is accused of losing interest in Europe and raising false expectations about what he can achieve, with Le Figaro in particular accusing our revered prime minister of leading a British presidency that was "invisible and inaudible".

"We do not see or feel the British presidency. It's very strange," one official has told the paper, The Times adding that this comment reflects irritation in the French Foreign Ministry over Britain's failure to tackle the sense of drift in the EU after the collapse of the European constitution. Le Figaro says: "The relaunch of political Europe is not on London's agenda".

Be that as is may – and the full charge sheet can be read in the article (linked above), this blog has altogether different "take" on the dereliction of the British presidency. This is sparked by an apparently unrelated article in this week's edition of DefenceNews, on the objectives of the Finnish presidency, which takes over once the British effort has sunk into oblivion with the expiry of this year.

Finland, it seems, as one of its main presidency objectives, is to push for greater ties with the United States, and is going to use the presidency to lobby against the creation of a purely European military alliance within the EU zone. We are told that government officials will "lobby very hard" for a solution that promotes continued American defence interest and trans-Atlantic collaboration in Europe

Finland, along with its Nordic neighbours Sweden and Denmark, is against a European alliance that would overlap or impede the role of NATO and the issue of a pan-EU military alliance, and Finland's growing relationship with NATO, has become so hugely important that it has emerged as a central theme for the presidential election in 2006.

Finnish Premier Matti Vanhanen is taking a personal interest in the issue, telling his Center Party colleagues at a parliamentary conference in the city of Seinäjoki on 31 August that: "I feel there is little to gain from establishing a purely European military alliance that would overlap with NATO, or compete with it." He added, "Finland must use its EU presidency to maintain the interest of the United States in Europe and also build political and defence bridges between Europe and the United States."

The very fact that the Finnish premier sees a potential conflict between the development of an EU military alliance and relations with the United States does suggest that there is an important issue at stake here. Furthermore, since the UK is supposed to be at the centre of the NATO alliance, and prides itself on its "special relationship" with the United States, the potential for conflict cannot have escaped the attention of the British government. Rather than leave the running to one of the smaller member states, this should have been taken up by Britain.

But, on this issue, the British presidency has been silent, and all we here are anodyne statement that NATO forms the core of British defence strategy, when all the evidence suggests otherwise. Thus, while we would agree with the critics given voice in today's edition of The Times, we would suggest that the failings of the British presidency go much deeper than has been suggested, and touch on issues which have not even been aired.

What is stunning, however, is that these issues are not being aired. As we have pointed out, there cannot be many subjects more important than our defence strategy yet, week after week, month after month, the media remain silent – as indeed does the official opposition. In our concerns for what we do believe to be important, we are beginning to feel that we live in a parallel universe.

COMMENT THREAD

A German veto

On this blog, we have constantly voiced concerns about an excessive dependence on European military equipment, arguing that such reliance compromises our strategic independence. Now, it seems that we are not alone. Similar concerns are being expressed in the United States over the Pentagon's dependence on German computer software for some of its key functions.

The concerns are articulated by Frank Gaffney Jr, in the current edition of Jewish World Review, also published in the Washington Times on 20 September.

Years ago, he writes, the peace movement came up with a catchy rhetorical question: "What if they had a war and nobody came?" Incredible as it may seem, Gaffney continues, the Pentagon may be poised to find out what happens if the US military cannot get to a war without permission from an unlikely quarter: our sometime "ally," Germany.

Gaffney believes that recent developments make it increasingly likely that America will have to use force to prevent the terrorist-sponsoring Islamofascist regime in Iran from wielding nuclear weapons against the United States, their interests and friends. The brazenness of the Iranians, he writes, has flummoxed the so-called EU-3 - Britain, France and Germany – "who have been trying to appease the Iranians into making empty promises to give up their nuclear ambitions."

He argues that the Chinese and the Russians will now move to prevent sanctions being imposed by the United Nations and block any authorisation of the use of force. Thus emboldened, Iran is taking steps that will enable it directly to threaten to do to the entire United States what Hurricane Katrina did to one region's electrical grid, energy resources, telecommunications systems and other infrastructure: Cripple them.

Gaffney cites a 2004 report of a blue-ribbon commission tasked with assessing the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the United States, which finds that Iran has demonstrated the ability to conduct such a devastating strike. It has launched a short-range missile from a ship. It has also tested its new, medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missile in a manner consistent with detonating a nuclear weapon in space - the scenario the EMP Threat Commission said could cause "catastrophic" damage to the US.

Now, adds Gaffney, come published reports that the Iranians are not only obtaining the capability to go to war with the United States. They are persuading themselves that they can do so successfully. Such circumstances may compel the United States to act forcibly against Iran, but it is not clear whether the Army, Navy and Office of the Secretary of Defence, and perhaps the Air Force, will be able to participate in any such operation.

The problem, it seems, is that the first two of the US armed services and the Pentagon's civilian bureaucracy rely upon a German software company called SAP to handle their administrative and logistics functions. All other things being equal, the Air Force may decide to follow suit by month's end.

As a result, Gaffney concludes, any future military operation against Iran might have to be conducted exclusively by the US Marine Corps. For that service alone has decided to use an American software firm to meet the information management needs associated with things like day-to-day operations, personnel, the location, storage and movement of weapons inventories, financial matters (like bank accounts) and other, often prosaic, but vital functions.

Given the overt anti-American stance of Germany and its opposition to the Iraqi War, the danger is that, if Schroder manages to hold on to the reins of power – which looks increasingly likely after last week's inconclusive elections, he might use that power to block any US military action against Iran by prohibiting the German software company to support products used by the Pentagon.

This scenario is further complicated by the fact that the company "distributes SAP solutions" in Iran and the sort of software it uses to support the US military is available for sale to others with whom the German government has no problem doing business. "Insights the Iranians glean from their access to SAP programs could facilitate cyber-warfare aimed at disabling ours," Gaffney asserts.

Even if SAP were doing its job for the Pentagon competently - and successive Government Accountability Office reports demonstrate that it is not – Gaffney argues that "it is foolish at best and reckless at worst to have our military dependent upon foreign suppliers for such critical functions." He adds:

After taking testimony in July about such vulnerabilities, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter promised to hold oversight hearings about the armed services' seeming unconcern about relying upon possibly unreliable purveyors of vital components, materials and technology. They can't come too soon. At the very least, the Marines could use help from the Air Force if it comes to blows with Iran. That may only be possible, however, if someone decides our airmen - unlike their Army and Navy counterparts - should be supported by software that doesn't give Germany a veto.

It would be easy to dismiss Gaffney's concerns as paranoia, except that the UK has had direct experience of European suppliers withholding war materials because they disapproved of our policy – as did the Belgians during the first Gulf War. It is thus far from fanciful to suggest that the German government might seek to exercise its power over its domestic companies to disrupt US war plans.

And, with Tony Blair refusing to rule out military action against Iran – if for no other reason than to keep all options open – the UK could find itself in a similar position. Germany, with the almost certain backing of France, could progressively withhold support for the increasingly wide range of European military hardware on the inventories of the British Armed Forces.

Should this happen, you can imagine the squawks of indignation from the likes of The Sun – just supposing the UK government chose to reveal that its had been blackmailed by its so-called "partners". It is a pity, therefore, that the media cannot address this issue now, when there is still time to do something about it.

COMMENT THREAD

In vino veritas

Our readers will not be surprised to learn that Nicholas Watt of the Guardian managed to miss the point about the wine agreement between the EU and the US. After all, he is the man who discovered the fragrant Margot’s blog months after everybody else. (Gosh, it must be wonderful to work for a newspaper that pays good money for this sort of reporting.)

Anyway, according to Mr Watt, tee-hee-hee, the Americans “have finally been rumbled”. They will be able to label their wines as château only if these are produced anywhere near one and there are no châteaux in America. Well, there are not as many in France as there are wines labelled as such, either, but let that pass.

He then goes on:

“Other European "traditional expressions", such as vintage, noble and classic, will also be banned unless they are true.”

Well, dear me, and who is to judge what is true in wine labelling?

“Existing US wines can still be given European names, such as burgundy, champagne and claret, but new wines will have to be given a US name.”

In other words, despite Mr Watt’s hilarity, the Americans managed to get quite a good deal.

Thomas Fuller in the International Herald Tribune, a newspaper that usually waves the flag for the EU, puts it differently:

“Under the compromise, which has taken more than two decades to reach, Europeans will permit U.S. winemakers to use what the European Commission calls "EU traditional expressions" like château, late bottled vintage, noble, superior, sur lie and vintage character.

American producers from now on will be restricted from using place names like Bordeaux, Chablis, Champagne and Chianti. But in a crucial concession won by Washington, U.S. winemakers who already label their bubbly "Champagne," or whose wines already hold certain other regional appellations, will be allowed to keep the label.

That aspect of the deal stung in some European quarters. An official at the European Commission in Brussels said that he was disappointed, but that the European side would try harder in a second round of negotiations that they hope to have later.”

They should be so lucky. For the real story has passed Mr Watt and various other commentators by. It is that the French wine industry is in deep trouble and has been for some time.

The cachet of a wine being French has largely faded away and competition in the mid-range wines, where most of the money is being made, has been too fierce for the producers who have been used to riding out on that cachet.

French wines are being challenged by ever improving New World wines, superior California vintages, especially from the Napa Valley, and improving Central and East European ones. Hungarian wines have improved enormously in the last five years and the white ones can compete successfully on the world market. The Austrians post-anti-freeze scandal have made colossal efforts. Their wines are coming back to the international market and are now of considerably higher standard than they were before the scandal.

At the same time, the middling range of French wines has remained unpredictable. Matters were not precisely improved by a recent “judicial inquiry into allegations of ollegal wine-blending by the so-called King of Beaujolais, wine-trader Georges Duboeuf”, not the first of such scandals by a long chalk.

The continuing American boycott of all things French has not helped either. On the other hand, it has been enormously helpful to Californian producers, who are finding that their label is beginning to be valued by many customers, whether the EU allows them to use certain terms or not.

On top of which, the Beaujolais producers are facing a crisis. According to Ross Tieman’s article in the Business of September 11, the winegrowers of Beaujolais are harvesting what will be their best vintage for 20 years.

Why would that cause a crisis, one might ask. Simple. There is too much of the stuff and they do not think they will be able to sell it. The figures across the entire wine producing sector are bad. According to a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle

“In the first quarter of 2005, exports of Bourdeaux wines fell by 11.4 per cent in volume and 17.9 per cent in value.”

So what is the answer to the problem? Obviously, let’s throw money at it.

The Business reports:

“Meanwhile, proposals by the Beaujolais producers’ association the Union Viticole, the reduce permitted yields per hectare and seek subsidies to tear up 13% of the revion’s vines have provoked divisions among the 4,500 growers.”

The anger expressed by producers at plans to bring the production in line with demand, has prompted Ghislain de Longeaville, chairman of the union to offer his resignation.

He had proposed that

“... subsidies of €9,800 ($12,250, £6,600) a hectare would be made available to growers who pull up permanently 3,000 hectares of vineyard.

The European Union offers a subsidy of €6,300 a hectare of vineyard removed. Longevialle is seeing a top-up €3,500 pay-out from the Rhône regional council, though councillors have yet to agree. In total, the subsidies would cost European and French taxpayers €30 million (£21 million), but details need to be finalised by 15 December to have an impact on the 2006 harvest.”

If the cuts are implemented, the Beujolais region will cut its production by 7.7 per cent.

The Institut National des Appellations d’Origine is instructing growers in most French wine-producing regions to reduce production and is, no doubt, offering various financial inducements. The Bordeaux region has been told to reduce output by about 12 per cent.

Alas, for the French producers. Not only are they unlikely to benefit from the 2005 vintage (unless you count large amounts of taxpayers’ money a benefit), they also have to witness a certain amount of gloating on the Californian side.

They, too, are expecting a vintage harvest and their exports have been rising on average by 23 per cent year on year for the last decade. I am not sure the absence of a château will bother them all that much.

A period of reflection?

While we have been preening ourselves (or some people have) about our financial prudence, compared with the "basket case" eurozone economies of France and Germany, the EU commission has fired a timely shot across the bows of SS Britannia, stating yesterday that Mr Gordon Brown's budget is in breach of the EU's deficit ceiling.

Tactfully, it has refrained from declaring that the 3.2 percent shortfall Britain reported for the 2004/2005 financial year is excessive, but it is preparing for the second shot, with a reference to the Economic and Financial Committee, whence it will make a final judgement.

This is in fact the second year running that Britain's budget deficit exceeds the limit of 3 percent of gross domestic product, stipulated by the EU's Growth and Stability and the Commission does not buy into any excuse that the excess can be "explained by the economic situation". Domestic GDP growth, it notes, was above potential in the last two years (3.2 percent in 2004 and 2.9 percent in 2005). It therefore concludes that the deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled by the UK."

Brown, can of course, ignore any comments from the "colleagues" as he the UK is not part of the single currency and does not face the threat of financial sanctions, but it should somewhat weaken claims to be able to lecture other EU governments about economic reform. And should the "colleagues" really get stuck into the "off balance sheet" games that Brown is playing, mainly through his creative use of private finance initiatives, the “prudent” chancellor might have some serious explaining to do.

Either way, a period of reflection might be due, as the implications of Brown's economic management skills finally begin to emerge.

COMMENT THREAD

Kafkaesque

Were Franz Kafka writing today he would probably choose to live in Brussels, says the Observer column of the Financial Times. It is not just the many bewildering institutions, procedures and bureaucratic measures that would be grist for his mill, but the way it handles troublesome eurocrats.

A European Commission official, it tells us, has been placed on sick leave for more than a year after its medical service suggested he consult a psychiatrist. This after he complained about being passed over for promotion. The man, whom Observer calls "Mr K", has obtained four opinions from doctors testifying as to his sanity but has been told these are inadmissible as the service only deals with doctors on its approved list. K has not been allowed to see his medical file because of data protection and confidentiality rules.

Paul van Buitenen, a former EU auditor who was forced out after making fraud allegations and is now an MEP, has taken up the case. "It seems to me that in this instance the Commission is violating the most fundamental rights of an official in its unstatutory abuse of the remit of the institution's medical service," he said in a parliamentary question. "The official has always had favourable staff reports and assessments from his superiors, up to and including this year." Siim Kallas, administration commissioner, replied this week, saying: "No communications are made relating to individual staff issues."

K has now taken his case to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction in staff matters. A hearing date has yet to be set. That continuing case made it inappropriate for the Commission to comment, Kallas said.

Mind you, you cannot fault the Commission's logic. Bearing in mind the experience of van Buitenen – and others – anyone who complains to the Commission definitely needs to see a psychiatrist.

COMMENT THREAD

The sell-out continues

According to DefenseNews (online), Britain is preparing to share with allies the conclusions of a critical defence industry strategic review. This is the review by Lord Drayson (left) announced by the Financial Times and discussed on this Blog in mid August.

At the time, the Financial Times reported that the review would determine what weapons technologies should be maintained in the UK and which can be ceded to foreign suppliers. The review, said the FT, could lead to a fundamental reshaping of the nation's defence industry.

That "reshaping" now looks a lot closer, with DN reporting that France is greeting the offer with enthusiasm, "raising the possibility of wide-ranging European co-ordination of defence spending and research." By year's end, it adds, the MoD intends to produce a short list of strategically vital industrial skills and capabilities that must be retained by U.K. firms (and, therefore, those that can be divested).

"We think it's important that the conclusion we reach we share with our key industrial partners and our key international collaborators, including Europe and the USA," said Drayson, speaking to a British Defence Manufacturers Association dinner on 15 September.

The thinking is that Drayson is signalling "London's willingness to co-operate on a long-term spending map for research and production." In his speech, he advised that: "The MoD and industry need to think carefully about where and how we match competences or disinvest from areas compared to the allies." Sectors under study include shipbuilding, ship support, fixed-wing aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles, rotorcraft, guided weapons, general munitions, armoured fighting vehicles and others.

Now, it appears that France is also keen on the idea of strategy-sharing. Drayson's French counterpart immediately reciprocated by offering a look at Paris' own capability review. "I would like to compare the surveys to better co-ordinate our research investments and cut down duplication," said François Lureau of the Délégation Générale pour L'Armement (DGA). (Translation: we would love it if the British stopped building weapons and bought more from us.)

Lureau went even further, suggesting sharing such information with Germany, which is engaged in a similar study, and envisioning wider European coordination on research.

Drayson, who met Lureau during the Defence Systems & Equipment International show in London last week, says the warming ties with France is part of a trend toward regional cooperation. "It's a sense of a growing development of the European dimension and collaboration within Europe," he said.

Crucially, DefenseNews is speculating on the effect this will have on UK-US relationships. Drayson says he has already discussed his plans with top officials on both sides of the Atlantic. "It's about the evolution of that partnership in terms of the European direction, but that is not to suggest there is any diminution in terms of in the relationship with the US," he claims, then adding that "difficulties with US technology transfer would affect the review."

Britain's leading defence companies have recently submitted a paper on the international aspects of defence industrial policy to the powerful National Defence Industries Council, which is headed by defence secretary John Reid. According to sources who have seen the document, it says that the US tech-transfer concerns underline the benefits of more collaboration with European firms.

One wonders whether the EU is deliberately "stoking the fire" on collaboration with China in order to create problems between the UK and UK, thus sucking the UK further into the EU camp.

Steven Den Beste, commenting on our forum in relation to this morning's piece about Galileo, reminds us that, for the last several years, Tony Blair has been trying to position the UK as a bridge between Europe and America, friend to both, the bridge across the "growing Atlantic Rift."

"Probably is that the rift is rifting further and further," he writes, "and soon the UK is going to be forced to make an either/or decision between them. Blair can't have it both ways, because neither the Europeans nor the American will ultimately let him."

The Tories also believe in a "bi-polar approach" to defence collaboration with both European partners and the US but Steven Den Beste has judged the situation correctly. But it looks as if the decision has already been made. The sell-out continues.

COMMENT THREAD

Of meps, mups and mps

I enjoyed the particularly egregious example of MSM "fact checking" this morning, with The Times report on the Lib-Dim conference – see left. The leadership was "defeated over Europe" and Greg Hurst, it seems is telling us that "MEPs were accused of giving Brussels a balnk (sic) cheque in a row that threatened to split the party".

Anyone can make mistakes, of course, as do we, many times. However, this is not the lib-dims' problem. They are not so much in the business of making mistakes. They are the mistake, as Hurst's story makes very clear.

"Attempts," he writes, "by the Liberal Democrats to boost their credibility suffered a blow yesterday as the party's meps threw out an attempt to back curbs on European Union spending." The issue was a one percent spending cap on the EU budget "until reforms were in force", opposed by Chris Davies, leader of the 12 lib-dim meps.

The mps then attacked the meps, telling the conference that they – the meps, that is – were pandering to an "ostrich tendency" and being self-indulgent. The meps retaliated by saying that they would break away from the mps unless the leadership's position was overturned and a councillor from Cardiff said diluted enthusiasm for pressing forward the European Union "would be betraying its (the party's) principles and mortgaging the future of Britain."

Mr Cable, one of the mps, then told the lib-dims that it was not enough to parade their pro-European credentials to each other; they had to convince a sceptical electorate. But delegates voted on a show of hands for an amendment deleting any reference to the one percent cap and putting no figure on the EU's budget.

And why am I writing all this? I dunno. Who gives a tinker’s cuss what the mps and mups (sorry, meps) are squawking about? Who are the lib-dims anyway?

COMMENT THREAD

A step too far?

The state-controlled China Galileo Industries (CGI) is bidding to take over the operations of the EU's Galileo satellite positioning system in the Chinese region, giving it full control of all the systems. This will include the ability to provide targeting information for its new-generation cruise missiles and the sophisticated military command and control systems under development.

This was reported last night by the Xinhuanet news agency, which cited Meng Bo, chair of the board of CGI, saying, "We're trying to get the operation franchise in China, which might begin in 2008."

CGI, a joint venture owned by China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, China Satcom and China Academy of Space Technology, has been already been designated by the EU as the Chinese partner on the Galileo Project.

With China already a full development partner, having signed an agreement with the EU in May 2004 (see right), this latest move follows the agreement earlier this month at the 8th EU-China Summit to hold "detailed talks on the conditions related to China's joining of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority", giving the Chinese government a say in the global management and control of the system. Now, the Chinese are aiming for total control within their own areas of stategic interest, giving them the ability to deploy their high-tech missiles without fear of the EU shutting down to guidance signals.

Significantly, Meng Bo compares Galileo with the US system, stating: "GPS is mainly for military use and some civilian use, while the Galileo systems will be mainly for civilian use and be responsible for customers so as not to shut off signals without our customer's consent." The inference is clearly that the Galileo is intended for military use and signal continuity is a vital factor for the Chinese.

The Chinese military are believed to have test flown the X600 Land Attack Cruise Missiles as early the 1990s (see left) but, so far, they are reliant on the US GPS system to provide precision guidance. This renders the missiles vulnerable to jamming of the unencrypted civil signal yet, without this facility they are significantly less accurate

The Taipei Times reported in June that China's new class of LACM (right) could reach 200 deployed against Taiwan while the Hsiung Feng II-E, a 1,000km-range LACM, was then reported to have just completed a successful test. Use of the EU’s Galileo signals and the control over the high-precision Public Regulated Signal (PRS) will ensure accurate targeting, free from the risk of the system being shut down, while the EU has also provided extra “hardening” measures to minimise interference.

The agency report will fuel suspicions in US circles that the EU - which considers itself a "strategic partner" of China - is progressively strengthening its Asian "partner" in order to dilute US influence in the region and strengthen its own. Part of this EU-China alliance is, of course, the UK, which is also funding the Galileo programme. Yet, at the same time, the UK is expecting the US to release secret data on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, despite risks of technology leakage to China.

With the ever-strengthening relationship between China and the EU, however, the UK is being dragged further into the China sphere, and arousing increasing distrust in US circles. With crucial production decisions having to be made on the JSF by the end of the year, the US might consider that this current development is a step too far and cut the UK adrift.

COMMENT THREAD

C’est trés curieux

Taking time off from trying to co-ordinate the non-existent European response to the continuous Iranian upping of the nuclear ante, the French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy visited Israel earlier this month.

One assumes the visit was part of the recent rather gingerly Franco-Israeli rapprochement. However, things did not go quite according to plan. As Haaretz.com reports, the French satirical magazine Le Canard Enchaîné described a somewhat odd incident.

M Douste-Blazy was visiting the new Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem together with his entourage and was shown by the curator various maps of European sites where Jewish communities had been destroyed during the Second World War.

Suddenly, it occurred to M Douste-Blazy that there was one country missing. Were there no Jews deported from Britain, he wondered aloud, much to the embarrassment of his entourage, one of whom later confirmed the story, though on condition of strict anonymity.

Ahem, somebody pointed out to him, Britain had not been conquered during the World War II. Yes, yes, agreed M Douste-Blazy, but were there any Jews deported from England?

The French entourage found it embarrassing to hear that the Foreign Minister appeared ignorant of the basic facts of fairly recent history and one of them muttered something about General de Gaulle spending a good part of the war in Britain.

But, as a matter of fact, there is a kind of a logic in M Douste-Blazy’s curious questions. The truth is that Jews had been deported from Vichy France long before it was completely conquered by the Germans. Maybe the Foreign Minister thought that some similar arrangement had existed with Britain as well.

Or, of course, he may just be ignorant and stupid.

COMMENT THREAD

Compartments

The Agriculture Council, under the chairmanship of Margaret Beckett, met in Brussels today to discuss the vexed question of reforming the EU's 40-year-old sugar regime. On the agenda, in another of those "groundhog day" moments, was a call by developing countries for the EU to reconsider planned cuts in guaranteed sugar prices, arguing that the changes would hurt poor farmers.

With campaigners demonstrating outside, ministers from Fiji, Guyana, Jamaica, Mauritius and Swaziland were holding talks with their EU counterparts on behalf of the 76-nation African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group, while Beckett is seeking an agreement from EU member states on a 39 percent cut in sugar prices to take effect before the end of November.

Needless to say, the growers in the main producing countries are against any plan to cut prices, despite the changes being forced on the EU by a WTO ruling last year. Leaders of the pack are the governments of Italy, Spain, Ireland, France and Belgium, which claim that the cuts will hurt local sugar producers.

The initial problem was (and remains) that countries such as France, buoyed by generous CAP subsidies, grossly overproduce sugar grown from beet, and have been dumping it on the world market at cut prices. In so doing, they have undermined world prices, to the distress of growers in countries like Brazil and Australia, which took the WTO action.

Now, the ACP countries, which have special trade agreements with the EU have been caught in the net, and they too are to suffer price cuts. Especially vulnerable are the island economies of the Caribbean, whose sugar cane growers are relatively inefficient and cannot survive without protected access to the EU market.

But, as we pointed out in an earlier post, the problem stems almost entirely from France. It cannot be repeated often enough that, with sugar production in the order of 4.5 to 5 million tons per annum, and a relatively stable consumption of around 2.2 million tons, it was France which was responsible for the larger part of the dumping, accounting for 2.5 and 3 million tonnes a year of the four million surplus.

The EU-15 produced just over 17 million tonnes in 2003/4, and consumed slightly over 13 million. Thus, French over-production accounted for almost the entire EU surplus and, with no ready internal market for it, the only option was dumping on the world market. And, to remedy the problem, everyone has to suffer. Instead of just cutting back the French quota, and restricting the area used for sugar growing, the commission has opted for an across-the-board cut in the price support regime, which Beckett is trying to get agreed.

But there is a more fundamental issue which the EU is also failing to address. Basically, there is no case for the temperate production of sugar using sugar beet. This crop, at best, can deliver a mere three tons per acre, compared with nine tons per acre routinely obtained from sugar cane in tropical climates. It would make far more sense to devote the five million acres devoted to beet growing in just the EU-15 to other crops.

A sensible alternative, much canvassed by both the "Greens" and the farming community is biofuel, and in particular Miscanthus elephant grass. The crop requires little in the way of artificial fertiliser, next to nothing by way of pesticides and harbours a wide variety of wildlife. The current EU-15 acreage devoted to beet could produce the energy equivalent of 75 million barrels of oil and even at a modest $60 a barrel, this would equate to a saving of $4.5 billion on imported energy.

But such are the vested interests, and the inflexibilities of the CAP that energy production is pushed into a separate compartment. Swapping over the sugar support regime to kick-start a biofuel programme simply could not be done within the existing EU framework. We could do it ourselves, of course, but for the tiny problem that we are also locked into the CAP, this leaving Mrs Beckett, all dressed up in her pink finery, to rescue the French producers.

Photograph of Mrs Beckett courtesy of European Community

COMMENT THREAD

Paralysis in Berlin

That was the verdict of The Guardian last night, one of the first of the British newspapers to respond to the German general election. There is a good chance, it said, that the near-stalemate will lead to a grand coalition of the two biggest parties - and to stagnation instead of reform. The view is shared by most commentators and the Daily Telegraph decided that the Germans have simply postponed the day of reckoning, describing the situation as "a mess".

Our reaction last night was that it seemed as if the Germans had "bottled out", which we felt was bad, bad news. EU commission president José Manuel Barroso seems to agree. Overcoming a reluctance to be seen meddling in domestic politics, he called on Germany's political leaders this morning to find "a stable solution" to the impasse, adding, "Without a dynamic Germany, Europe cannot recover."

That much has been confirmed by the financial markets, where German stocks, the euro and bond yields have all dropped in response to the German electors' failure to produce a clear winner. Of course, markets don't like uncertainty, or so we are told, and there is going to be plenty of that around for a while.

However, while the stock market is expected to normalise in the fullness of time, the political situation is set to remain unstable for some time. No one leader will have a clear mandate for reform, and neither will the be able to provide leadership for the rest of Europe. And with Chirac very much a lame canard, there looks to be a power vacuum right at the heart of the project.

With two key issues - the Turkish accession negotiations and the EU budget - claiming attention, and many more besides including the failed constitution, the "colleagues" more than anyone wanted a clear result. What they got is paralysis - the worst of all possible outcomes not least because, when there is a power vacuum at the heart of a system, it can be filled in unfortunate and unpredictable ways.

COMMENT THREAD

Blair burns the Beeb

According to The Business and others, Tony Blair has re-opened the government's long-standing row about BBC bias by describing the corporation's coverage of the aftermath of the havoc caused to New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina as being "full of hatred of America".

Of course, the malice harboured by the BBC towards the US, and Bush in particular, is nothing new to our readers, and the “take” of the media in relation to Katrina was explored by this blog earlier this month. I recall, incidentally, The Business, being pretty dire about the US in its piece.

Anyhow, rather than reinventing the wheel, read the account in USS Neverdock. For myself, I'm still recovering from the shock of agreeing with Blair.

COMMENT THREAD

Schröder on the way out?

A television exit poll is showing Merkel's Christian Democrats emerging as the largest single party in the German elections, on 37 percent, against Schröder's Social Democrats at 33 percent. However, Merkel’s preferred coalition partner, the Free Democrats, is reported as polling only 10 percent.

Schröder former partners, the Greens polled 8 percent and the new Left Party, an alliance of Social Democrats unhappy with Schroeder's pro-business policies and former East German Communists, are polling the same.

Provisionally, therefore, a Left alliance can muster 49 percent, one percent more than Merkel, leaving the election result too close to call, even on the basis of the final exit poll. Both Schröder and Merkel are claiming victory.

COMMENT THREAD

Conundrums

According to Ruairi Quinn, the Irish Labour spokesman on European affairs, cited in the Irish Business Post, all EU member states will be using the euro by 2020. What is more, there will be 30 members by 2030.

These, apparently, were two of the 14 predictions for the future of Europe which Quinn offered at the Small Firms Association (SFA) annual conference last week. Others were that oil prices would be quoted in euros from 2013 and the CAP would be replaced with “a new rural environmental sustainable support programme” in 2020.

What is it about European affairs persons? Does the title do something to their brains? And have we shown the right clothing for them?

COMMENT THREAD

Journalists look at themselves

Readers of this blog would have worked out some time ago that we are not enamoured of the MSM. In particular, we do not hold the British media in the sort of respect most of its denizens feel is their due. This has less with those denizens’ political views and more with their ignorance, laziness and self-satisfaction.

How many British journalists either print or electronic, while lambasting the American government’s response to Katrina, bothered to find out exactly how that American government works? How many of them know that unless the Governor of a State specifically requests federal troops the President has no constitutional right to send them in? That way civil wars lie.

Nearer home, how many of the boys and girls with the mikes, cameras and laptop computers (no longer those wonderfully noisy typewriters) have the faintest idea how legislation is done in the European Union, though they blithely write about what Ministers or Commissioners do or say, without bothering to find out whether their so-called analysis has any link with the truth at all?

How many of them know the history or the geography of countries on whose present state they pontificate? How many of them bother to look at a map or read the most basic history book? Or, failing all that, look up things on the net?

The word amateur was once used with pride and approval. It denoted a person who, without being paid for it, was knowledgeable in some subject or skilful in some sport. Now, it has exactly the opposite meaning. Our journalists tend to be amateurs, not because they do not get paid but because they do not behave as professionals.

Having said all that, I have to admit that there are a few of the old-fashioned type of hacks around we approve of. One such is Mark Steyn, whom we quote with some regularity.

Another one is John Lloyd, sometime Moscow correspondent of the Financial Times (one of the few who actually knew what he was writing about), sometime Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, from which he resigned for entirely prinicipled reasons and now the editor of the FT’s Saturday magazine. Lloyd has done the unexpected and seemingly impossible: created an interesting week-end magazine. A greater achievement I cannot envisage in the world if journalism.

In addition John Lloyd has no problems about criticizing or attacking even sacred cows and his main articles, often about journalism and politics, are very well worth reading.

This weeks’ piece deals with journalists and is entitled Bias Cuts (clearly the sub-editors on the magazine are quite good, as well). Its theme is:

“Journalists must question every world view – and that includes the liberal-rationalist one they so often espouse.”

Well, yawn, you might say. Another piece of journalistic breast-beating that quickly evaporates into the ether. To some extent that is true but Lloyd does raise some important issues, even though I may not agree with all of what he says.

His starting point is the breast-beating that has gone on among American journalists, in particular, about the Iraqi WMDs that did not materialize. Interestingly, he does not simply dismiss the whole thing as a form of fog of war but reminds us that most journalists wrote up that story, that the call for a war against Saddam was not confined to a few grouchy neo-cons and that there were good reasons for this.

Lloyd asks whether journalists whom he considers to be truthful, hard-working and fully professional

“… screwed up or were they reporting information and beliefs held in good faith by professionals and victims of Saddam, which appeared to be right because the counter arguments appared weaker or mendacious? And how does journalism avoid that?”

His reply to his own question is:

“One way of doing so is by being aware of the underlying biases that frame journalism, sometimes without the individual being aware of them.”

One of those biases was the horror and detestation of Saddam’s regime and the stories (since then corroborated by physical evidence) of the tortures, murders, mass executions.

Interestingly, Lloyd does not go on to the bias that underlies so much journalism in America and Europe in its reporting of the war in Iraq and, indeed, most things to do with the Bush administration: a left-wing, “liberal” detestation of the man and all his supporters.

Nor does he mention the blogosphere, which has been so effective in the United States in undermining the self-referential world view of the Main Stream Media and has caused a certain amount of readjustment and that old friend of ours, breast-beating.

Lloyd does, however, raise a very important issue for the American media: religion. The left-leaning newspapers and TV networks live by a certain materialist, liberal-rationalist standard and find the idea of Christianity boring, backward and laughable. Unfortunately, a very large number of people in the US take exactly the opposite point of view and this has been reflected in electoral developments.

How do the well-known newspapers deal with the problem?

“The editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, confessed in an inteview this year that he felt his paper had lacked a depth of understanding of the faithful,and of those who didn’t share the liberal stance of his paper.

Michael Parks, who edited the Los Angeles Times in the late 1990s, told me he had spent sme time after his appointment asking all sorts of people what was important to them: in respone he increased the numbers of reporters covering religion from one to six.”

Of course, we do not know what sort of tone those six reporters took towards religion, particularly Christianity and where, in that voluminous paper, were the reports printed?

What of the European journalists? Do they ever suffer from this sort of momentary twinges of self-doubt. Not a lot, apparently. But there was one occasion during which certain ticks (not yet twinges) appeared.

Earlier this month at the Sanssouci Colloquium, which was going to be another “moan” about the state of Europe (no wonder these chaps and chapesses have no time to do any journalism if they attend quite so many meetings, conferences, colloquia

“[t]he journalists present, many of them editors of large newspapers, turned upon themselves, and found their practice wanting”.

It seems that Commission Vice-President Verheugen had

“confessed, candidly, that the hammer blows of the French and Dutch refusals to endorese the European constitution had left the union in a deeper crisis than any caused by rifts between member states or politicians”.

Yes, well, only journalists, in particular editors of large newspapers could have been surprised by that statement or seen through the mock autocritique.

It seems, however, that the proceedings did not go according to the script. Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail

“ripped into Verheugen and the union as agents of a conspiracy against democracy, liberty and the nation state. The Eurosceptic had come into her own,and in the pleasure garden of Frederick the Great, to boot”.

It seems the British participants, none of whom had displayed Ms Phillips’s gumption, accepted her outburst as “part of the British debate”. The other Europeans, though, in the wake of those referendums and Verheugen’s speech went into an unaccustomed mode of breast-beating.

“The editor of an Austrian newspaper summed up a view expressed in a more fragmented way by several – including Italian, German and Estonian – participants. He said that European journalists (with the exception of the British) had failed to hold the European Commission, and the entire European project, to proper account. This was, he said, because the journalists – especially those born soon after the war – had assumed the project to be a good one, good beyond all doubt…

The fundamental questions weren’t asked;they were tacitly, unconsciously, assumed not to apply. Thus it was not just the Eurocrats and the Europols who had been found wanting by the earthquake of the French and Dutch votes: it was also the journalists.”

The trouble is that the picture that paints of the vigorous British debate is completely false. I accept the argument about Continental journalist, especially those born soon after the war but even that is inadeqate.

Those arguments do not apply to the Estonians, whenever they happen to have been born. Furthermore, time has marched on and a very large number of journalists now were born quite a long time after the war. They cannot use that as an excuse.

And how many British journalists are prepared to hold the Commission or the European project to account? How many of them can even understand any of it? Noticeably, only Melanie Phillips was prepared to rock the boat at Sanssouci and, while she is a staunch eurosceptic, the EU is not her main theme. What were the others doing? Basking in the underserved envy and approbation of their Continental brethren, I suspect.

For if there is one bias that the British media suffers from, it is total self-satisfaction. While British newspapers dumb down we hear endless self-approbatory comments from British journalists. Worse, they actually sneer at other newspapers, particularly American ones, not being able to read any of the Continental ones.

Yet, bias or no bias, how many British newspapers can compare in quality with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal (in its various forms), the Washington Post or the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times and many others?

Is the BBC really the pinnacle of electronic news reporting or analysis as it fondly believes itself to be?

Have British journalists realized that the internet and the blogosphere blowing stormy winds through their cosy little world? Not on your life, though the first “victim”, the News Editor of the Guardian has fallen.

As John Lloyd says at the end of his article:

“The devil is in the bias you don’t know you have, or think you’ve overcome. We don’t cure what we can’t see.”

Ladies and gentlemen of the press and media. We are here to tell you about what you can’t see. And we shall go on doing so until your eyes open but by then it might be too late for you.

COMMENT THREAD

A collective fantasy

The front page of DefenseNews this week is dedicated to a story on how US military intelligence failed during an important attack on a Euphrates River bridge at the height of the Iraq War in April 2003.

The story, headed "Network Centric Blind Spot Intelligence Failed To Detect Massive Iraqi Counterattack", has massive implications for the UK and other EU governments, which are currently reorganising and re-equipping their forces on "network centric" lines, to facilitate development of the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF).

And while the US is ploughing billions of tax dollars into addressing the causes of the failures experienced, there is no indication that the European – and especially British - governments are prepared to spend the same amount of money, leading to development of systems that appear to be similar to those of the US, but which have all the flaws and none on the advantages.

The attack, around which critical failures occurred, took place on 2 April 2003, when a single U.S. Army battalion seized a Euphrates River bridge, designated Objective Peach, located about 20 miles southwest of Baghdad in the Karbala Gap.

This was Task Force 3-69, comprising 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles, which held the bridge for 24 hours, turning away a punishing Iraqi counterattack from 8,000 Iraqi soldiers backed by 70 tanks and armoured personnel carriers in the largest force-on-force battle of the Iraq War. Yet the intelligence system failed completely to detect the Iraqi forces and the intelligence officers who had relied on satellite imagery had concluded that Objective Peach was undefended.

At the time, the US Army's battlefield information networks were the most advanced ever fielded. Ground units carried a GPS-based tracking system known as the “Blue Force Tracker” (BFT) battle command system, which showed friendly forces as blue icons on a computer map, and automatically updated their locations. The problem was that enemies — red icons — had to be manually entered by intelligence officers at division and brigade headquarters who learned of enemy positions from satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and other airborne sensors.

To get that information down to unit level, the forces had to tap into the Army’s communications network. But this could only be accessed when the units halted and set up complicated antenna arrays. Even then, the communications system was so overloaded that data transfer could take hours and frontline units rarely got what they needed even when they stopped. This soon became known as the digital divide: at the division level and above, the view of the battle space was adequate, yet among the front-line troops the situational awareness was terrible.

What saved the day what the fact that the US forces were equipped with Main Battle Tanks like the Abrams (pictured left) which could sustain direct hits from the Iraqi tanks and survive. Iraqi vehicles would go up like a Roman candle when struck by US shells. As a result, just eight US soldiers were wounded, none seriously, during the bridge fighting. If the army had been using light armoured vehicles, many more would have been killed and the force could even have been overrun.

Despite this, the US Army is continuing with its plans to replace heavy tanks with lightweight vehicles, all to enable rapid deployment by aircraft. But, learning the lessons of Objective Peach, the US is investing $123 billion dollars in what is known as their Future Combat System (FCS), including no less than $23 billion to upgrade their communications.

At an early stage, the British government had the option of working with the US on FCS but, while it has bought into the concept, its has decided to develop its own system known as the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), a £14 billion project which also aims to harness the power of Network Centric Warfare. This is to enable it to develop, alongside like-minded European governments, the autonomous EU military capacity, focused on the European Rapid Reaction Force.

With that, it is already planning to cut its two heavy armoured divisions down to two brigades, replacing – in theory – the striking power by three medium brigades using lightly armoured, air portable vehicles, which will form the core of the ERRF contribution. Only last month, the MoD launched its first FRES platform contract, a technology demonstration programme, awarded to General Dynamics to test a wheeled hybrid electric drive system (see above).

Another contract is expected to be awarded shortly, this one to BAE Systems to front the Swedish designed SEP project, which already has a demonstration vehicle up and running. Both types demonstrate the intention to develop lightweight, wheeled armoured vehicles. With the UK government having already signed a co-operation agreement with the Swedish government to develop this vehicle, there is a distinct possibility that the British Army, in the future, could be fielding something like the SEP vehicle (illustrated above) instead of its Challenger tanks and Warrior armoured fighting vehicles.

However, the British investment in communications does not even begin to match the $23 billion expended by the US, as we will be relying for communications and data transmission on the £1 billion Bowman system. This allows "high capacity data radio", augmented by the “Falcon” communications system, only at senior commanders level.

In effect, therefore, the MoD is planning to send our troops into battle with equipment that does not allow for transmission of detailed intelligence data to units in the field, which means that they will have limited situational awareness. We will, in effect, risk replicating the situation that Task Force 3-69 found itself in during its attack on Objective Peach. The difference will be that our forces will be without the heavy armour that saved the US forces from serious casualties.

Yet, there is actually no way we could – or are prepared to – afford the investment required to develop a fully network centric system and neither are European governments, which have dropped their overall defence R&D; budgets to less than one-fifth of the US spend, amounting to €12.5 billion compared with €61.5 billion in the United States.

Short of paying the money, the only way we could remain at the "cutting edge" of military technology and capability is to link with the Americans, and tap into their technology. But such is the determination of the Blair government to distance us from the US, in order to take a full part in the ERRF with governments that are similarly unwilling to expend the necessary funding, that this is no longer a political option.

This means that the British government with its European "partners" are indulging in a collective fantasy that they can somehow match the US capability, without spending the money. The result will be, according to one senior military man I talked to recently, RAF C-17 transports full of body bags.

COMMENT THREAD

They've noticed

There is nothing europhile journalists like more than to be able to be slightly and somewhat deprecatingly amusing about the dreariness of the EU and its various denizens. Very worthy, of course, but, my dear, just a teensy-weensy bit dull.

And so, Nicholas Watt (who managed to misread the agreement about wine labelling between the EU and the USA but that is for tomorrow’s blog), started his piece in the Guardian yesterday with the following carefully honed words:

“On rainy afternoons in Brussels, when their mind-numbing work becomes a little too much to bear, European Union officials amuse themselves by tapping into the blog of Margot Wallström, the woman charged with bringing the EU closer to its citizens.”

He then mentions the sheer silliness of the fragrant Margot’s blog and the fact that other EU worthies are a little displeased about it. Actually, as readers of this blog know, there is nothing new about the story. Not only has it been covered in every eurosceptic blog in this country, it has been mentioned by the Daily Telegraph and even picked up by the American media. I suppose, the Guardian can’t help being a little out of date. But charming with it, I have to say.

After informing his readers of the fact that largely only “highly excitable” eurosceptics respond to Margot’s blog, Mr Watt looks at the reaction by the euro-worthies:

“But there is growing irritation in Brussels that Ms Wallström, Sweden's representative on the European Commission, has allowed herself to become an object of parody for neutral people and even pro-Europeans. Critics say this is undermining the deadly serious business of attempting to sell the EU after the rejection of the European constitution by French and Dutch voters.”

And the serious business? Well, Mr Blair has invited his fellow leaders “to an informal summit at Hampton Court palace at the end of next month to discuss the sustainability of the European social model” because only jobs and economic development will bring people round to loving the EU. How he will achieve that by discussing the sustainability of the European social model, remains to be seen.

Mr Barroso, as the “highly excitable” europhiles have been gasping out this week is about to make “a bonfire of regulations”. Again. Actually, he is about to drop a few directives that are at an early stage and consolidate various others, as well as the regulations (they are different things, Mr Watt), so they will look fewer but nothing much will change.

There will be no bonfires as these conflict with health and safety regulations.

“Even the European Parliament, which is often lampooned as a depository for failed or never-to-succeed politicians, is doing its bit. Josep Borrell, the president of the parliament, this week launched a new website which is designed to make it more accessible.”

It isn’t really. I have seen it and even try to find something on it. Not that different from the old one. This is not going to turn the people of Europe into zealous supporters of the project.

However, Mr Watt points out, the accusations of fluffiness directed at the fragrant one are unfair.

“Some of the most sophisticated thinking has come from a surprising quarter, however. When Ms Wallström can be prised away from her blog she has made some of the most acute observations - in speeches and at press conferences - on how the EU can do more to connect.

One of her most important messages, which is echoed by Britain's European Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, is that European leaders can no longer rely on the argument that the EU has preserved peace on the continent. "New generations of Europeans have no memory of world war two and they take peace for granted. Thank God," she said in a recent speech.”

Well, gosh a’mighty. What do you know? Is this the same sophisticated and fragrant Margot who set off the somewhat catastrophic trend of pro-EU arguments along the lines of sign up to the Constitution or we shall end up with another Holocaust? Alas, despite all twistings and turnings by her spokespeople and moderators, it is the same person.

Maybe her fluffy bunny mode is actually more useful than her sophisticated one.

COMMENT THREAD

Full circle

According to The Times this morning, the TUC has backed a motion rejecting the EU constitution – amid fears that it could be resurrected in some form next year. Supported by the General Council delegates at the annual TUC conference also opposed the services directive, on the grounds that it would allow migrant workers to be paid in line with average wages in their own countries, triggering a "race to the bottom" for pay and conditions.

Although the focus is primarily on the constitution – and it is interesting how even the unions do not believe the thing is dead – unease over the EU spreads far wider than this specific issue.

The sentiment is summed up by Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, who told the conference yesterday that a revived constitution would create "a European superstate that backs big business to privatise the services". He said that the majority of people did not want public services to be operated by the private sector and that their future should not be controlled by "an unaccountable central bank".

The Times sees this "new-found hostility to Europe" as a "further blow to ministers. Who are currently struggling to revive Britain’s ailing presidency of the EU".

Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the unions are simply reverting to type. They were, for instance, the main focus of opposition during the 1975 referendum campaign and it was only in 1988, at the behest of Jacques Delors – then president of the commission – that the TUC cast its weight behind the "project".

Interestingly, one driver behind the conversion was opposition to the Thatcherite privatisation agenda and a feeling that, in the absence of a Labour government, the EU would have to provide the counter-weight. Now that a Labour government is in power and has been so for over eight years, the traditional hostility to the EU has re-emerged.

However, those who might be tempted to cheer this development would be advised to be more cautious. It was the opposition of the unions and the Left that was instrumental in convincing the majority to support Britain's continued membership of the (then) EEC in 1975. By and large, union support is more a hindrance than asset to the Eurosceptic movement.

Nor can anything be inferred of the EU's politics from the TUC's opposition. Although privatisation – or "liberalisation" – may be central to the Commission's objectives, theirs is no Thatcherite agenda. The many woolly Tories who believe it is should recall that it is not necessary to own something to control it. Mere transfer of ownership, without transfer of control, does not amount to very much.

Thus while – particularly in the context of utilities such as the electricity supply industry – the EU may be seeking "liberalisation", its regulatory controls mean that that industries so "liberated" are far from free to chose their own destinies. In fact, what the programme is really all about is the detachment of essential industries from their national bases and their eventual reformation as trans-national entities, under the regulatory control of the EU. This is why, of course, the commission takes such an interest in cross-border mergers.

The TUC opposition to "privatisation", therefore, is almost certainly misplaced. To be intellectually consistent, the "brothers" should actually support the EU's agenda, as a bastion against what they consider to be the depredations of capitalism. Their newly resurgent opposition is – in their own terms – the wrong thing for the wrong reason. But then, whoever expected trades unions to be either consistent or intellectual?

Being neither, their current opposition to the EU is of little relevance and their conversion is no great assistance to the wider Eurosceptic cause.

COMMENT THREAD

Fighting for democracy

That great and wonderful institution, the European Parliament (average cost over £1 million per year per member) is doing its best to fight for democracy. Well, no, now that you ask they are not going to reform themselves, claim fewer perks, have proper debates or start looking at the lack of democratic unaccountability in the European Union.

No, they are going to supervise elections in Afghanistan. According to EP News, September 15, 2005, No. 228: “MEPs MONITOR ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

Robert Evans (Labour, London), Richard Howitt (PES, UK) and Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (ALDE, UK) are members of a European Parliament delegation to monitor elections in Afghanistan on 18 September. In the run-up to the elections, MEPs will visit different parts of the country and meet with political leaders. The delegation will leave Afghanistan two days after the elections, on 20 September.

Parliament's election observation delegation is led by José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (EPP-ED, Spain). Other members of the delegation are Karine Scheele (PES, Austria), Philippe Morillon (ALDE, France) and Jürgen Schröder (EPP-ED, Germany). The EP delegation is part of the wider EU Observation Mission led by Emma Bonino MEP (ALDE, Italy).”

Strangely, there is no information as to how many people actually voted for the individual members of the delegation. But, at least, an account of their expense accounts would encourage more Afghanis to stand for their parliament.

COMMENT THREAD

Normal service resumes

Our apologies for a slight (very slight) interruption in the service on this blog. Dr North was in London delivering a scintillating talk on defence procurement. I shall not try to explain why I have found it impossible to post anything yesterday.

However, normal service resumes with a link to an excellent article by Mark Steyn in this week’s Spectator on the UN and whether it is reformable.

Mr Steyn’s view is one we share: the UN a basically unaccountable structure, the large proportion of whose members would not recognize its supposed principles of freedom, democracy and human rights if any or all of them got up and bit them in the street.

It is, therefore, unreformable because there is no mechanism for reform. More to the point, there is no aim to which such a reform could lead.

That being so, SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) may as well remain in his position for the foreseeable future as the inalienable symbol of the UN’s corruption and power mania.

We would be hard put to disagree with or improve on the following summary of the bizarre symbiosis between the supposedly well-meaning tranzis and the world’s worst dictators and terrorists:

“Transnationalism is the mechanism by which the world’s most enlightened progressives provide cover for its darkest forces. It’s a largely unconscious alliance but not an illogical one. Western proponents of ‘sustainable consumption’ and some of the other loopy NGO-beloved eco-concepts up for debate in New York this week have at least this much in common with psychotic Third World thugocracies: both groups find it hard to win free elections, both regard transnational bodies as useful for conferring a respect unearned at the ballot box, and neither is unduly troubled by the lack of accountability in global institutions.”

Probably our readers will see an interesting parallel there with another organization that also claims certain moral superiority. Its headquarters are in Brussels, not New York and its budget is a tad smaller. Possibly, its scandals are on a smaller scale as well. But it is only a matter of scale.

COMMENT THREAD

Cameron speaks

David Cameron makes a pitch for the support of Right-wing Conservatives today, says The Daily Telegraph. He is “attacking the European Union's social policies and expressing support for the idea of flat taxes to be examined by the party.”

In an opinion piece, we then get to see what Cameron has to say. “We must challenge the culture of the EU,” the man writes. “Not just resisting new regulations, but fighting to end the EU's damaging social role, leaving it to focus on its real job: making the single market work properly and championing free trade.” He continues:

Those who believe that pressure for deeper integration in Europe has somehow gone away are wrong. With the centralising agenda rejected in referendums, now is the time to press home the arguments for radical change: returning employment and social regulation to national control. There are encouraging signs that a Eurosceptic Conservative government would not be isolated in calling for such changes.

The CDU manifesto calls for the "recovery of competences" from the EU. It would be bizarre if we were to adopt a position of silence when countries like Germany were moving in the opposite direction. Euro-enthusiasts are fond of transport metaphors, so here's one: the EU has taken the wrong fork in the road, to a low-growth, high-unemployment future. The EU needs to turn around and take a different path. We Conservatives have to show that we're ready to fight tough battles - over tax, regulation, Europe and public service reform.

And that's it folks. I guess UKIP members will not be rushing to hand in their membership cards.

COMMENT THREAD

A Trojan horse

It is a measure of the level of distrust of the European Union than news of the failure of plans by the EU to introduce a potentially life-saving system can only be greeted with unalloyed relief.

The system in question is known as eCall, which automatically generates an emergency mobile phone call the emergency services, in the event of a car crash, triggered by sensors inside the car. The system informs the services of the vehicle location, thus enabling a rapid response.

However, while the EU commission "agreed" with the automotive industry that all new cars in the EU would be equipped with the technology by 2009, according to Reuters, of the 25 EU member states, only Finland and Sweden have agreed to install the equipment needed for emergency centres to receive the calls. Although Germany is set to sign up soon, that still leaves 22 countries who have not made any plans.

The EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, Viviane Reding, yesterday told the Frankfurt car show on Wednesday that eCall could save 2,500 lives a year. "This is the life saver," she said, "because it works whether the accident victims are conscious or not."

What Reding did not say, and the EU publicity seems to avoid emphasising, is that to use the service, cars must be fitted with Galileo satellite positioning receivers. Linked to the mobile phone, it is this enables the emergency services to locate vehicles in distress.

But, once the equipment is installed, there can be no guarantee that it will not send signals unbidden, thus enabling the authorities to keep track of unsuspecting motorists. Furthermore, exactly the same technology is used for road charging schemes and automatic speed limiters. Almost certainly, many motorists would be reluctant to have the equipment fitted to their cars if they knew its full potential.

How clever of the commission, therefore, to "sell" the system as a life-saver, gulling the unsuspecting into fitting what amounts to a Trojan horse. Tough really that, once again, the member states have messed up its plans.

COMMENT THREAD

Encouraging terrorism

As the UN opens its grand anniversary jamboree that was intended to discuss the supposed reforms of that body, most of them already on the dust heap of history, we can all look forward to squabbles over two things in particular: definition of terrorism and money to be spent on more aid to various developing countries. I predict very little discussion of the central problem, which is lack of any kind of accountability in the UN itself.

Most rational people (and that does not include the tranzi great and the good or much of the western MSM) would describe a man who blows up over a hundred of his countrymen, as reported a little while ago from Baghdad, a terrorist.

The fact that he blew himself up as well is irrelevant. Such a man may be a suicide bomber but he is largely a homicide one. He is not a martyr or an insurrectionist. Those religious and political terms do not apply. He is a terrorist. It is, however, unlikely that the UN will come to such a simple conclusion, there being far too many members who do not want that to happen.

It may be a good time to cast a glance at the area and group that has been the recipient of the largest amount of hand-outs from the UN, from the EU and from individual western states: the Palestinian Authority.

The chaos in Gaza that followed the Israeli withdrawal has exceeded the worst expectations. It is all very well to write jolly little accounts of children rushing into the sea because they have been excluded from “their” beaches all these years, as numerous soft-hearted and soft-headed journalists have done, but much more went on.

The remaining building were trashed, what could be looted was; the synagogues were desecrated and burnt (imagine the outcry if the same had happened to mosques – though come to think of it, mosques have been attacked and burnt by some of those famous "insurrectionists”).

The worst, perhaps, from the point of view of the future development of Gaza, was the destruction of the highly expensive greenhouses, left behind in fully functioning order by the Israelis, as agreed. These were to form the centrepiece of the future Gaza economy. No centrepiece, no economy.

What we shall get instead is endless demands for more aid and a great deal of wailing and cursing of Israel, where those greenhouses go on functioning and fruit goes on growing.

As the mob swarmed over the Egyptian border, the guards opened fire. So far there have been few casualties but it seems more than likely that the Egyptian authorities will take tough measures to prevent any repetition of the swarming.

In the midst of it all the Palestinian Authority and its police force, trained and financed by the EU, has stood by, wringing its collective hands. From Mahmoud Abbas down they have wailed that this is not what they had in mind. Well, maybe not, but surely, some preparation could have been made. After all, the Israeli withdrawal had been announced months ago and has been proceeding according to plan in the last few weeks. What did the PA and its paymasters, the UN, the EU and many others think would happen?

One wonders whether all those hacks who had expended rivers of ink to decry the lack of federal preparation for Katrina in New Orleans will even look at the complete break-down of all order in the Gaza. No need to ask.

In the meantime, there have been the usual problems about funding and UN behaviour.

Israel has accused the UN of collaborating with Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.

“In diplomatic meetings with the U.S. and France in the past weeks, a series of complaints about UNIFIL were brought up: The UN force maintains a permanent dialogue with Hezbollah, chiefly because of UNIFIL's own interest in survival;in many places along the Israel-Lebanon border, Hezbollah has posts and positions adjacent to UNIFIL positions; deployment of the force serves as an excuse for the Lebanese government not to deploy in the south, as required by UN Security Council resolutions; and UNIFIL treats the IDF as equivalent to the Hezbollah terrorist organization when reporting violations of the cease-fire.”

Israel maintains that the situation in Lebanon has changed recently and adjustments need to be made accordingly.

“France rejected the Israeli position. French government officials told the Israeli ambassador in Paris, Nissim Zvili, that UNIFIL's mandate allows it to maintain ties with "all sides," including Hezbollah, and that the force fulfills a "stabilizing role" and that reducing it would not help achieve stability in the region. The U.S. administration prefers to coordinate its position on Lebanon with France and not to upset the sensitive Lebanese political structure.”

That argument would hold if there were anything remotely resembling stability in the region, never mind anything remotely resembling a legitimate and accountable government. Instead we get a country in which another country (Syria) murders politicians and journalists at will and the UN troops parlay with terrorists.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Media Watch reports that the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, which receives funding from the EU, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, the Ford Foundation, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Open Society Fund and various others, has been posting interesting items on its website.

It appears that this “human rights organization” has no problems whatsoever with “military” activity aimed at Israeli civilians, even children, as long as they are not carried out from Palestinian civilian areas that might result in Palestinian deaths.

Describing terrorists as “resistance fighters”, a term that will crop up as the discussions at the UN carry on, the PCHR openly commends their rocket attacks on civilian targets, as long as they are Israeli.

“In addition, PCHR's definition of Hamas and Islamic Jihad - groups that specialize in suicide terror against civilians and who are on the terror lists of America and European countries - as "resistance groups" raises yet more questions regarding PCHR's status as a legitimate "human right" organization.”

PCHR, incidentally, holds a “Special Consultative Satatus” with the UN’s Economic and Social Council.

It is, however, good to know that aid money from the European Union and others goes to worthy causes.

Not that one can exclude Americans from the rather haphazard way in which money is given to organizations in the Middle East.

A recent article in FrontPage magazine details the amounts the US government has spent on the support of Palestinian terrorists held in Israeli prisons.

“On September 3, Abu Zayda told the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida that his office deposits salaries of $400 to $500 a month for each prisoner, in addition to a $50 monthly payment each for expenses in the prison canteen. The Palestinian Prison Affairs office also funds the prisoners’ legal expenses, medical treatment, etc. An additional $100,000 is dedicated to tuition for every terrorist prisoner who seeks higher education--without any consideration to his organizational affiliation or crimes. The prisoners include those who murdered Israelis, suicide bomber dispatchers, and suicide bombers caught en route.”

Mahmoud Abbas’s thinking is presumably along the lines that paying off the terrorists in various ways might buy him the support of Hamas and the more extreme wing of Fatah. What the thinking behind the USAID largesse might be, is anybody’s guess.

None of us have ever been able to work out precisely why various organizations, starting from the UN, going on through the EU and national aid givers as well as NGOs think it a good idea to support terrorists in the hopes that pouring money in might improve the situation. It has never done so until now. The recent scenes in Gaza are just another set of scenes in this murderous sequence. I imagine, the money will pour in as compensation for the destruction wrought by the people themselves, the terrorists will benefit, while more and more legislation will be imposed on people in the EU's member states, allegedly all to conduct the fight against terrorism.

COMMENT THREAD

Heat and no light

This morning, The Times, in particular, goes to town with the story on the ECJ ruling, extending criminal penalties to environmental law, with a front-page article and a leader.

On the back of our post yesterday, the story is also covered in The Telegraph, in The Guardian and The Independent.

Reviewing the various press comment, it is clear that all the reporters and editorial writers are having difficulty in understanding what, in fact, is an extremely complex issue, and are also demonstrating their basic lack of understanding of the nature of the European Union.

The Times, for instance, complains that the EU Commission "is not a sovereign power but a civil service executive, supposedly appointed to serve EU common interests", while The Telegraph describes the commission as "an unelected bureaucracy", both thereby expressing a sense of surprise and even outrage at the events that have come to pass.

In a sense, this is chickens coming home to roost, the failure to understand that the commission is a government, a power in its own right. Furthermore, within the areas or "competences" defined in the treaties, it is a supranational government, with superior powers over member states, which are subordinate to it.

That said, the actual judgement – serious enough in its own right - has been overblown. The situation is not as The Independent describes it, that "Europe may impose criminal penalties for breaching EU law", and The Times headline is way off the mark with its: “Europe wins the power to jail British citizens”. The Guardian is closer to the mark with: "Brussels wins right to force EU countries to jail polluters", as is The Telegraph, with "EU laws could be enforced by prison".

Even these latter two headlines, however, do not actually convey what is happening, and has already happened. Within the treaties, there has always been a requirement that member states enforce community law. Much (in fact most) of the EU law transposed into UK law comes within the criminal code and thereby makes provision for custodial sentences.

The issue here, therefore, is something different. We are actually dealing with a dispute between the Council and the Commission, the former having decided that the power to determine minimum penalties for environmental law resides with it – the ministers of the member states acting collectively as a community institution.

In this, the Commission disagreed, arguing that, since the environment is wholly a community competence, the power to decide penalties resides not solely with the Council. It must fall within the institutional framework, where the nature of the penalties must, in the first instance, be proposed by the commission and then approved, under the co-decision procedure, jointly by the Council and the EU parliament.

What this boils down to, therefore, is a turf war, where the Commission has come head-to-head with the Council, arguing about the powers held by the different institution. In this instance – as so often – the ECJ has come down on the side of the Commission.

In so doing, the ECJ is probably entirely correct, as it acknowledges that reality of what the member states had conceded when they gave the commission the power in the first place – that they had turned it into a government with the right to propose our laws.

As to the end result, for the putative offender, nothing has changed – it is only of academic importance whether they are sent to jail as a result of a Council "framework decision" or a directive of the Council and European Parliament. The fact is that British people have, ever since we joined the Common Market, been subject to EU law and some have been sent to jail as a result, and will continue to be locked up for breaking it.

Our newspapers, therefore, have generated great heat, but little light.

COMMENT THREAD

Brothers under the skin

Exactly one week after Europe's political and corporate heavyweights schmoozed with "the inscrutable Chinaman", as part of the EU-China summit, reports The Times of India, Western capitals and human rights campaigners have recoiled with horror at news reports alleging a Chinese cosmetics company is harvesting skin from the corpses of executed convicts to develop beauty products for sale in the UK and Europe.

Agents for the Chinese company, reportedly based in northern China, have been boasting to an undercover British journalist that skin taken from hundreds of executed Chinese prisoners was used to develop collagen for lip and wrinkle treatments.

The ghoulish revelation, continues The Times, quickly dubbed "cannibal cosmecuticles" by appalled human rights activists, has stunned Western medics. The anti-ageing treatments, which allegedly cannibalise the skin of thousands of benighted Chinese, feed a multi-million-pound British and European obsession to be magically unlined and unchanged by the passage of time.

And just to remind you, here is an extract from the joint declaration of the 8th EU-China Summit, signed by Tony Blair and Chinese premier Wen Jiabao:

The two sides underlined their commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights and continued to place a high value on the EU-China human rights dialogue. They underlined the importance of concrete steps in the field of human rights and reaffirmed their commitment to further enhance co-operation and exchanges in this field on the basis of equality and mutual respect, while making efforts to achieving more meaningful and positive results on the ground.

What more can you say?

COMMENT THREAD

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

One of the great or, at least, famous images of modern art: René Magritte’s 1929 painting of a pipe with the writing under it: Ceci n’est pas une pipe (This is not a pipe). Without going into any of the artistic and symbolistic, not to mention post-modernist conceptual discussions of the work (which, I must admit, always makes me smile), it is something to consider as one looks at the latest ECJ decision and the comments on it.

In particular, I was interested to read that Commission lawyers are insisting, "we are not creating a community criminal code". Well, as my colleague says, what's this, scotch mist?

The ECJ has ruled that the Commission will now have the right to make governments apply sanctions against companies that break EU environmental laws. To arrive at this decision the ECJ has overturned a framework decision taken by the Council of Ministers, which reserved the member states' right to impose sanctions.

According to the ECJ press release:

“The Commission claimed that the aim and content of the Framework Decision are within the scope of the European Community’s power on the environment as provided for in the EC Treaty. Accordingly, the Framework Decision could not be adopted on the basis of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union concerning police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In environmental matters, the Commission initiates the legislative procedure that involves, among others, the European Parliament.”

But heck, this is not creating a community criminal code, despite the fact that it is serious move into criminal legislation. This, as lawyers are already arguing, will be a dangerous precedent for other issues such as breaches of EU internal market, data protection laws and intellectual property rights.

The Court further pronounced:

“The Court observes that the protection of the environment constitutes one of the essential objectives of the Community and that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community’s policies and activities.”

I must admit I do not remember being told that the protection of the environment was one of the essential objectives of the Community at any stage and it does make one wonder what else the Court might decide is on that list.

Needless to say, we have had the usual spate of comments from various well-known and not so well-known personalities. Commission President Barroso explained

“This court judgement breaks new ground, it strengthens democracy and efficiency in the EU.”

One wonders how the Commission President would define democracy. Or, for that matter, efficiency if he thinks this kind of top heavy centralization leads to that.

Of course, we still do not know how the whole thing will work in practice but there has been some rejoicing among some MEPs (the less well-known individuals).

The Lib-Dim Chris Davies has been rejoicing:

"It is unacceptable for some EU states to try and sidestep the law in order to gain a competitive advantage over their partners.

"Europe needs an umpire to ensure fair play between member states and to dismiss the cheats. The European Commission is the only body that comes close to fitting that role and this court ruling gives it more teeth with which to bite."

Well, goodness me, one must not have competitive advantages. One rather wonders how all this will affect the new members who are already finding it hard to accommodate the many unnecessary and inappropriate environmental regulations, based as they are too often on precautionary prejudice rather than scientific evidence.

Also, one rather wonders (what a lot of wondering one is doing) about his definition of an umpire. The Commission is claiming the right to direct the criminal enforcement in member states.

Just to make it quite clear, the ECJ press release concludes with these words:

“Since the Framework Decision encroaches on the powers which the EC Treaty confers on the Community and thereby infringes the Treaty on European Union,which gives priority to such powers, the Court annuls that decision in its entirety.”

There is, however, another aspect of the whole saga to consider. Just recently, it looked as if the Council was winning the tug-of-war for power in the EU over the Commission. This decision and its possible ramifications, pushed matters in the other direction.

COMMENT THREAD

An interesting quote

Speaking about the situation in New Orleans and the monstrous accusation that somehow President Bush sits there deciding which people should be rescued and which should be left to die, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, making a rare foray into domestic politics, had a few interesting things to say to the New York Times:

When asked how she explained the racism that is in America to foreign governments, who questioned that country's right to "spread democracy", she said furiously (knowing a good deal more about the subject than, say, President Chirac or the average Arab potentate):

"You go to any other meeting around the world and show me the kind of diversity that you see in America's cabinet, in America's Foreign Service, in America's business community, in America's journalistic community. Show me that kind of diversity anyplace else in the world, and I'm prepared to be lectured about race."

You go, girl.

But her most interesting comment was about the President, whom she has known since the early nineties.

“Ms. Rice said she was first impressed by Mr. Bush in the 1990's, not because of any foreign policy issues, but because he spoke of "the soft bigotry of low expectations" and the phrase meant something to her. She recalled being told by a high school teacher "that maybe I was junior college material" and added:

"I know about the soft bigotry of low expectations. And it's not in this president. It is, however, deeply ingrained in our system, and we're going to have to do something about it."”

Well, in a slightly different way, we all know about the soft bigotry of low expectations. This country suffers from it as much as, if not more than many others.

Oh and by the way, the latest count of bodies is around 280 in Louisiana, which puts the tally so far at just over 500 in the four state hit by Katrina. Far it be from me to dismiss over 500 deaths and the attendant tragedies but it is a long way short of the predicted 10,000 in New Orleans alone, of the 3,000 (or just under) of 9/11 and of the 20,000 (at least) in France and Italy as a result of the 2003 heat wave.

COMMENT THREAD

You can't be serious!

This is not meant to be a defence blog and neither is it. Discerning readers will have noted, however, that there has been a certain emphasis on this issue, but the emphasis is for good reasons.

Firstly, despite the EU constitution ratification process being temporarily stalled, defence integration is continuing apace, and has become the vanguard issue in the continuing process of European political integration. Secondly, at the current rate of integration, we are at risk of losing entirely any independent defence capability, with all that means for our status as a sovereign nation.

Thirdly, for reasons which remain mysterious, the mainstream media seem to have given up even a pretence of serious reporting on defence issues, which leaves to the blogs to pick up the slack.

That said, in today's Guardian, we have interview with John Reid, secretary of state for defence (left), in which he is said to be seeking a "debate on ageing Trident" – i.e., the replacement of our nuclear deterrent. Within the piece, though, there is a statement which, evidently, is not open to debate. Regardless of any decision (on the nuclear deterrent) says Reid, "spending would have to be tightened, with greater European co-ordination on procurement."

It is that latter statement that chills the blood, an acknowledgement – albeit elliptical – that the government is indeed adopting a "Europe first" policy on defence procurement.

Despite this, when Reid's minister for defence procurement, Lord Drayson, addressed the Royal United Services Institute yesterday, on "Military Capabilities in the 21st Century", he was guarded in his speech.

He was sure, he said that his audience would be "trying to parse my remarks for whether I am advocating wholescale protection for UK industry, 'Fortress Europe', or 'Buy America'", saying that he did not meant to convey any of those things. "There will be areas where appropriate sovereignty requires on-shore supply," he said. "There will be some we can procure from the global market. And there will be a third category which can be procured in co-operation with partners – continental European, or American."

"European and transatlantic purchases each have their own characteristics, and it is no secret that either situation can be frustrating at worst," he pointed out, adding, "We tend to forget they can also be extremely successful. For example, the Storm Shadow cruise missile within Europe…" (pictured left).

Unfortunately, no reaction is recorded to this claim, but one really wonders what was going through the mind of the minister as he made it. The Storm Shadow is, of course, the "million pound bomb" that we featured in an earlier posting. It is a French designed weapon, built by Matra Défense for the French Air Force under the name SCALP EG and has been built for the RAF by Matra BAe Dynamics.

In the sense, that it actually works, I suppose it can be considered a success, but it is heavier, with a shorter range than the equivalent US missile, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) - see right, which has a significantly lower price tag of $300,000 (£167,000). We have bought 900 Storm Shadow missiles at a cost of £981 million, whereas the same number of JASSM could have been purchased for £150 million, saving the taxpayer over £830 million.

That, it seems, is Drayson's definition of "extremely successful", and John Reid wants more of it. One is reminded of another the catchphrase of another John – John McEnroe: "You can't be serious!"

COMMENT THREAD

The conference season is upon us

One of the distinguishing qualities of the annual conference season, started this week with the TUC Conference, going on next week to the Lib-Dims, thence to Labour and, finally, the Conservatives, is the extraordinary amount of hot air emanating from assorted seaside resorts. I bet the indicators for global warming go up in this period.

Chancellor of the Exchequer and eternal Prime Minister in waiting (always the bridesmaid, never the bride, sob), Gordon Brown made a speech at the TUC Conference, in which he tried to explain how he was going to deal with the possible problems caused by rising fuel prices.

"Because we will never be complacent, the first action we must take is to tackle the cause of the problem, ensuring concerted global action is taken to bring down world oil prices and stabilise the market for the long term."

I guess this still goes down well with the Brothers but the rest of us find that as a policy statement somewhat inadequate. Maybe this is better:

“Lack of transparency about the world's reserves and plans for their development undermines stability and causes speculation. The world must call on Opec to become more open and more transparent.

"From the additional 300 billion US dollars a year in revenue Opec countries are now enjoying and the additional 800 billion US dollars available to oil producers, there must be additional new investment in production and global investment in refining capacity.

"The search for alternative sources of energy and greater energy efficiency is urgent to ensure both the maintenance of economic growth and tackling climate change.”

So what have we got that is even remotely like a practical suggestion? Well there is the incredibly “radical” idea that “the World Bank should set up a new fund to support developing countries, which were investing in alternative sources of energy and greater energy efficiency”. In other words more money pumped into the various unsatisfactory governmental “projects” in developing countries that have not, at this stage, adequate economic infrastructure for basic development.

What is it about Gordy’s mind? It moves along entirely predestined grooves.

Ultimately, one assumes that our wonderful Chancellor is proposing to put some kind of pressure on OPEC for it to pump out more oil (which is questionable in practical terms), presumably, in order for him to tax it to the hilt. After all, what with one thing and another, tax returns are going down, not an unknown phenomenon in economies that are over-taxed in an ever more complicated fashion.

At a recent discussion about flat tax and its advantages (not yet clearly perceived by any main political party in this country, George Osborne’s feeble murmurings nothwithstanding) I was particularly interested to hear Professor David Myddleton of Cranfield University School of Management, an expert on taxation, announce that despite being that and despite lecturing on it for forty years or so, he still could not understand his tax form.

No wonder the Chancellor is looking for another source of revenue.

COMMENT THREAD

Mote and beam

I suppose I should get excited about the EU's latest carve up on banana tariffs, or Barroso, with an unfortunate sense of timing, telling the US to give more money for the UN’s millennium fund. Perhaps Blunkett telling the EU to learn from the UK on job creation should have me quivering.

However, the great genius of the EU and things related to it are that they are, so very often, incredibly tedious. It takes real stamina to keep up with the goings-on and readers have my admiration for staying the course. Most do not, which is why the EU is able to get away with so much. The "colleagues" are not taking over our countries by force, so much as boring us into submission.

Fortunately for us, as Blog authors, we have been able to widen our remit, beyond the immediate purview of the EU, which is just as well. We would be having men in white coats coming to collect us if all we had to write about was direct EU affairs. After all, who really gives a brass farthing (a bent nickel, for our US friends) what a Member of the European Parliament says or thinks?

The story that caught our eye this morning, therefore, takes us slightly away from direct coverage of the EU but nevertheless is oddly relevant. It also once again illustrates that unwarranted superiority of the Europeans when it comes to affairs American – and it gives me an excuse to publish another picture of a "toy", a rather striking one at that.

So to the story, this one by The Financial Times military correspondent Peter Spiegel, headed "A military lesson America must grasp". He is reviewing a book by Sean Naylor entitled "Not a good day to die - The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda".

This is not actually about "toys", per se, but a rather sneering account of how the "clumsy, blundering" (my words, the author merely implies them) US made a mess of operations in the Shahikot Valley, near the Tora Bora mountain complex in eastern Afghanistan.

This was "Operation Anaconda" and Spiegel recounts with evident approval how "Sean Naylor's impeccably reported new book on the battle, 'will lie to rest any residual belief that Anaconda was anything but a horribly planned mess of an operation'."

Commanders sent US troops into a battle they had not been prepared for, against enemies they did not know existed, without the weapons they needed. In the end, eight Americans would die and hundreds of al-Qaeda operators, some of them senior leaders, would escape into Pakistan. According to Spiegel, Naylor has produced a gem in the mould of Black Hawk Down.

This may or may not be the case – I have not read the book so I cannot judge - but Spiegel then seeks to draw conclusions, with which I can take issue. "At a time when the Pentagon is in the midst of one of its most important rethinks of military policy in a generation," writes Spiegel, "the book should be required reading for another, more important reason":

Mr Naylor's account is a cautionary tale for those, including Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, who believe that advanced weapons technologies can transform the US military into a smaller, lighter force using futuristic reconnaissance and communications equipment in place of heavy guns and boots on the ground. If Mr Naylor's book illustrates one thing, it is that no amount of intelligence, satellite imagery and precision air strikes can take the place of a well-armed artillery unit when a battle begins to go wrong. It is a lesson that the Pentagon is still struggling to grasp in Iraq.

The chain of events that led to the failures in Anaconda started well before the battle was even conceived when Mr Rumsfeld ordered what Mr Naylor calls a “force cap” in Afghanistan, keeping the number of conventional troops in the country low. The rationale was that the army could, through modern technology, do more with less, a central tenet of Mr Rumsfeld’s transformational agenda. Senior commanders managed the Afghan campaign "under extraordinarily close supervision by Rumsfeld", Mr Naylor writes, "who took it upon himself to ensure that not a single soldier was deployed to Afghanistan unless the defence secretary considered that soldier's presence there absolutely necessary".

The result was that battalions of the 101st Airborne, the first conventional army forces used in Afghanistan, were sent into Anaconda with almost no artillery – equipment that would have come in handy when it turned out that hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters, most of whom had not shown up on satellite imagery and spy plane reconnaissance, were waiting in the Shahikot with plenty of artillery of their own.

Under the doctrine advanced by Mr Rumsfeld, precision bombing from aircraft can make up for a lack of artillery. But soldiers found it difficult, sometimes impossible, to find available fighters and bombers. "For every air strike called in by [ground troops] that resulted in destroyed enemy position, there was a bombing run that couldn't be arranged before the target had moved, that missed the target completely, or, in some cases, that hit right where it was supposed to, but failed to kill the enemy," writes Mr Naylor.

Senior US commanders also displayed a disturbing over-reliance on intelligence gathered by satellites and spy planes – another favourite of Mr Rumsfeld’s. Not only would the soldiers who arrived in the valley find a landscape far more mountainous than the imagery led them to believe but they would also find about 1,000 enemy fighters when they had been told to expect 200 at most. Just as importantly, while the imagery suggested al-Qaeda fighters were housed in small valley villages, they were up in the mountains, the perfect position from which to rain down missiles on the US soldiers piling off Chinook helicopters.

In almost every respect, the doctrines and technologies pushed by Mr ­ Rumsfeld's transformationalists let down the men who fought in Anaconda. Communications gear failed, electronic intelligence misled planners, air support took hours to arrive, lightly armed men could not defend themselves. As Pentagon planners push on with Mr Rumsfeld's revolution, they would do well to take to heart the ­ lessons of an actual war.

Sounds all very well and good, except that the system was in its infancy during these early Afghan operations and is being rolled out over the next ten years or so, with the expenditure of over $120 billion, based on precisly the lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. The expected transformation, therefore, cannot be compared with what the troops had available in Shahikot Valley.

But more to the point, the Europeans – and especially the British – are undertaking precisely the same force transformation that Rumsfeld is seeking – at a fraction of the overall cost and with considerably less capability, on which basis the UK has already started to cut back force numbers. And this is largely being done without anything like the depth of "actual war" experience that the US can muster.

Never mind. When you are the military correspondent for the Financial Times, you can afford to be sooooooo superior. After all, one is only writing about those stupid Americans, and they know nothing.

COMMENT THREAD

The measure of the beast

Christopher Patten, that completely independent EU pensioner, is airing his views in the The Guardian today, telling us that the Tories have "lost the plot" and only Ken Clarke can find it again.

He argues of the Conservative Party that what has "helped to wreck its prospects, delivering Britain into the hands of a Labour government" is the reversal of "the international posture it had first warmly embraced 30 years before when it had become a pro-European party."

He claims that Conservative "anti-Europeans" have been indulging in a ruinous fantasy have no idea what to put in place of the arrangements against which they rail. Theirs is a programme, he says, whose main achievement has been to exclude from all hope of the party leadership the man - Kenneth Clarke - most able to exercise it in a way likely to restore the party's fortunes.

He believes that Clarke is the man to drag the Conservative party back into a more sensible and comprehensible European posture. Others with similar views to his are driven to the outer fringes of Conservatism, to watch with dismay the continued infatuation of the party they love.

What is especially interesting, I suppose, is not the content, but the fact that the EU pensioner feels the need to make it – so keenly that he will even, as a supposed Conservative, open up his heart to the distinctly un-Conservative Grauniad. In that, he is really showing the obsession with "Europe" of which he accuses us "anti-Europeans".

Outside the ranks of the constituency party, however – amongst "normal" people, I fear that it is considerably less of an issue. Today, for instance, I met my new (lady) bank manager – by definition middle-class, and reasonably well off. We got to talking about my job, as one does, whereupon she asked me: "Do you think we will eventually join this European Union?"

Hearing this, I was reminded of the anarchic cartoon strip South Park, an episode of which I watched yesterday called "Quest for ratings".

South Park Elementary has a closed circuit television network. Jimmy and "Rick" Cartman are the anchors for "Super School News", but the school is cancelling their programme since it only gained 4 viewers in the week. Cartman wants to make the show more populist, but Jimmy does not want to jeopardise their integrity by "dumbing down." Cartman offers the immortal words: "Look, the school is already dumb. We're just giving them what they want."

Cartman, rather than Patten, may have the measure of the beast.

COMMENT THREAD

Him again

Jack Straw is in trouble again. Not big trouble, you understand. After all, he did not do anything bad, just showed his support for the new Iranian government that is full of people with interesting past histories.

In particular, the Iranian state news agency made much of a picture that shows our Foreign Secretary shaking hands with Esfandiar Rahim Masha'ie, who was recently appointed as a Vice-President and Head of Iran's Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organisation. Cultural Heritage and Tourism eh?

Little in the man’s past history indicates that these might be his interests.

“In 1979, Masha’ie became a commander in the komitehs, a paramilitary armed organisation charged with law and order after the rise of Islamic clerics to power. He rose rapidly, becoming head of Tonekabon’s komiteh in the same year.He was soon appointed governor of the city and later became Deputy Minister of Mines and Industries. He also served for some time as the Deputy Interior Minister and worked for some time in the Ministry of Islamic Guidance. When Ahmadinejad was the Mayor of Tehran, Masha’ie became his deputy for social affairs.

Critics say throughout his career since the early 1980s, Masha’ie’s has been working for Iran’s secret police, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.”

There is more:

“Tonekabon residents say Esfandiar Rahim Masha'ie was known for his brutality against the relatives of dissidents. He once sentenced the father of an opposition activist to four years in prison. At the end of the sentence period, Masha’ie demanded that he continue to remain behind bars since the man had refused to disown his son.“They called him the Butcher in Tonekabon in the 1980s”, said Saeed Shirkhodai, who fled his native city in northern Iran and now lives in exile in Sweden. “People of Tonekabon, Ramsar, and other nearby cities and towns in western Mazadaran still remember the horrific crimes of Masha’ie”.”

What a delightful new friend for our Foreign Secretary and the Culture Commissar, Tessa Jowell. And how it takes one back to the Wilson government and the various welcome guests that arrived from the Soviet Union and other East European countries.

If I may just reminisce for a moment. One of the most odious of the Labour Government’s best friends was Mitja Ribicic, then Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, before that Prime Minister of Slovenia and before that Head of Secret Police in Slovenia. Never a man to shirk his duty, Mr Ribicic, though of exalted rank, was known to torture prisoners personally. One of them is the highly regarded expert on Communist matters, Dr Ljubo Sirc, happily still with us and still battling away. Less happily, Mr Ribicic is also still with us, though there are some desultory moves to have him charged with responsibility for various massacres.

There were others: Comrade Shelepin, the eternal head of the Komsomol, even though he was well into his fifties; Comrade Kosygin, described by Prime Minister Wilson as being “part of the British way of life”; and, above all, the butcher of Budapest, Comrade Andropov, the alleged jazz lover.

Well there we are. Reminiscence over. But what has changed? The names are different but the attitude is the same. As Hamid Solhju, an Iranian exile living in London said:

“Haven’t we had enough? Is there no end to this appeasement?”

It seems not.

COMMENT THREAD

Changed for the worse

Unusually, yesterday, I abandoned the Blog to travel down with my son to Duxford for the final airshow of the season, not least to see Sally B (pictured left) fly. This aircraft, the last remaining airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress on the UK register, has recently been in the news after a particularly inane EU law on aviation insurance grounded her.

The precise problem was (and still is) EC regulation 785/2004, under which 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. However, due to the intervention of some wellwishers and a bit of creative accounting, the operators managed to salvage something of the 2005 flying season, although the problem is by no means over, and the 2006 and further seasons remain in doubt.

As it happens, the Sally B did not fly yesterday. Having escaped, temporarily, the clutches of the EU, she – with the rest of the flying programme – was caught in the grip of ghastly weather which hovered around the airfield all day, with the cloud base at 400 feet and visibility down to a mile at times. Apart from a spirited display by a Chinook, and a vain attempt by a Chipmunk (the aeroplane variety) to cheer us up, there was no flying.

However, that did give us plenty of time to visit the huge Sally B tent, to the edge of which was a small table with a petition calling on the government to negotiate an exemption to the directive. However, the table was unmanned and none of the staff there seemed interested in gathering signatures, very much reflecting the attitude of the Sally B operators, who seem anxious to downplay the political aspects of this problem.

Instead, the emphasis was very much on fund-raising and it is very clear that the operators’ game is to increase the flow of funding in order to buy their way out of the problem, rather than confront the issue head on.

The greater problem is that Sally B is not on its own. The commentator, over the Tannoy, also prattled on for a while about the spiralling costs of insuring display aircraft, although, in a long dissertation, not once did he mention the EU. We mustn’t be "political" must we?

But the shadow of the EU now permeates the whole airshow. The great thing about Duxford always used to be that it was an enthusiasts show. People by the thousands came from all over the country came to see aeroplanes, in the static park and flying. And while other airshows throughout the country were becoming progressively infested with funfairs, bouncy castles, trade stalls and hamburger vans, at Duxford you still got what you paid for – pure, raw aviation.

However, this time – in an attempt to cover those spiralling costs – the bouncy castles had arrived. While the hangers used to be emptied of their exhibits and given an airing out on the tarmac, where we could see them in their glory, the aircraft are now swept aside to make room for the stalls, the funfair and all the other garbage. The character has gone. All we are left with is another "family entertainment" venue, with the majority of the crowd entirely uninterested in the flying.

On the other hand, what once used to be an uncluttered flight line is now obscured by corporate hospitality tents, and special seating enclosures for those who are prepared to pay an extra fee on top of the £23 entrance ticket. The great unwashed, who actually came to see the aircraft, are now confined to a smaller and smaller section of the airfield, where we are all squashed together so tight that it is hard to see anything of the display.

After 15 years without a break of going to Duxford airshows, I will not be going again. In the pursuit of greater revenue, the shows have been terminally "dumbed down". Doubtless, the EU is not wholly to blame, but it has played its part, and another treasured part of life (my life, certainly) has been changed for the worse.

COMMENT THREAD

He is part of the problem not part of the solution

Next week's grand UN summit is looking more and more like a damp squib. And it looks as if the British Government will be on the wrong side of the debate. Well, that is hardly unusual.

We have already mentioned Jack Straw’s inexplicable support for Kofi Annan on the day of the damning Volcker report (and it was not as bad as it could have been) but it seems that he is not alone. The entire government and the Foreign Office are right there with him. What a surprise, eh?

From the Sunday Telegraph we find out the delightful detail that Mr Straw’s support was given to SecGen Annan over dinner at Le Gavroche restaurant. How very pleasant. This Mayfair restaurant, run by Michel Roux and named, incongruously, after a street urchin in Victor Hugo’s mammoth novel Les Misérables, happens to be one of the most expensive ones in London. One cannot help wondering who picked up the tab, though it probably does not matter in the long run. You and I, dear reader, pay for these jollifications and there are plenty more that we do not find out about.

The article then continues:

“Immediately after the damning oil-for-food report was released to the Security Council on Wednesday morning, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, the British ambassador to the UN, led Britain's public response by placing blame for the fiasco on Saddam Hussein.”

Well, far it be from us to exonerate former President and Tyrant-in-Chief Saddam Hussein, but is there not some responsibility resting on the wonderful transnational organizations which was supposed to supervise this whole scheme? And which, by the way, made very little effort to get rid of the said Tyrant-in-Chief, possibly because of a nagging awareness that with coalition troops sweeping through the country the oil-for-food scam will not stay secret for long.

Mr Blair and Mr Straw, it seems, are long-standing admirers of the SecGen Annan and consider his presence absolutely vital to the reform of the UN. One rather wonders why the UN should need reforming if it has been led for some years by this amazingly good and honourable personality.

Just in case there is anybody among our readers who cannot remember the highlights of SecGen Annan’s career, let us recall some of them. He was responsible for the UN shambles in Rwanda as the then operational chief. It led to a million and a half deaths.

Under his leadership, the UN has gone on being high-spending, terrorist supporting and seriously anti-semitic.

On SecGen Annan’s watch we have had the half-hushed up scandal of UN troops raping and buying the sexual favours of under-age girls in DR Congo.

We have also had the completely hushed up scandal of sex trade conducted by UN troops and officials in the Balkans.

While Annan has been SecGen, the UN has not been able to sort out Iran and has failed miserably in the Sudan, particularly in Darfur.

One official after another has had to have his diplomatic immunity lifted for the FBI to arrest them and charge them with various forms of embezzlement. There have been scandals of sexual misdemeanour of very unpleasant kind among the higher ranking staff.

I need not go on. The man in charge of this complete and utter mess is one who is highly regarded by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of this country. They think that he is indispensable to the projected reform of the entire organization.

"We genuinely hold Annan in high esteem," said a senior Straw adviser. "We believe he's good news and he wants to do the right things." None the less, senior diplomats who back Mr Annan privately acknowledged that in other walks of life - either business or government - he would have had to quit following last week's report. "That's just not the culture here," admitted one official.

That’s just about the size of it. In the meantime, what of that famous reform? Well, there is the proposal to increase the Security Council. As The Business puts it:

“The reform's centrepiece was expanding the UN Security Council beyond the five permanent members - the US, UK, France, Russia and China - and 10 non-permanent members elected to two-year terms. Annan laid out three scenarios for enlargement and all failed due to regional rivalries. Argentina and Brazil,India and Pakistan, Germany and Italy, and Japan and South Korea fought each other over new permanent seats. There will be none for the foreseeable future.”

This probably will not happen but, on the whole, I fail to see why it should make any difference. Of course, with more members on the Security Council that body will be in a permanent log-jam, which has certain advantages but it does not precisely make the UN more accountable for its actions.

The other important part of the “reform”,

“Annan's attempt to get rich countries to commit to foreign aid of 0.7 percent of their national gross domestic product, which he claims would halve world poverty by 2015, has also foundered. The European Union has made such a commitment; Washington has refused.”

Good of the EU to agree on the member states’ behalf. They, of course, have already made it clear that the money will not, in practice, be forthcoming, which is just as well, when one looks at the UN’s past record. Just precisely why giving more money and power to an organization that has proved itself to be inefficient and corrupt should be described as a “reform” passes one’s understanding.

Naturally, much of the blame for the fact that the jamboree this coming week will fail is being laid at John Bolton’s feet. He and his government should not have produced 29 proposed amendments so late. Mr Bolton’s response, when he stopped laughing, was that the American proposals had been first presented on June 25, hardly at the last minute.

And, as some British diplomat has pointed out, everyone is getting in there, amending this, disagreeing with that, demanding something else. The Business says:

“Another failed US and EU proposal is creating a human rights council to replace the UN human rights commission, discredited for allowing rights violators like Libya and Sudan to sit on it. But Cuba, Syria and Pakistan, with the support of Russia and China, have killed it.”

The Telegraph adds other details:

“Ahead of the summit, Britain has led efforts to secure an unequivocal UN condemnation of terrorism - considered a priority by America and the EU after the September 11 attacks and the Madrid and London bombings.

The Palestinian delegation, Egypt and Iran are leading efforts by a mostly Muslim and Arab bloc to add a qualifying paragraph that effectively excludes acts committed in support "of the struggle for independence" from the definition of terrorism.”

This leaves the matter where it was as one man’s terrorists is another one’s fighter for independence. Anybody’s independence.

This reminds one of that wonderful scene in the Marx Brothers’ film A Night at the Opera, when Groucho presenting himself as the representative of the New York Metropolitan Opera tries to sign up a tenor and negotiates with Chico, who, actually, “represents” the wrong singer. As they cannot agree on any of the articles of the contract, they tear each one off as one or other objects, till finally they are left with tiny scraps of paper and a “Sanity Clause”. (“Aw, you’re crazy,” – says Chico. – “There ain’t no Sanity Clause.”)

At the end of it all they shake hands with great satisfaction. “Well, at least we have an agreement.” – says Groucho. And so it is here. At least we have a reform.

In the meantime, the editorial in the Sunday Telegraph has reiterated its sister paper’s call for SecGen Annan’s resignation.

“[The UN’s] institutional inability to hold anyone to account for their failings guarantees that those failings infect the UN at every level. As a result, the UN is comprehensively incapable of doing anything effectively.Keeping Kofi Annan will send a very simple signal to every one of its bureaucrats: your job is safe, no matter how serious your incompetence.”

The article dismisses the British government’s argument that Annan’s dismissal would alienate the developing countries (I thought it was the fact that Annan is such a wonderful person):

“But there is no point in an incompetent UN whose only function is to provide tax-free jobs for fat bureaucrats from Third World nations. If the UN is to achieve any of its noble and laudable goals, it needs to be a minimally efficient organisation. That requires root-and-branch reform. Without it, the organisation might as well cease to exist.”

Well, well. So the unthinkable is being thought and said.

COMMENT THREAD

A memorial

There are days in our lives that we shall never forget. Those of us who are old enough to remember (even if only just) know where we were when we heard about the assassination of President Kennedy. I shut my eyes and remember the family supper, the phone call from my grandmother who had been listening to the radio news; I hear every word my father said as he spoke to her. I know which film I had seen that afternoon.

I must confess that I have not a clue where I was when I heard John Lennon was assassinated. Indeed, I am not even sure I was aware of it for several days.

There is, of course, for us, Brits, the day Mrs Thatcher resigned. I even recall one of my first thoughts: “It will be just like the seventies now.” Of course, it isn’t really. There are no three-day weeks, endless strikes, electricity available in different districts at different times, refuse collectors on strike, lack of candles, lack of bread in shops, lack of all sorts of things. But politically, I am not sure I was that far wrong.

Today we must recall a day, whose memory must scar us all, whether in America or in other countries. I doubt if there is a single hour of that day I have forgotten. We all knew, as we watched those horrific pictures, stunned by it all, that the world had changed. The fact is, dear readers, the moment those planes flew into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, we were at war. We still are. We shall be for a long time. Get used to it.

A memorial is to people, not just to the 3,000 plus victims, but to those who fought: the firemen and the police officers (so different from what we have seen recently in New Orleans), the ambulance men, the hospitals, the people of New York and Washington, who rallied round.

Then there are the other heroes we must remember: the people in the planes who, faced with death, used their last minutes to leave messages of love and hope to their families; and, above all, the passengers on Flight 93, who fought their captors and brought the plane down, perhaps saving many more lives.

Todd Beamer's call to action was so ordinary as to be almost typical of the sort of war we are fighting, to affirm as well as protect our lives and our society.

This blog has affirmed its stand in the great battle and has consistently proclaimed that the West must stand together. It has also proclaimed its faith in the basic tenets of what the West is about: freedom and democracy. These have many enemies and we intend to fight them as best we can.

"OK, let’s roll."

COMMENT THREAD

As chosen by Eurocorps

Have a good look at the picture on the left. It shows an Army truck assembled at the Vienna plant of MAN Nutzfahrzeuge Österreich AG in Austria, and you are going to see an awful lot of them over here. The MoD has chosen these to equip the British Army, and 5,200 are to be delivered between 2007 and 2013. The contract is worth £1.1 billion and the MAN website happily chirps that it "ensures a continuous workload for the Vienna plant and thus helps to safeguard jobs" – Austrian jobs.

The fact that the MoD should have bought vehicles from a German-owned firm is, we have argued, one of the strands of evidence that demonstrates that this government has adopted a "Europe first" policy when it comes to defence procurement, an issue to which Booker has referred in his columns. But last week, former MoD official and now Iveco employee Mr Andrew Simpson of Bath took Booker to task in a letter, declaring that "impartial observers generally agree" that the MAN vehicles were far the best for the role.

In this week's column, Booker takes on board Mr Simpson's claim, noting that it seems "odd" to assert that "impartial observers" generally agree that the MAN vehicles selected were the best. This is because among those highly critical of this choice were the National Audit Office, which found that in two crucial respects they did not match up to the Army's requirements. They were not capable of meeting "Defence Planning Assumptions" nor "capable of operating in world-wide climatic conditions", the latter directly contradicting the MoD claim that "the vehicles will be capable of transporting large quantities of bulk equipment to our front-line troops wherever they are operating in the world."

What precisely is meant by "Defence Planning Assumptions" is not known, although we intend to find out. Nor do we know very much more about the contract, as the details are "commercial in confidence".

What we do know, however, is that the lack of capability to operate "in world-wide climatic conditions" is a serious deficiency. Designed for western European conditions, the MAN truck is not able – without substantial modification – to operate in theatres like Iraq. On the other hand, we do know that one of the competitors, the Stewart and Stevenson FMTV series (pictured right), is fully equipped to operate in any theatre, without modification. On these grounds alone, it is a better choice.

The production company itself had teamed with UK firms LDV Limited, Multidrive Limited and Lex Defence, in order to bid for the contract. It intended to build the trucks in Birmingham, giving the contract a high British-design and build component. Furthermore, the firm Multidrive is a specialist in off-road industrial vehicles and contracted to develop the Future Cargo Vehicle for the US Army.

The other unsuccessful competitor (also pictured right), is produced by Oshkosh Truck Company, based in Wisconsin. However, it has a British subsidiary in Llantrisant, Wales where much of the manufacturing would have been done there. In this plant, the company is already fulfilling a contract for wheeled tankers and tank transporters for the British Army.

When bidding for the contract, Oshkosh announced that it would work with other British industrial partners, including ABRO, formerly the Army Base Repair Organization). ABRO would assemble cargo bodies, provide vehicle integration and deliver the in-service support and associated functions. Oshkosh would also transfer vehicle production technology and processes to ABRO. Having failed to gain the contract, ABRO was recently reported as having to shed 150 jobs, not many less than MAN claimed to be employing on the British end of the contract.

What the MoD appears to have done, therefore, it purchase a truck which did not meet its own specifications, and one which had the lowest British manufacturing and design component of all three main bidders.

But, perhaps most important of all, both Oshkosh and Stewart and Stevenson supply to the US Army and Marines, the latter having delivered over 29,000 trucks from their range. Many of these have been deployed in the arduous conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan and, as the contracts have progressed, both manufacturers have made a substantial number of modifications to their equipment, reflecting the experience gained.

Last week, I had a lengthy conversation with an expert in military vehicles, who told me that battlefield experience was vital in developing a reliable product. For that reason, he said, either of the US trucks would have been a bargain. In additional to getting the trucks, the MoD would have benefited from the fruits of hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development, carried out by the manufacturers and the US government under battlefield conditions, for which they would not have to pay. Yet Britain has rejected what could be lifesaving knowledge, opting for a vehicle that lacks battlefield exposure and is clearly substandard.

"Such is the price," writes Booker, "that the Army and we must now pay for Mr Blair's headlong pursuit of what is known as the 'European Defence Identity'." Perhaps it helps to know that the MAN vehicle has also been selected by Eurocorps. We shall be known by the company we keep.

COMMENT THREAD

Rewriting history

Goodness MEPs are tiresome. Comes from not having enough to do, I expect. The European Parliament has backed an idea proposed by Michael Cramer, a German Green MEP of creating a bicycle tourist trail along what he fondly imagines was the Iron Curtain.

As the BBC correspondent points out, the Parliament may agree and the Commission may support the the suggestion but it is up to the Transport Ministers to make the final decision and that may not happen for a while, despite the Greens (few of them supported their Communist brethren back in the bad old days) being all in favour. There is also the question of money, though Mr Cramer thinks that the entire bicycle trail would cost less than 1km of road tunnel. Not sure what he bases his calculations on.

It is really Mr Cramer’s arguments that are so interesting, repeated as they are without any commentary by the dear old BBC. The bicycle trail is for people to remember history, he maintains.

“Only those who can remember and who know the past will master the future. And for decades, this continent was divided. Now we can have a ride in the history,culture and politics of Europe and we'll master the future.”

For somebody who wants to remember history, Mr Cramer’s grasp does not seem too sure. Europe has always been divided into states of varying size and importance. The few attempts to unite it were not very long and usually rather unpleasant.

The whole argument is rather weird. On the one hand, Mr Cramer was inspired by the Freedom Trail in Boston that commemorates the American War of Independence (well, some of it, anyway). On the other hand, there is the fact that some of the former Communist countries have commemorating parks around the old borders and, indeed, inside the countries. In particular there is an almost complete bicycle route along the old Berlin Wall.

Then again, according to the BBC, the plan is to extend that route:

“… from the Finnish-Russian border, through the Baltic states of Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania, then via Poland and central Europe to Slovenia.

Ultimately it would also extend through Bulgaria and Romania on the Black Sea.”

How do they mean “through”? The border did not run through these countries.

And what of the countries that are on the other side of the new curtain, whatever material it might be made out of: Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Russia herself? Presumably, they are not part of Europe. It is all very confusing.

One thing seems to be clear: the European Parliament with the support of the BBC wants to celebrate the “reunification” of Europe. Perhaps, they would like to tell us the last time Europe was “united”.

COMMENT THREAD

Good news

Some of our readers will recall the plan for an educational institution that would concentrate on the teaching of this country’s history. One of the starting points of that project was the news that the think-tank Civitas was going to republish Henrietta Marshall’s book for children: Our Island Story.

It seems little is known about H. E. Marshall apart from the fact that she wrote wonderful books for children that introduced many of them to the delights of history and of British history in particular.

They are, of course, all based on the narrative principle and told as an exciting tale. I am delighted to inform those of our readers who have not been following the developments that the book is now available to order directly from Civitas or from Telegraph Books. I trust it will be in bookshops soon, as well.

If you follow the link above, you can also donate money to ensure that a copy reaches every primary school in the country, though whether teachers will then bother to use the book is questionable. You can take a horse to water ….

The website also has a chapter of the book to show what Marshall’s style and writing is like. The chapter about the Princes in the Tower has been one of the favourites of many generations. And with a great sigh I have to point out that far from being the hope of England, Henry Tudor was a usurper with no rights to the throne but determined to ensure that anyone who had better claims would be either killed or executed. How sad.

As for Richard III and the Princes, may I recommend, in addition to H. E. Marshall’s wonderful book, Josephine Tey’s highly imaginative novel: The Daughter of Time? All of which will make a nice change from EU matters.

COMMENT THREAD

The sleep of the damned

The most worrying aspect of the YouGov poll published in today’s Daily Telegraph is not so much the news that Ken Clarke has crept ahead in the Tory leadership race, preferred by 33 percent of the rank-and-file as opposed to 28 percent who prefer Davis. That much would be expected after Clarke’s high profile launch last week, with Davis presumably keeping his powder dry.

No, what is worrying is the response to the question on whether "Europe" should be an issue in the leadership election, phrased in somewhat laborious terms as follows:

Some people say that Europe should not be a major issue in the leadership election, now that it is clear that the European Union’s proposed constitution is dead, and that there is no real prospect of Britain joining the euro (single currency) in the next few years. Other people say that Britain’s relations with the rest of Europe should be a major issue in the leadership election, whatever happens to the constitution and the single currency. What is your view?

To that question, 42 percent felt that the EU should be a major issue but the majority felt otherwise, at 56 percent, with only two percent "don't knows".

This would appear to endorse the prevailing view amongst the Tory hierarchy that “Europe” should be off the agenda, leaving the field clear for bickering about schools‘n’hospitals, and will undoubtedly be taken as a welcome sign by the leadership candidates that they can ignore the vexed question of the European Union.

One could, of course, take the question apart as being hopeless anodyne, inviting the majority response it did. Couched in different terms, it might have elicited a different response. It could, for instance, have been phrased thus:

Despite the "no" votes in the Dutch and French referendums, the EU constitution is still being implemented piecemeal, the rate of political integration is continuing unchecked, more than 60 percent of our laws are still made in Brussels, the number of laws from that source increases daily and the powers of Parliament and the British government are steadily diminishing. Do you think that the power of the European Union should be a major issue in the leadership election?

Arguably, the response might have been considerably different, but such a question was never going to asked. In its original form, the question fairly represents the general perception of the population, a feeling that, after the Dutch and French referendums "Europe" is somehow no longer an issue – a feeling reinforced by the relative lack of activity of the "colleagues" as they enjoyed their long summer holiday.

This is compounded by the reluctance of any of the candidates to bring the EU issue to the fore. To a man, they are refusing to offer any clear direction by way of a European policy, or provide a clear plan of action to claw back powers from the monster. In this, they are aided and abetted by the media, which are obsessed by their celebrity culture and "Bush-bashing".

We have seen this for ourselves on this Blog, with the hit rate peaking about the time of the referendums, only to slide back down and settle at half the rate of the peak readership, now growing only sluggishly. Despite all that is happening on the EU front, people are less interested in what is going on, and are content to attend to their own affairs.

So be it. It was Thomas Jefferson who told us that: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." I don't know who said "we get the government deserve", but the price of going to sleep is further European integration. To the people out there, those who believe that "Europe" should not be an issue in the Tory leadership election, all I can say is "Enjoy your sleep". But it is the sleep of the damned.

COMMENT THREAD

The BBC begins to lose its shine

One of the most extraordinary aspects of American life and attitude is the respect, verging on idolization so many in that country give to the BBC. In part this can be put down to the fact that they mostly know the World Service, which, even in its rather miserably unsatisfactory TV form, is better than the domestic programmes.

It must also be added that most of the programmes that do get exported are of the somewhat better variety and, of course, there is the touching and incomprehensible love and admiration for all things British that spreads across the United States.

What have we given in return: envy, undeserved contempt, complete refusal to know and understand (despite wanting to rush there for anything from short breaks to working assingments); our media, as Frank Johnson points out in his column in today’s Daily Telegraph does not bother even to report American affairs properly.

This was noticeable during the last election campaign. The flood of abuse directed at Bush and the complete conviction as reported by almost all of the MSM that he was hated across the United States left many people rather puzzled when he won comfortably with an increased vote. Those of us who had been reading the American media and, especially, the blogs were not surprised in the slightest.

Of all the villains in this whole sad saga, the BBC is the worst. It exists off a tax. Let us not pretend it is anything else. It is a tax on the ownership of a television set. It has a special position, a special charter, various privileges that come with an assured income. It has a duty to report events accurately and in as unbiased a fashion as possible.

It has done nothing of the kind on most issues but it has especially failed in its duty to report American affairs accurately. Instead, the BBC, that much admired organizations in the US, has been a cheer-leader in America-hating and Bush-bashing. It has used language about our greatest ally and its freely and fairly elected president that it would not dare to use about the most kleptocratic and bloodthirsty dictator. Well, especially not about kleptocratic and bloodthirsty dictators.

It seems, however, that the shine is beginning to get tarnished. The BBC and its journalists are too grand to read blogs, I expect, which is a pity from their point of view. But one of the highly popular and much visited blogs, USS Neverdock, has raised the subject of the BBC bias, giving prominence to its habit of affording authority to discredited or little known people as long as they can be expected to toe the line.

Since then the blog has returned to the subject with an obvious title: Katrina – America Wakes Up to BBC Bias. Of course, it quotes several of the British blogs that have been charting this sad state of affairs. But will the BBC read any of it?

COMMENT THREAD

A confusion of summits

To be honest, the first place I would expect to find comment on the European Union is not the West Bengal Statesman. Least still would I expect it to be written by Kirsty Hughes. She seems to be the former European director at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, now working for Open Democracy, having reinvented herself as a far-eastern expert.

Anyhow, if it is the same person, our Kirsty is not exactly being overwhelmingly kind about the former object of her affection, declaring that the EU will never be taken seriously as a foreign policy player until it first gets its own house in order.

This is in the wake of the "whirlwind tour" by Tony Blair Esq. "He jetted in from China to Delhi on Tuesday evening this week to head two back-to-back summits in Delhi — first as the current head of the EU presidency at the EU-India summit on Wednesday, then as British Premier at the UK-India summit on Thursday," writes Mz Hughes. "Indian observers, not always entirely sure (with good reason) if the UK is a full or partial member of the European Union, may be forgiven for being a little confused."

"Since the UK is indeed a full member of the EU," she then asks, "why the need to distract time and attention from the strategic summit between the EU and India?"

This is an especially pertinent question as British and Indian newspapers tended to focus headlines and photos on Blair’s pronouncements and talks, leaving the EU itself rather in the shadows. His action, recounts Mz Hughes, led an "unimpressed Brussels EU official" to say: "it is unusual to follow up an EU summit with a national summit the next day, but then party conference time is coming up (in the UK)".

But Mz Hughes notes that "this confusion of summits reflects a twin schizophrenia" - of British attitudes towards the EU, and of EU attitudes towards building a genuine common European foreign policy. She contrasts the enthusiasm for the EU when New Labour came to power in 1997 with the current hostility to the concept of a political Europe.

Then she also argues that the British also hate to be left out: they want both the right to opt out of EU policies they don't like (such as the euro) but they also want to be a major influential power at the heart of Europe: "Hence the twin European summits in Delhi: first milk the British presidency of the EU for all its worth, but then remind both India and European colleagues that the UK has an important, separate relationship with India."

Not all was sweetness and light though. One senior European diplomat in Delhi observed with wry satisfaction that, as the current presidency of the EU, the British High Commission in Delhi was finally obliged to have a second flagpole to fly the EU flag alongside the national flag, something regarded as normal by other EU embassies. Hughes then continues:

But while the UK is notoriously sceptical about the EU as a political body, the rest of the EU has to face up to its own schizophrenia over EU foreign policy. European leaders — and bureaucrats — love to attend grand-sounding strategic summits whether in Delhi, Beijing or Washington. But with the significant exception of trade, the high flown rhetoric of these summits tend to conceal the fact that the main outcomes are usually action plans for officials to implement. These plans may promote worthy goals — from encouraging civil society to interact, to co-operation on research and development, or general dialogues on the environment. But anyone who thinks that EU political and diplomatic relations with Delhi, Moscow, or Beijing are more important than bilateral ties from London, Paris and Berlin has not been paying attention. The serious stuff of high level global politics is not — yet at least — in EU hands.

She observes that "Europe's most successful common foreign policy has been a regional one — expanding its membership to surrounding countries, most recently to some of the former Soviet bloc — and so underpinning peace, democracy and economic development" – debatable, but there you go – but then goes on to say that even this policy is in trouble, over Turkey.

With that and the failure of the Union to come to terms with "the stark rejection of its draft constitution by French and Dutch voters" leaves the EU with a political legitimacy crisis. "It is this wider political crisis that the EU’s leaders will have to solve first," writes Hughes, "if they want later to develop a strong effective foreign policy — and not be upstaged at their own summits by the Prime Minister of one single member state."

She concludes that some EU officials and diplomats in Delhi lament the fact that the EU has a low profile in India, and that Indian diplomats and officials tend to place contacts to bilateral embassies ahead of those to the EU presidency or the European Commission’s office. But, faced with the tale of two summits, this should not be a surprise. The EU will be taken seriously as a foreign policy player — and not just as a trade bloc — when it gets its own house in order. But not before.

Agree or disagree, the commentary is interesting. Despite its ambitions and its determination to ignore the setback of the referendums, this is one of many indications that the EU has suffered a grievous blow, and things are not going as well as it might hope.

COMMENT THREAD

Trying out the merchandise?

China is playing a constructive and positive role in the world affairs both economically and politically and it will have a lot to offer and experience to share with other countries at the upcoming 2005 World Summit next week.

So says UN SecGen Kofi Annan, at the United Nations yesterday in a joint interview with China's Xinhua News Agency and the China Central Television.

Annan believes China is “a very important country in the world today… not just economically but also politically,” and it is important that Chinese president Hu Jintao joins all the leaders from around the world to review "how we improve our collective security, how we improve the non-proliferation issue, how we improve human rights, how we deal with development and help the poor".

China, he continues, can make a major contribution by working with the developing countries, assisting them economically and sharing its experience with them. "I think that is the area where quite a lot of developing world are looking up to China," he said.

No doubt one area where China has “experience to share” is in its innovative cost-effective development of mobile execution vans, pioneered by provincial authorities to replace the traditional method of execution by firing squad in which prisoners are taken to an execution ground and made to kneel with hands cuffed before being shot in the head.

Officials in Yunnan province proudly explain that only four people are required to carry out the execution in the mobile vans: the executioner, one member of the court, one official from the procuratorate and one forensic doctor.

Eighteen mobile executions vans, converted 24-seater buses, have been distributed to all intermediate courts and one high court in Yunnan province. The windowless execution chamber at the back contains a metal bed on which the prisoner is strapped down. Once the needle is attached by the doctor, an act which breaches international medical ethics, a police officer presses a button and an automatic syringe inserts the lethal drug into the prisoner's vein. The execution can be watched on a video monitor next to the driver’s seat and can be recorded if required.

Zhao Shijie, president of the Yunnan Provincial High Court, was quoted as praising the new system: "The use of lethal injection shows that China’s death penalty system is becoming more civilized and humane."

If the Chinese need any testimonies, for something that could become a major export earner, they need only apply to the SecGen, who happily declares: "China obviously is an active player on the economic scene and rose fast in the world. It also has been extremely successful in production, in marketing and in exporting its goods".

With a little bit of luck, they might even get Annan to try out the merchandise.

COMMENT THREAD

Those workers are sooooooooooo stupid

The Optical Radiation Directive has hit a slight and very temporary snag. The European Parliament (est. cost over £1 million per year per member) has had a furious discussion about an amendment to it, as it is not allowed to have a proper debate about any directive as a whole, and decided to go easy. Well, relatively easy.

The esteemed body voted that while exposure to artificial radiation has to be regulated by the EU (most of us thought that there were already various rules in place but let that pass),

“... it should be up to national governments of the 25-nation European Union to decide whether companies should be held responsible for their employees' neglecting to use suncream or wear sunglasses”.

That, of course, is not much use to us and our companies as the British government will, undoubtedly, add a layer of Factor 25 suncream to the directive (or demand this nice little line in workers' apparel). In any case, the decision will now go to conciliation and as both the Council of Ministers and the Commission view such laxity disapprovingly, the MEPs will probably outvoted, as usual.

What I find so interesting is the immediate reaction from various MEPs. We find the usual “victory for common sense” rubbish, this time from the Lib-Dim Liz Lynne. The idea of the directive is hardly commonsensical but then a European Parliament has little to do with any kind of sense.

Then you get the attack from the Left, led this time by the Greens, no doubt demonstrating their eurosceptic credentials.

““Skin cancer is the same regardless of whether you catch it from aritificial or natural radiation,” said Jean Lambert, British Green party coordinator of the employment committee.

“People have called for 'light touch' legislation in the EU, and to a great extent we agree -- laws should be proportionate. But the touch cannot be so light that it fails to protect Europe's workers,” she added.”

And, of course, workers who are exposed to the sun are much too stupid to do anything about it. It has never ceased to amaze me how contemptuous of workers or, indeed, ordinary people the average left-wing politician is.

What a good thing we have the old East European apparatchiks to tell us what government is all about:

“"It is the role of the commission to ensure the highest protection of workers," said Vladimir Spidla, EU commissioner for employment, social affairs and equal opportunities.”

No doubt Mr Spidla got a little confused, what with that rather interesting title for his commissariat and imagined he was back in the good old socialist camp.

COMMENT THREAD

Oil-for-food - what is it about?

This blog is proud of the fact that we were among the very first in Britain to have raised the subject of the oil-for-food scandal. We wrote about it long before the dozy British MSM even heard about it.

Even when the story became too big to be hidden behind the latest antics of Big Brother contestants or Z-list celebrities, the MSM concentrated on the rather unimportant role of that rather unimportant back-bench MP and self-publicist, George Galloway (last seen trying to organize a convoy around the United States with Hanoi Jane Fonda and Commodore Sean Penn).

Once even Paul Volcker, a cheer-leader for the UN in another life, found that the scandal and corruption had honeycombed the entire organization, we have had a certain amount of rather reluctant discussion with emphasis on the rather dubious fact that SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) remains a shining example of probity to us all.

It was left to blogs like this one to follow the story as well as the many other examples of UN corruption and inefficiency. We intend to continue doing so. However, we have found an excellent summary of the entire oil-for-food saga and thought that our readers might like to see it as well.

Now this is what we call responsible journalism.

COMMENT THREAD

Who governs Britain

Following the dismal attempts of Tory leadership candidates to offer anything resembling a sensible idea of what they would do if elected, much less - heavens forbid - form a government, we thought we would have a go. The following, therefore, is something like what we would wish to see from a Tory leadership candidate:

People are fed up with politics and politicians because they know that their vote has little impact on how they are actually governed. A vote in a local government election will have little bearing on the level of council tax or the manner in which refuse is collected because most of local government finance and the tasks imposed on local government are decided by central government.

Victims of crime cannot change their local policing policy or their Chief Constable because these are decided by central government which dictates national policies. No vote in any election will elect politicians capable of changing the Working Time Directive, the most expensive piece of legislation ever imposed upon the British people. The European Commissioners are effectively a one party state; no Commissioner can ever be removed by a popular vote.

The other great problem of contemporary government is that there is simply too much of it. Central government has taken on so many responsibilities that it is not possible for the politicians to discharge their responsibilities adequately, with a result that vital decisions are delegated either to civil servants or the growing number of agencies and quangos. Again, those that run these quangos spending huge sums of public money run no risk of losing their jobs in an election.

Conservative policy should be driven by a simple ideal. No organisation which supplies a citizen with services should be exempt from the citizen’s ability to change that supplier either by voting or by spending his money differently. Privatisation has given citizens unprecedented choice and the power to change suppliers of telecommunications and energy supply.

The State has a lousy track record as a supplier of health and education services and these can be returned to the market. Under a voucher system, patients and parents would have the power to choose between state, private and charitable provision as in every other successful Western country. The whole costly paraphernalia of centrally directed targets and bureaucracy, requiring providers to satisfy political objectives laid down by national politicians rather than the demands of individual patients and pupils, would disappear at a stroke. Huge sums would be released from unproductive bureaucracy to satisfy customers.

At local level, it is essential that we return local accountability to police forces by introducing elected chief constables to take charge of each force and dictate local policy in accordance with the wishes of the people they serve.

In order for local authorities to act independently and be responsive to their local voters, they should be given clear areas of policy which they would have to fund themselves. This would give responsibility to Council candidates to present a programme of activity that they would have to finance and justify to their electorate. The current revenues from VAT are approximately the same as the central government funding to local authorities. VAT and uniform business rate should be abolished and replaced by a local sales tax, paid to local authorities. This would create a virtuous circle of tax competition between local authorities driving local taxes down.

This would free local authorities from central government interference to provide services in accordance with the wishes and the purses of their electors, instead of being subject to targets or any other performance indicators set by central government. Councillors would be accountable to their electors. Services would conform to the wishes of local people expressed at a local election rather than being imposed by European directives or central government diktats over which local government electors have no control whatsoever.

There is a strong case for returning local services to delivery by county authorities. Counties have a long track record of showing that they are small enough to be trusted by local people, that they can be represented by genuine locals but that they are large enough to have the momentum to deliver. Returning real power to these units would be true devolution and would render the current, totally imbalanced, devolution settlement void. The devolution referendums excluded 85 percent of the population i.e. the English but the disgracefully wasteful talking shops in Edinburgh and Cardiff are supported by a preponderance of English taxpayers' money. This is wrong and there should be an all UK referendum on the issue of abolishing the existing devolution settlement and replacing it with real genuine devolution to county units.

Other functions should be devolved to elected local authorities or other bodies. These would include sea fishing, with the establishment of regional marine management authorities and agriculture, which could be managed at county level.

For those functions retained by central government, Parliamentary scrutiny should be improved and the system of Parliamentary Select Committees strengthened. Members should be elected by MPs and chairmen should be drawn from opposition parties or independent members. There is much to be learnt from American Congressional Committees. Inquiries should be properly funded and staffed, with trained researchers. The Committees should have power to summon witnesses and to demand evidence under oath, with criminal sanctions for perjury.

There is a common feeling of helplessness that officials, more than elected politicians, run the country. This must change and Parliamentary Select Committees should have a role here. Employment terms of public servants must be revisited. The perception is that, in far too many cases, when large amounts of public money are wasted or there have been serious failures of duty, no one is found responsible, or those responsible are not punished and in some cases are actually promoted. Governments, whether central or local, must also have the power to terminate the employment of those who fall short of the standards set and should be prepared to exercise that power.

We must get back to the Conservative concept that the State exists to serve the people and that the people are genuinely sovereign. It should therefore be a central tenet of a Conservative government that it cannot delegate its law-making powers to any other organisation or institution. This applies to external bodies such as the European Union and internally, where currently so much effective law is made by officials without political input or control. Law-making must remain in the hands of politicians directly elected by the British people to serve their exclusive interests, affording the people an opportunity to remove legislators if they do not approve of their actions.

It is ludicrous that over 60 percent of the laws imposed upon the fourth largest economy in the world are created by people who have not been elected and cannot be removed in elections. A Conservative government should regain the power currently vested in the European Union by a fundamental renegotiation of all the existing treaties. Central to this would be the removal of the supremacy of the European Court of Justice and other international courts, including the Court of Human Rights. This would entail the withdrawal from the Convention on Humans Rights and the repeal of the Human Rights Act which give excessive powers over British citizens to those who have not been elected. All existing EU legislation should be reviewed and unless an overpowering case can be made for its retention - in which case it should be re-enacted as British law - it should be repealed.

Parliament should not only be supreme but in respect of the actions of British citizens or legal entities in the UK, no institution other than a British court should have jurisdiction over them. In the application of law, British courts should be supreme, headed by the House of Lords which should be the sole, final arbiter of law. Furthermore, no British institution should have the power to levy fines or other penalties on citizens, without their having recourse to a court of law. As to our relations with other countries, we should look to normal government-to-government treaties.

COMMENT THREAD

Denied justice

It was never going to be any different, but following the airlines' appeal to the European Court of Justice on the denied boarding regulations, they now have "denied justice" to add to their woes.

So far, it is not definitive, but yesterday the advocate general ruled that the regulations, which oblige airlines to pay compensation to passengers up to €600 flights when are delayed or cancelled, should stand.

Advocate General Leendert Geelhoed recommended the European Court of Justice dismiss the complaints brought by the International Air Transport Association and the European Low Fares Airline Association, a move that the airlines say will cost them hundreds of millions of euros. They had complained that the rules infringed international agreements, breached legal principles and gave unfair advantages to other forms of transport.

Geelhoed's opinion is not binding on the court, but final rulings follow the advocate general's recommendations in about 80 percent of cases. The ruling is expected to take several months. In a public statement, he declared that the rules were "proportionate to the inconvenience suffered by the passengers and therefore fair."

The International Air Transport Association estimates that new legislation will cost 600 million euros ($745 million) this year. Low cost airlines have been particularly critical, claiming the compensation is often much higher than the cost of their tickets.

Chillingly, Geelhoed rejected their claim of discrimination. "A decision by an airline to pursue a low-fares model should not result in them being privileged under the law," he said. "Rules on consumer protection must be of general application irrespective of the price paid for the ticket."

Thereby, in one fell swoop, Geelhoed is denying consumer choice - preventing travellers opting for cheap fares at the risk of occasional inconvenience – and, in the process, denying the airlines justice.

COMMENT THREAD

Drinks all round, chaps

Commenting on the disgraceful episode of the internet giant Yahoo helping the Chinese authorities convict a dissident journalist, a Telegraph leader goes some way towards making up for the paper’s bad taste on the Garland cartoon.

Yahoo, it writes, stands accused of helping Beijing to send a dissident journalist to prison for 10 years. The company is said to have supplied the authorities with computer records proving that Shi Tao had posted on the internet an internal government document banning the Chinese media from commenting on last year's 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

It is easy to understand, says the paper, why Yahoo should have wished to co-operate with the Chinese government. The company recently invested some £550 million in the Chinese internet sector. It had its shareholders to consider, as well as its undertakings to abide by Chinese law. It continues:

Why, the company may have asked itself, should Yahoo have felt any duty of confidentiality to an individual customer who was knowingly breaking the law of the land - no matter how offensive that law may appear to Western eyes. From a strictly legalistic point of view, Yahoo may have felt that it had no more duty to protect Mr Shi than to shield a pedlar of child pornography from the consequences of publishing his filth on the internet in Britain.

But the affair still leaves a foul taste in the mouth. The Chinese government is one of the most oppressive regimes on Earth, clinging to power by the ruthless suppression of any sort of dissent. Western companies - and Yahoo is by no means alone in this - have shown themselves much too ready to ingratiate themselves with this odious regime, in the hope of cashing in on the vast Chinese market.

One could remark, rather sourly, that the company is only following to the footsteps of others, who also add hypocrisy to their many sins. Note, for instance, this extract from the joint statement of the 8th EU-China Summit, signed by Tony Blair and Chinese premier Wen Jiabao:

The two sides underlined their commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights and continued to place a high value on the EU-China human rights dialogue. They underlined the importance of concrete steps in the field of human rights and reaffirmed their commitment to further enhance co-operation and exchanges in this field on the basis of equality and mutual respect, while making efforts to achieving more meaningful and positive results on the ground.

It seems, however, that the only "concrete" steps are locking up journalists in concrete cells. No wonder Blair doesn't look like he is enjoying his champagne.

COMMENT THREAD

And he's off!

Another contender for the Tory leadership has put forward his manifesto today. Dr Liam Fox, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, though this might surprise some people, has published an article in today’s Daily Telegraph, setting out his wares.

Some wag of a sub-editor gave it the title Britain must control its own destiny. Of course, her own destiny would have sounded better but let us not quibble. The real problem is that there is nothing in the article that develops the theme of the heading.

We get three paragraphs of the compulsory “we Conservatives must stop looking inward and start telling people what we stand for” line. To which one can reply stop telling us that you must tell us what you stand for and start telling us what it is you do stand for. Alas, Dr Fox does nothing of the kind.

Similarly, there is no point in saying:

“We need to make the case that lower taxation is vital to creating the business climate that will shape our economic future.”

As we kept saying to Britain in Europe and shall go on saying to the European Movement, just make that case. Don’t tell us that you need to make the case. We know that. It is the Conservatives’ inability to make any case for anything that prevents people from voting for them.

The fact that Dr Fox is has no real idea what Conservative policy should be about is displayed early on:

“We need to build a Britain that is dynamic, innovative and entrepreneurial,that invents and reinvents. We need new ideas on which we can build new businesses and to strip away the state-imposed barriers that hold them back. We need skilled and talented people to shape our future successes.”

Well, errm, no, Dr Fox. You cannot build a dynamic, innovative or entrepreneurial anything. You are a politician. Your party is a political party. Dynamism, innovation, entrepreneurship comes from people who actually create something, whether it is financial services or organic bread. A Conservative government should simply aim at getting out of those people’s way, not imitate the failed Lisbon Agenda, which was based on the notion that economic dynamism could be quantified and ticked off in a series of boxes.

Right. We have little social cohesion in the country and a great deal of truancy. All of that needs to be dealt with. How? Ah, we are not told by Dr Fox (seen here in his natural environment). It is enough for us, the would-be voters, should he become leader, to know that he has noticed these problems and decided that they need to be dealt with. Welfare reform? Taking education away from the state? Don’t bother me with details. This is blue sky thinking. Well, all I can say is there is stormy weather ahead.

Then again Dr Fox is Shadow Foreign Secretary. (What happened to the last one? Oh yes, he went to Defence.) So, maybe he has some ideas about foreign policy. Indeed, here is his policy on Europe:

“Britain also needs to re-acquire the self-confidence to take its rightful place in international affairs - that is, centre-stage. We must break free from the shackles of the utterly Euro-centric view that Britain has taken of the world in recent decades.

In June, I made it clear that I do not believe in "ever-closer union". Britain's destiny does not lie in a United States of Europe. Our vision is of a much looser association of sovereign states, characterised by the economic values I outlined earlier. If Europe fails to reform, the price will be very high. China and India are changing the world we live in, producing high-quality products at a fraction of the price that we can and building service sectors that are also sucking business away from us.”

Sounds good. What does it mean? How is Britain going to take centre-stage on anything if our defence procurement is ever more closely integrated with the European defence structures?

How are we to extricate ourselves from that ever-closer union that Dr Fox does not believe in? It is going ahead and we have had no ideas from the Conservatives (with the exception of Lord Tebbit who is not, alas, a contender) on how the process is to be stopped and, preferably, reversed.

The economic values are all about less taxation and less regulation but, frankly, who is going to believe that? Not anyone who looks at the Tory record in government or tries to find out from Dr Fox what he is going to do with the existing regulatory structure, inspired largely though not wholly by the EU and implemented by our own civil servants and quangoes.

Anyway, here is more on future Conservative foreign policy:

“Under my stewardship, Conservative foreign policy will always seek to strengthen democratic principles around the world, in pursuit of what I call the "Freedom Agenda". Democracy is not just the ability to put a cross in a box now and then; to be strong and survive, it has to be underpinned by a free market,respect for the rule of law and human rights.”

Excellent if vague, one might think. Well, one would think until one read the next paragraph:

“Likewise, we must take a lead in meeting head-on the challenge of global warming and the threat to our environment. This is a crucial issue for the younger generation in particular, and one that the Conservative Party must be at the forefront of addressing. The last Conservative government took a lead over key environmental issues such as reducing emissions and protecting biodiversity.

We must be Conservative with a small "c" as well as a large one.”

That, presumably, means that under Dr Fox’s “stewardship” the Conservatives would stick with the benighted Kyoto agreement, having not bothered to look at any of the more modern and interesting ideas around, not to mention more up-to-date literature. One can be conservative with a small or a large “c” but there is no need to be backward.

And finally:

“This is what my leadership would be about: sound defence; keeping more of what you earn; less government interference in people's lives; a sense of family,community and respect for the law; Britain controlling its own destiny.”

At least, he does not tell us that the Conservatives must think about power and not ideas but then, apart from assuring us that he is “against sin” of whatever kind, Dr Fox does not tell us anything very much.

We all know there are serious problems in this country. What we are looking for is some indication that politicians who would be Prime Minister have thought of some way of dealing with them.

COMMENT THREAD

And your point is?

No doubt someone can explain precisely why The Daily Telegraph chose to publish this Garland cartoon this morning on its op-ed page.

Rapier-like wit, it certainly ain't. So what is the point?

COMMENT THREAD

Flooded farmers call for EU aid

Farmers are asking the EU for financial support following damage to crops from flooding. But hey, this is not the US of A. Here we are talking about German farmers, and they didn’t even have a hurricane to deal with, much less broken levees.

The main affected area is in the southern German state of Bavaria, where recent flooding is estimated to have caused €100 million of damage, the Danube having risen by 18 feet in some areas – although still three feet lower than in the devastating floods of 2002.

As well as direct aid, farmers are also calling upon Brussels to relax conditions relating to the purchasing of grain by the EU to stabilise prices, and are also requesting permission to use cereal crops as fuel.

Interestingly, while UK donations to the US to help them out with their minor local difficulties are entirely voluntary, here we do not have a choice. Any aid payments to German farmers will come out of the general EU budget, to which the UK pays so handsomely. Our forced generosity, therefore, will far exceed any aid given to the survivors of huricane Katrina.

And the German flooding isn't even president Bush's fault - unless you blame it on him for not signing up to Kyoto.

COMMENT THREAD

What will it take?

Poor old Jack Straw. He seems to be unable to say the right thing. We get another Volcker report that says as clearly as it possibly can, given that it also tries to be seriously mealy-mouthed, that the whole of the UN is corrupt, that SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) presided over the biggest scam in the history of international relations, the oil-for-food, and what does our esteemed Foreign Secretary say?

“Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has offered his "firm support" to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in the wake of the publication of a damning report on the UN's handling of the oil-for-food programme in Iraq.

Mr Straw said that the British Government and he personally held Mr Annan in "very high regard" and made clear he could rely on the UK's support in his efforts to drive through reform of the UN at a key summit of global leaders in New York next week.”

What will it take for Mr Straw and the British Government to acquire some sense?

The best analysis of the Volcker commission and report is given by Claudia Rossett, the journalist who made the story of the oil-for-food her own for weeks after MEMRI first published the relevant documents.

Ms Rossett makes an extremely important point. SecGen Annan has tried to pre-empt the report by telling the BBC (who else, alas?) that

“Honestly, I wish we were never given that program, and I wish the UN will never be asked to undertake that kind of program again.”

Really? Part of those much-vaunted “reforms” that Mr Straw and the British Government are so anxious to support is Mr Annan’s

“… pet proposal that the rich nations of the world give an automatic 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product for aid, much of it presumably to be funneled through the United Nations. Such amounts would run into the hundreds of billions, dwarfing even Oil-for-Food, and through the same fingers that Annan piously assures the BBC he wishes would never touch such lucre again.”

This is not a good time for SecGen Annan and the UN. There is the grand getting together next week of representatives of 170 states to celebrate the 60th anniversay of the organization. This is supposed to see the unveiling of the so-called reform plans that amount to little more than an attempt to grab more power for the UN.

But the oil-for-food scandal will not go away, what with UN officials being arrested practically every day; the other scandals are not so well known but they are there in the background; the Volcker report has not been as nice about Annan as he had hoped; John Bolton is snapping at the SecGen’s heels.

All of this is dwarfed by a forthcoming book. Pedro Sanjuan, a former high-ranking UN official has written a no-holds-barred account of that organization under the title The UN Gang. He will be giving a talk on it to the Heritage Foundation on September 23 and, no doubt, many other organizations round about then. This is what the blurb says:

“While serving in a high-ranking UN post, Ambassador Sanjuan’s real mission was to keep an eye on Soviet espionage activities. Over the years, the Russians had managed to install nearly four hundred KGB and GRU agents in strategic positions throughout the Secretariat, and had turned it into a massive spy facility, operating openly and with impunity on American soil. But this, it turned out, was only part of the problem. Sanjuan soon discovered that incompetence, corruption, anti-Semitism, and outright criminality riddled the UN Secretariat.”

Can’t wait for the book and for the inevitable message of support for the UN and its SecGen that the British Government and its Foreign Secretary will send.

COMMENT THREAD

Power before ideology

This, according to The Daily Telegraph is what Tory leadership challenger Ken Clarke is telling Party members. More specifically, he is warning them that the Tory party will not regain power unless it puts the will to win above its hostility to the European Union. Clarke says he lost the leadership contest in 2001 because activists, who voted against him, had put ideology above winning.

Strangely, three of the most electorally successful Western leaders of recent times have been Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush. The very antithesis of modern "wishy-washy" consensus politics, their names invoke strong passions – strong loyalties and almost frenzied hatred. And what made them winners was, in each case, that they had an identifiable ideology.

What Clarke fails to realise is that his is the dictum of "power before principles", which is what is turning people off politics. It is the reason why so many politicians are regarded with the utmost contempt. And it is exactly the reason why Clarke would make a disastrous leader of the Conservative Party.

COMMENT THREAD

Bouncing the member states?

There is something not quite right about the announcement today that India has signed an agreement with the EU, "sealing its participation in the Galileo satellite navigation system."

Participation was, in fact, agreed in principle in November 2004 when it was announced that India was prepared to pledge €300 million to the project (€100 million more than China). This, however, was followed a month later by news that New Delhi would pull out and join the Russians on a co-operative venture, unless the EU promised that India would be an "equal partner" and just a "mere customer".

Barring the occasional vague reference, the issue then dropped out of the public domain and only now has reappeared to conicide with the EU-India summit which started today.

What is totally missing from the official announcements is any reference to the amount India is prepared to pay for its participation. All the journalists got out of the joint press conference with Tony Blair was an enigmatic statement from G Madhavan Nair, secretary in the Department of Space and chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation. He dismissed calls for figures, saying: "The equity will be decided according to the extent of our participation."

One wonders whether this lack of detail has any connection with the fact that the whole Galileo project is in trouble, reported by this Blog last July. The operating concessionaires are demanding an extra €1 billion for the period 2007-2013 to pay for the running of the system, when the revenues will not match expenditure and, so far, EU member states have not approved the payment.

As it stood last July, without a guarantee of future revenues, the earlier phases of the poject were at risk because the contractors were unwilling to sign a contract until they were assured that a funding stream had been secured. A deadline was set for September for the member states to come up with the money.

Obviously, it can be no coincidence that one of the first agenda items of the EU parliament on its return from the summer break was to "approve" the spending of the extra billion, misleadingly announced by Ireland online as "EU approves funding for Galileo satellite system".

The parliament, of course, has no say in the money, as it is for the member states to find the money, and so far there has been no indication that they are prepared to stump up.

Added to this is another "coincidence", a sudden annoucement, for no particular reason, that Israel is set to join EU Galileo space project, something it has been thinking about for years. This, with the declaration yesterday between China and the EU on Galileo, and the India declaration today, combined with the EU parliament vote, and it begins to look like less than subtle pressure is being exerted on the member states to bounce them into opening the purse strings.

However, when push comes to shove, national governments are being presented with a pretty hefty bill for a system that is not yet online, and for a service that they already get for free from the US "Navstar" GPS system. It will be interesting to see whether the pressure works and, in the UK context, whether Mr Gordon Brown will be at all happy at being bounced into paying even more for this EU extravagence.

COMMENT THREAD

Straw refused aid to Katrina victims

A request for EU aid for Katrina victims, made directly to the United Kingdom in its EU presidency capacity, was turned down last week by British foreign minister Jack Straw (left).

His refusal came at last week's disastrous meeting of EU foreign ministers in Newport, despite the Irish foreign minister, and others, calling for an organised joint EU aid operation.

According to one witness, Straw blocked calls "for rather vague reasons." He "inarticulately mumbled" that India might be upset because it had received no EU aid when the country was struck by floods. "It was clear that he did not intend to grasp this opportunity to give the EU more visibility," a senior official who attended the meeting said.

As a result, according to the Belgian daily, De Standaard, the twelve EU member states who sent aid have done so on an individual basis. Their efforts involved neither "EU" aid, nor EU money.

The EU commission was not directly asked for aid, as the request was made to the UK presidency. All the commission is doing, therefore, is handling the practical coordination via the Monitoring and Information Centre of the EU Commission's Environment Directorate. It is striking, says De Standaard, that this aid will not be labelled as EU aid. The EU has not allocated a budget either. The member states themselves will have to bear all the costs.

Of course, there was nothing to stop the commission making an unsolicited donation to the American Red Cross, but at least it had the (somewhat lame) excuse that it "wasn't asked". Mr Straw's excuse is somewhat less plausible.

Typically, the BBC got it wrong: "EU sends aid to Katrina victims" blared its website two days ago, its report archly ending with a dig at the US, saying: "…its call for European and international help shows that, after the divisions over Iraq, it has now realised that even superpowers need friends."

Friends it may need, but – contrary to the triumphal BBC report – the EU isn't one of them, and neither is British foreign minister Jack Straw.

COMMENT THREAD

Will Russia start reconstructing borders?

Russia, on the whole, has had tumultuous relations with her neighbours, the three tiny Baltic States. Without going too far into history, let us recall that Estonia, like the other two, became independent in 1920, via the Treaty of Tartu, signed on February 2.

Said independence lasted for twenty years. In 1940, "honouring" the secret clauses of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Red Army marched into all three countries and the Soviet government announced that they have all been received into the great family of Soviet Republics. And just to show that they now belonged to that family, immediate arrests, executions and deportations began.

It is generally assumed that one reason why the Soviet Union was unprepared for the German attack of June 22, 1941 was because the trains were running in the wrong direction. Instead of bringing soldiers to the western border, they were carrying human cargo east and running back empty to collect more.

The German invasion took in the Baltic states as well and there were more deportations though there was also some (in the circumstances almost understandable) collaboration against the Soviet Union. In 1944 the Red Army came back and the 1940 process was repeated. Somewhere along the line there were various referendums that showed without any doubt that all Balts wanted to be Soviets.

For the subsequent 45 years great efforts were made to Russify the area. The results of those efforts, the Russian population of those countries are still presenting a problem one way or another.

Still, the Soviet Union collapsed and Estonia's independence was recognized, again, together with that of Lithuania and Latvia, in 1991.

Last year the countries became members of the European Union, having joined NATO some time ago. It would seem that President Putin's plans to reconstruct the old Soviet area into a single economic and security unit would not include the Baltic States.

Unfortunately, it is not quite part of the collective Russian psyche to accept that territory has to be released. There have been constant meddlings through the Russian population and its supposed wrongs. It seemed that the subject was abandoned by Putin as he has not raised it with the EU for some time.

In 1996 a border agreement between the two countries was drawn up, which was to put an end to the disputes that have, in theory, dragged on since the forties. Now, we get the news that Russia has decided to withdraw from the agreement, which Putin had actually signed earlier this year, explaining that the agreement would allow Tallinn to "claim" land from Russia.

According to the Novosti news agency

“The Estonian parliament ratified the agreement in June, but modified its text to incorporate provisions of the 1920 Tartu peace treaty, claiming parts of the Narva region for Estonia, and to present the country's annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940 as an act of aggression.”

Estonia denies that this means any further claims on territory and, one suspects, that it is the point about the 1940 annexation that is really at stake. Noticeably, President Putin has refused to acknowledge that there was a certain aggressive aspect to the Nazi-Soviet Pact or its effect on the Baltic States, Poland, Western Ukraine and Moldova.

What, one might ask, is the reaction of the European Union to this rather curious development on its eastern border? None, it seems. At any rate, Russian politicians have pointed out that there is no evidence that the EU is standing behind Estonia in what they describe as a "bilateral dispute". It seems all disputes on the eastern border remain bilateral.

More pics of the "unreconstructed" border here.

COMMENT THREAD

Accountancy begins at home

The EU is to fund a project aimed at improving the system of managing state spending in Russia. This project will be implemented in Russia in the period ending 2006 and its budget totals €1.5m. The main target is an establishment of an efficient system for managing state spending on the basis of target-oriented budgeting. This, according to the report, "will contribute to enhancing better quality of decisions on allocation of budget revenue and making Russian executive authorities more result-oriented."

And how many years is it since the Court of Auditors were prepared to sign off the EU's own accounts?

COMMENT THREAD

So that's all right then

Never mind the growing entente between the EU and China, the EurActiv website has this on offer today.

"With shared values and responsibilities, and a common concern for secure democratic institutions, the United States stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the European Union.

The US Mission to the EU serves as a bridge for governments and civil society on both sides of the Atlantic. Formal structures that support 'Transatlantic Relations' between the US and the EU are already fostering active collaboration on critical issues."

What is it about Barroso's smile that makes one want to do something unspeakably and irredeemably violent?

COMMENT THREAD

Summit blues

We learn from The Times today that the G8 summit jamboree in July cost Edinburgh City Council alone some £2.7 million.

This is going to have to be picked up by Scottish taxpayers - yet another unwelcome bill as the City puts its claim to the Scottish Executive. And this pales into insignificance compared with the policing costs, which have been variously estimated of upwards of £100 million – to say nothing of the cost of importing all the heads of state and their camp followers.

Has anyone worked out the cost of a conference call – or even this - and made the comparison?

COMMENT THREAD

Christmas time for China

So, China and the EU seem to have settled their differences over the textiles quota dispute, in a deal, according to Reuters that Beijing is calling "equitable". In order to release an estimated 85 million garments stacked up in European ports, both sides, we are told, are to share the burden of the extra imports this year. The EU has absorbed half the goods, reallocating unused quotas for other goods, and Beijing has agreed to count roughly half of the blocked goods as part of its 2006 EU export quota.

"I hope that ... European member states will feel that this is a sensible, reasonable, burden-sharing arrangement that we need to introduce," says Peter Mandelson, after clinking champagne glasses with Chinese counterpart Bo Xilai. That much he hopes, but – call me cynical if you wish - anything that China labels “equitable” is bound to come at a very high price, making Mandelson’s tipple an extremely expensive luxury.

Already this week, we have learned that the EU, through the European Investment Bank, has decided to lend China €500 million to enlarge Beijing airport, at a special low-interest rate, repayable over 25 years.

Yesterday, we also head from The Financial Times that the EU is to fund China's development of a low-emission coal-fired power station, paying the (unspecified) difference between the cost of a conventional plant and one equipped to demonstrate technologies both for carbon capture and storage and for clean coal.

What the EU thinks it is doing can only be imagined, as China is way ahead of Europe in the development of nuclear power, not least with pebble bed technology and could well leave nuclear-averse Western nations trailing behind in the electricity generation stakes.

But this is only the start. In many ways, the Mandelson effort was a side-show as it coincided with the eighth China-EU summit, hosted by Chinese premier Wen Jiabao who met yesterday with Tony Blair, representing the presidency of the EU. And the joint statement, issued by the Commission reads like a Sears catalogue for governments and Christmas – if the Chinese believed in it – all rolled into one.

Running to 26 items, it celebrates the "progressive deepening of the relationship" between the EU and China which, says the statement, "is fast maturing into a comprehensive strategic partnership."

The two sides endorsed a memorandum of understanding on labour, employment and social affairs and a joint statement on cooperation in space exploitation, science and technology development.

This included an expression of satisfaction at the China-EU cooperation within the framework of the Galileo programme and a call for "detailed talks on the conditions related to China's joining of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority". This is the management board of the whole enterprise, which runs the system, and China is to be part of it. And the EU is surprised that the United States is worried?

The two sides have also agreed to launch "a regular vice foreign ministerial strategic dialogue mechanism" by the end of 2005 "to discuss important international and regional issues and exchange views on bilateral issues of common concern" and a "move towards early negotiations on a new China-EU Framework Agreement." The leaders have instructed their respective services to "expedite preparatory work with a view to concluding at an early date an agreement that will reflect the full breadth and depth of the strategic partnership between China and the EU."

Furthermore, flying in the face of US treaty commitments that underwrite Taiwan's independence, the EU side "reaffirmed its continued adherence to the one China policy", thereby recognising China's claim to ownership of Taiwan. And, on top of that, the EU reaffirmed its willingness to continue to work towards lifting the arms embargo.

Of course, as part of the EU, Britain – or, at least the British government – wholly subscribes to this statement. And, while we cosy up to China, forging a "strategic alliance" with a country that has pledged to invade Taiwan if it declares itself to be an independent state, the United States is strengthening its "strategic partnership" with Australia, leaving the UK in the cold.

I bet Mr Wen Jiabao is enjoying more than a glass of champagne.

COMMENT THREAD

The realignment continues

Last month, I posted a story about how Australia, militarily, was becoming more closely aligned with the United States, and slipping away from the orbit of the Euro-obsessed British. This was followed by a posting from my colleague on the nascent Anglosphere, which confirmed this dynamic.

Now, from the The Australian comes yet further evidence in an article headed "Australia to share US secrets".

US President Bush, it reports, has issued a decree changed US national disclosure policy, upgrading Australia to the highest rank of intelligence partner that the US has in the world. Australia's new status is equalled only by Britain and vastly expands the quantity and quality of US intelligence our agencies receive.

In the 50 years of the US-Australia alliance, writes The Australian, Australia has never before enjoyed this level of access to American intelligence. The agreement ranges from tactical and operational military information through to comprehensive national assessments.

Increasingly, Australian agencies will have direct access to US intelligence systems. Australian military personnel in the Middle East, for example, can already directly access US intelligence databases and real-time battle space imagery.

The new relationship occurs at many levels. Canberra now has a permanent senior officer stationed at the US Strategic Command in Nebraska (pictured right). US Strategic Command is responsible for integrated intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, space and global strike operations, information operations, integrated missile defence and command and control.

It is the most sensitive intelligence hub in the US military network and to have Australians stationed there at high levels of seniority is a sign of the depth of the intelligence relationship. Australia gains access at all levels - to US raw intelligence, to US assessments of the intelligence and to real-time operational information and planning.

This has meant Australia further upgrading its own security because the US is extremely sensitive about who shares such information. Australia's new status is a sign of the growing trust the US has in the Australian military and intelligence community. Co-operation between Canberra and Washington in these fields has grown exponentially as a result of both the war on terror and the joint operations in Iraq.

In an editorial today, The Australian elaborates on this development, declaring that the change in Australia's status shows the reserves of trust that exist with our major ally. It is also a testament to the close relationship between Mr Bush and John Howard (pictured left), adding that: "the US alliance is, of course, the foundation of our security. Less well understood is the way the huge US defence budget subsidises our own military and intelligence spending, making it easier for Australian governments to provide the social services we value."

Continuing on this theme, it emphasises similar issues to those which have made the "special relationship" so valuable to the UK. "In recent times," the editorial says, "the closeness of this relationship, which is based on shared values and a history of helping each other out in times of conflict, has been expressed in many ways, including the free trade agreement signed last year and Australia's commitment to the liberation and rebuilding of Iraq. The new intelligence symbiosis, which among other things will help us fight terror in our region, is a further example of how the US alliance materially benefits Australia."

That "symbiosis" may be helping Australia now but, as far as the UK is concerned, informed sources report to us that British defence companies are experiencing "severe difficulties" in obtaining sensitive information from the US, suggesting that, far from enjoying equal status with Britain, in fact, Australia is now in a more privileged position.

This can hardly be a surprise. Amongst the more dubious articles of the "secret treaty" which we highlighted last month is "mutual recognition" of security clearances for the personnel from the signatory states.

Thus, according to the innocuous-sounding "Framework agreement" concerning measures to facilitate the restructuring and operation of the European defence industry, Part 4 (Article 23) defence workers from France, or Germany or German or any other of the signatory nations who have been given security clearance by their own country can be allowed full access to British defence secrets, and without even the British authorities having to be notified.

There plenty of examples of US sensitive technology having leaked from European firms to China, so there can be no surprise that things are getting tougher for Britain. As we cannot even control access to our own secrets, why should the Americans trust us? But, when Australia is cementing serious relationships with the US, and we are left out in the cold, it really is time to ask where we are going. Can we really afford to accept an Anglosphere that excludes the UK?

COMMENT THREAD

Vive la liberté?

We are all more or less used to the distortions provided by the main stream media that has acquired the soubriquet MSM, which makes it sound as if it were some terrible disease that probably causes autism. Well, perhaps it is.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in France where large sections of the electronic media are owned by the state and the newspapers are controlled one way or another through political pressure.

We can recall the lack of proper discussion in the run-up to the war in Iraq when L’escroc Chirac was given unlimited and unchallenged airtime, President Bush merely quoted by a newsreader and French politicians who supported the war, such as the impeccably left-wing Bernard Kouchner, not allowed anywhere near a camera.

Is it any wonder, we ask, that the French populace or, at least, those of them who watch the official media, tends to be a little paranoid on matters to do with foreign affairs?

There are times when the French political establishment and the media it controls oversteps the marks of all decency. One such case is the famous “shooting” of the twelve year old Muhammad al-Dura at the beginning of the second intifada in 2000.

The image of the terrified boy crouching with his father and shortly afterwards lying at his father’s feet shot by a heartless sniper winged its way round the world, caused a great outcry, did a great deal of damage to Israel, took attention off the fact that it was the late unlamented Chairman Arafat who had broken off the Oslo negotiations and ordered the intifada and – worst of all – became a symbol for numerous other Palestinian children who blew themselves and Israeli (Jewish and Arab) children in the name of Muhammad al-Dura.

Now, some years on, it appears that not all is well with that story. Its creation and broadcasting was investigated in detail as was the role of France-2, the channel responsible for it, controlled as it is by the government.

The details of the original story, the doubts that arose immediately, the threats, denials and cover-ups are told in this month’s Commentary magazine by Nidra Poller, a journalist and writer, domiciled in Paris. I do not think anything needs to be added by this blog.

COMMENT THREAD

Germany calling

The tempo of the German election is increasing, with the screening of a 90-minute television debate yesterday, aired on all four main German TV channels. By one account, challenger Angela Merkel did quite well, getting the better of Schröder on the vital issue of the economy.

With Schröder's Social Democrats trailing the opposition Christian Democrats by around 11 per cent in the polls, the odds seem very much in favour of Merkel. However, between a third and a half of German voters are said to remain undecided as to how they will vote on 18 Sept, so it would seem that the contest could go either way.

What to make of the article by Ambrose Evans Pritchard today in The Daily Telegraph? He paints a rosy picture of the German economy, reporting that Germany has overtaken America to become the world's biggest single exporter. Its trade surplus is now greater than that of China, Japan and India combined, reaching a staggering 16.8 billion euros in June alone. The profits made by German companies are running at over 33 per cent of national income, the highest in 40 years.

Deutschland AG has knuckled down, he writes, and it is now up to the German state. Should Merkel win the election, her putative finance minister, Paul Kirchoff, wants a 25 per cent flat tax and calls for the abolition of 90,000 tax rules.

Ambrose makes the point that, compared with an apparent resurgence of Germany, Britian is looking lacklustry, with our state taking 45 per cent of GDP by 2006, against 46 per cent for Germany, on OECD data. It does not take much extrapolation, he writes, to see that Britain could soon be Europe's sick man again, gasping and choking with the worst of the big-government sclerotics. Writes Ambrose:

I am not sure that Britain's debate on Europe has quite caught up with fast-moving events on the ground. We love to hate the Franco-German axis, but it did deliver the stabilising compromises that held the EU's north and south together. The task of holding Europe together may now fall to Britain, since no other EU state can possibly do it. Or Britain could opt for the entirely different strategy of Anglo-German condominium, creating a fresh EU axis, this time run on free-trading, pro-American lines - and let the Latin chips fall where they may. Unwise perhaps, but very tempting.

This analysis is interesting, but I am not sure it goes far enough. The profitability of German firms has largely been through buying up – or setting up – enterprises in the cheaper central and east European states, at the expense of jobs in Germany. In the UK, the government has been able to keep employment buoyant largely through a massive recruitment in the state sector, on the back of increasing income from financial services, which now account for nearly a third of the economy.

Germany does not have this resource to fall back on and the Merkel recipe will be viewed as bringing more job cuts in the short-term, and reduction in state benefits, without any immediate prospect of relief. What is not possibly realised abroad is quite how much Schröder’s Social Democrats are playing the anti-American card, to which we to which we referred to earlier, but a graphic illustration of this can be seen from this picture of a recent election rally – redolant more of a third world country, like Iran, than a supposedly civilised country like Germany.

With the New Orleans debacle being milked for all its anti-American potential – as living demonstation of how the US "capitalist model" fails - the Schröder line may have more resonance than has been anticipated. He may give Merkel a run for her money. On that basis, we could see Britain facing a stronger anti-American alliance on the Continent, being drawn further away from the special relationship but with very little chance of dominating the EU agenda.

This notwithstanding, the British economy certainly gives the impression of being built on "funny money", but, unlike Ambrose, I do not see any possibility of an "Anglo-German condominium". We may be on our way to becoming the "sick man of Europe" again, but never as sick (I hope) as the strand of German politics exemplified by the picture above.

COMMENT THREAD

The new face of Conservatism

With a strong measure of indifference, we learn that the Europhile campaigning group Britain in Europe is finally to fold its tent at the end of the month and slink off to merge with its parent organisation the European Movement.

Somerset House in central London has been chosen as the venue for the closing down party, when the grandees and Euro-luvvies will no doubt assemble to swap notes on how unfair life has been to them.

That much can be gleaned from the the valedictory press release , which complains of a "hostile press and a well-funded eurosceptic lobby". However, it says, "there is still much to do to improve public understanding and engagement in the importance of Britain's membership of the EU, not least in relation to our country's future prosperity and security."

"We hope," it concludes, "that all our supporters will continue to make the case for Britain in Europe and that, when a new consensus on the future direction of the EU is reached, we will all once again join forces to ensure that Britain remains at its heart."

Meanwhile, those former members of Britain in Europe who move over to the European Movement "to improve public understanding and engagement in the importance of Britain's membership of the EU," will no doubt find a warm welcome from one of its high profile vice presidents, none other than the Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke QC MP – the new face of Conservatism.

Cartoon courtesy of (i.e., swiped from) The Guardian

COMMENT THREAD

Short-changing the Army

The series of "Booker is wrong" letters to the Sunday Telegraph, attempting to rebut his pieces on the Europeanisation of the UK armed forces, continues apace. This week, we have Andrew Simpson of Bath, who offers what must qualify as the most bizarre contribution to date.

Under the heading, "I helped pick the Panther", Simpson reveals that he was formerly the MoD desk officer who initiated the Future Command and Liaison programme, which resulted in the procurement of the Panther vehicle (illustrated right), but he also tells us he is currently a consultant to Iveco – the builders of the vehicle.

Mr Simpson now feels so strongly about his employer's product, that he writes to tell us that he "cannot allow the gross errors of fact in Christopher Booker's article on defence procurement to go unchallenged." He is, he tells us, "the only person to have been intimately involved in this programme from initiation to contract award."

With such splendid qualifications, Simpson then takes Booker to task for referring to his employer's product as being "obsolescent". "Nothing could be further from the truth," he asserts. "Development of the base vehicle was started by Iveco as recently as 1999. It is as close to a state-of-the-art vehicle as is currently available, featuring a highly innovative protection system." Before dwelling on this specific point, it is as well to acquaint ourselves with what this "state-of-the art" Panther is replacing.

Firstly, it will take over close combat reconnaissance from the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Tracked) (CVR(T)) series, better known as the Scorpion/Sabre series (illustrated left), vehicles which have done good service but are now urgently in need of replacement.

But, it is also being supplied to combat engineers, as their reconnaisssance and liaison vehicle, replacing the venerable but perfectly servicable FV 432, an example of which can be seen on the left. From the illustration can be seen the kind of kit that engineers carry into battle, and this is – theoretically – a ten-man vehicle.

The "state-of-the-art" Panther is, at best a five-seater and, in order to fit the radio, one or two seats have to be removed. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the Panther is already believed to be suffering from space constraints and the Engineers are rumoured to want a trailer.

None of this, of course, is mentioned by Simpson, who focuses on Booker's reference to the US up-armoured Humvee, which could have been bought for £100,000 as against Simpson's employer’s £413,000 Panther. "Humvee-based designs were considered and rejected by the MoD because that vehicle lacks the necessary protection and reliability for the role," writes Simpson. "Indeed, the Humvee itself is widely recognised as being obsolescent.”

Needless to say, Simpson misses the point. It is not so much the design of the Humvee or even the Panther which is obsolescent. It is the concept – the idea of having a general purpose vehicle to carry out a wide range of different tasks. We already showed you one possible alternative to the Humvee, the M1117 Guardian - which even at twice the price slated is still cheaper than the Panther. But the proposed replacement for the CVR(T) series should actually look something like the Sika Combat Vehicle (pictured above).

This is the fruit of the US Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS)/UK Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) programme - a joint US-UK venture, originated in 1996, with an in-service date of 2007.

In February 2000, however, the project was cancelled when the US Congress shifted funding from the FSCS to a more ambitious, all-embracing concept known as the Future Combat System (FCS). The British government could have continued with the project but chose not to, writing off an expenditure of £131 million. So, while the US continued its development, the MoD issued a specification which led to its purchase of the Panther.

Interestingly, when the MoD came to shortlist the contenders for the contract, the Pather was not included in the selection. The Iveco vehicle was only entered after the short-list had been announced, at the insistence of the MoD, which then went on to select it as the winner, despite cheaper and probably better contenders, not least the South-African-built RG31, used by the US forces and £124,000 cheaper than the Panther.

Whichever way you look at it, the Army has been short-changed, and so has the taxpayer. Still, there is always a silver lining – at least Mr Simpson has got a nice little earner with the winner of the contract he helped to award.

For our latest report, see here.

COMMENT THREAD

Not a pretty sight

The end of the seventeenth century was something of a catastrophe for the Ottoman Empire. In 1683 they were finally defeated outside Vienna; in 1686 they lost Buda (now part of Budapest); in 1696 they lost Azov to the Russians.

That the subsequent Treaty of Carlowitz (1699) was not as bad as it could have been was due partly to the fact that the Turks rather painfully had to learn the art of diplomacy and partly because the European powers were watching each other carefully and were not going to let anyone get above themselves.

In his recent book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and the Midle Eastern Response, the world-famous Middle East expert, Bernard Lewis, has this to say on the consequences:

“When things go wrong in a society, in a way and to a degree that can no longer be denied or concealed, there are various questions that one can ask. A common one, particularly in continental Europe yesterday and in the Middle East today, is: “Who did this to us?”. The answer to a question thus formulated is usually to place the blame on external or domestic scapegoats – foreigners abroad or minorities at home.

The Ottomans, faced with the major crisis in their history, asked a different question: “What did we do wrong?” The debate on these two questions began in Turkey immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Carlowitz; it resumed with a new urgency after Küçük Kaynarca [another disastrous agreement]. In a sense it is still going on today.”

I would not dare to disagree with anything Professor Bernard Lewis ever says about the Ottoman Empire, modern Turkey or the Middle East (he having forgotten about a hundred times as much as I am ever likely to learn) but I do not think he is right on continental Europe. Not yesterday but today does it keep asking “Who did this to us?” Alas, in this respect Britain is a European, not an Anglospheric “can-do” type country.

How else can one explain the extraordinary and quite sickening outburst of schadenfreude, described by my colleague? This is not, incidentally, the first time that we are witnessing vicious nastiness of this kind.

When the dollar seemed weak and the American economy was sinking, there was a great deal of glee on this side of the pond. Tee-hee, those uppity Yanks. Things are going bad for them. A little sober thought demonstrated that if America sneezes, we all catch cold and things going bad for the Yanks means things going even worse for us.

Then, as the American economy started to turn round slowly while the “superior” European model remained in recession and the even more “superior” British model continued on its ruinous path of squeezing the private sector in order to bloat the public one, other cries went up.

Apparently, it was all the fault of the Americans that the European economies were doing so badly. That nasty man Alan Greenspan, would not manipulate the American currency in such a way as to help the failing European “superior” model. Well, of course, that is not Mr Greenspan’s job. It is to ensure that the Federal Reserve policies help the American economy. Whether he has done well or badly can be and will be argued over but what cannot be doubted is his wholehearted dedication to that aim.

What the effect of Katrina will be in the long run remains to be seen – five days not being the long run precisely. From a left-wing Keynesian perspective the immediate results are good – more money spent on public works, huge projects that will employ thousands of people.

The German government, for one, seems to have grasped that there will be effects felt in Europe as well. Chancellor Schröder haqas released some emergency oil supplies to help the Americans and the Europeans. Incidentally, German help has actually been sent to the United States, well ahead of NATO, EU and British.

My own guess is that while politicians will go on squabbling and apportioning blame (alas, the Democrat Louisiana state government and the Democrat New Orleans mayor will find that their inefficiency and misjudgements will catch up with them) the people on the ground will start rebuilding as soon as they can, probably better than before. That is the usual pattern with natural disasters in America. It used to be in Britain and Europe as well.

But never mind all that. Things are going badly for the Yanks. Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice! We do so every time something goes wrong. Every bomb in Iraq elicits more jollification than horror; every corporate scandal makes us ecstatic with glee to the point where we forget about our own corporate problems and, above all, about the malfeisance that is normal to our public sector.

No agreement on the Iraqi constitution? That’s not a sign of a reasonably healthy political debate but a set-back for Bush and his plans. Tee-hee again.

Hundreds, maybe thousands of people killed as a result of a natural disaster compounded by political ineptitude on the local level? Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Should we not offer help and support? What to the Yanks? They are rich, they can do it themselves. And, indeed, they can though whether they will be quite so ready to help us next time we run whimpering to them, remains questionable.

Underlying all this is not just the “green-eyed monster which doth mock/the meat it feeds on" (well, didn’t do Othello any good) but also a desperately clutched sense of superiority. Ho-ho-ho, this would not happen in our own highly “superior” and “cultured” part of the world.

Some of it would not happen. As Alexandra Colen points out in Brussels Journal, Europe, by and large, does not have large natural catastrophes. This is not a great achievement on our part but a simple matter of geography.

When things do go wrong, as they did with the flooding of the Netherlands and large parts of Central Europe in 1954, the results can be just as catastrophic.

Then again, the highly civilized Europeans are awfully good at making their own disasters. I am not talking about the major ones, like the various wars, concentration camps and gas chambers but more recent events.

Instead of rejoicing at the supposed lack of American success in Iraq, it is high time more people in Britain had a look at the situation in Basra, where under the benign British gaze, as we have mentioned a couple of times earlier, the Shi’ite militias have installed their own violent and oppressive regime and through which, one suspects, explosive material is imported from Iran.

The Italian Red Cross has admitted that in its own highly superior fashion it abuses its privileges to smuggle out known terrorists, whose subsequent career appears not to concern their “saviours”. But hey, it is all the Yanks’ fault. They just seem to see things in black and white, right and wrong. One has to be flexible and subtle and cultured.

What do we have nearer home? In 2003 the summer was hot and for a few days there was an unusual though not unique heat-wave. Nothing as bad as Katrina, that may result in thousands of deaths. However, the European heat wave produced 15,000 deaths in France and about 5,000 in Italy. Can’t blame the Yanks this time.

Katrina is not the only natural disaster in the news recently. There were the floods in Central Europe that seemed to affect precisely the same areas they affected last time and precisely with the same results. Is anybody ever going to learn any lessons?

The Portuguese forest fires were caused or, at least, exacerbated by a neglect of the brushwood that should have been cleared out. Is anybody going to learn any lessons?

And what of our own “superior” society? After the thankfully small bomb explosions in July it took a month for London Underground to open up all the lines, including the vital Piccadilly Line. Retailers in London lost millions because of this chaos and inefficiency. (Not that London Underground is anything to boast of at the best of times.)

While we are on the subject of those bombs, we are still not going to have an enquiry on the nagging question of how the intelligence and security services managed not to have the slightest idea that it might happen. Nor is anything going to be said about the response to the emergency on the day and in the immediate aftermath. Next time round we shall have the same problems. Londoners can but hope that nothing approaching 9/11 will ever happen here. Our substitute for Giuliani, Hizonner the Mayor Ken Livingstone will weep crocodile tears and preside over a complete destruction through inefficiency, misjudgement and misallocated funds.

With a bit of luck, though, something will go wrong in the United States – it is a big country, after all – and we can all sit back and laugh at their discomfiture. Above all, we can sneer at the various constitutional complications without bothering to understand them, while we hand over what is left of our political, constitutional and legal structure to the European Union.

COMMENT THREAD

Get over it

Almost without exception, in their coverage of the American hurricane disaster, the newspapers today exhibit the very worst of the nascent anti-Americanism in Britain, combined with the jeering superiority inherent in our "cultured", know-all society. Even the much revered newspaper, The Business, succumbs to the disease, with such a sickeningly partisan editorial that I cannot even bring myself to link with it.

What is missing from the coverage, however, are a few salient facts, to put the disaster into perspective. Firstly, there was the sheer severity of the storm and its effect on the infrastructure. Two photographs, taken by American Red Cross photographer Gene Dailey, convey something of the fury, the like of which I have not seen in the mainstream media.

The first (left) shows Hurricane Katrina after its worst, taking in a view of Biloxi, Mississippi, showing a scene across the bay and the collapsed casinos in Biloxi. Only something of the raw power of the hurricane comes over here, but those who complain of the delay should appreciate that the winds kept the helicopters grounded for two days after the height of the storm. They cannot fly in winds above 40 knots, and earlier intervention would have added to the casualties.

The second (right) showns the bridge leading from Ocean Springs to Biloxi. This was destroyed by the high winds and wave action. What is more, all roads leading in and out of Biloxi were destroyed or under water. When the water subsided, Highway 110 remained as the sole route in and out of the city. And that is the crunch. With the devastation spread throughout the State, the media simply is not conveying the enormous difficulties the rescuers experienced in getting to the scene of local disasters.

The third of the pictures, of the aftermath, shows that even large buildings were no match for Katrina's fury. One can only imagine the sheer, terrifying violence of the storm and wonder just how well London would have survived such an elemental force and - for that matter- how well Red Ken would have managed the aftermath.


The fourth of our photographs is the "killer", quite literally. It, and many more are published by the Junkyard Blog. The scene depicts Municipal (mainly school) busses in their depot in New Orleans, which should have been used – but were not – for the local evacuation plan, which was never implemented.

What the dire, lame-brained, ill-natured hacks and the archair pundits seem not to realise is that disaster response, and the preparations for disaster, are primarily City and State responsibilities. Conscious of the constitutional and legal niceties, the Federal Authority – short of declaring martial law - can only respond when requested by the State Governor. And, for all those pathological Bush-haters out there, they would do well to remember that both city and State administrations are Democrat.

What, I suspect, the response of the British media actually shows is an underlying jealousy of America, a childish, half-formed resentment that the USA has "usurped" the role of Great Britain as leader of the free world. It manifests itself in this petty, carping, dismal negativity, that erupts in the guise of objective news reporting, evident in the ill-concealed glee with which reporters linger on every aspect of bad news and ignore the good.

From this same well-spring stems the evangelical "Europeanism", driven not so much by any great vision of the role of Europe, but by a smouldering resentment of the fact that, in so many things, the Americans do things so much better.

For all the people who seem so much to delight in the misfortunes of America, however, there is only one real message: Get over it.

Photographs: Gene Dailey/American Red Cross

COMMENT THREAD

Solana is back from his holidays

And he has hit the ground running. Well, sort of. Straightaway he went to the Middle East to see if the EU could do a bit of meddling …. woops, sorry …. offer help that would lead to the implementation of the road map which might conceivably lead to some form of peace in the area but not as long as the EU keeps pumping money to the Palestinian Authority without ever bothering to find out what happens to it. (I expect the last bit did not figure high on Solana’s agenda.)

The EU Foreign Affairs High Panjandrum held talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen. The main point of discussion seems to have been the possibility of sending EU troops as border monitors between Gaza and Egypt. As the European Voice sums up:

“Following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, which is due to be completed this month, the EU might send border monitors to assist the Palestinian Authority, as long as both sides agree.

But major obstacles remain to the plan. Diplomats said that EU involvement comes on the condition that a deal on customs is done between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt.

The plan also hinges on the EU being involved in negotiations on the text from the beginning.

There appears to be agreement between the parties that the Palestinians will be responsible for goods and people leaving the Rafah crossing in southern Gaza for Egypt.

But Israel still wishes to retain some control over entry into the strip because of security concerns.”

Unsurprisingly, the Israelis remain “doubtful that a complete takeover of customs and border duties by the Palestinian Authority would not reduce security”. Presumably, the Israelis are also aware of the EU’s tendency to overlook certain peccadilloes on the part of the PA and, indeed, Hamas. Another school bus blown up? Oh heck, boys will be boys.

So, it is not at all certain that there will be an agreement for the EU to move into the Gaza and supervise border security. A delicate situation, as one diplomat of unknown origin has described it.

As a matter of fact, it is all a bit more delicate even than Solana seems to realize. There appears to be an assumption among Western foreign policy circles that there are two sides only to the Palestinian problem. Well, two-ish, as it is not clear that the PA, Fatah and Hamas are all on the same side and Al-Qaeda has already threatened Abbas with all sorts of repercussions if he arrests any of its members in Gaza.

There are other participants as well. For example, when Secretary of State Rice made her now notorious statement after the Gaza withdrawals, assuring the Israelis that this was just the beginning and they will have to do a good deal more and forgetting to mention that the Palestinian organizations should do something as well, the first angry reaction came from … Jordan.

King Abdullah, who, incidentally was one of the first leaders to extend condolences to the United States and the people of the stricken areas and to offer help, was a little more annoyed last month.

According to DEBKAfile of August 21 [no longer available on the net]:

“In notes to US president Bush and Israeli PM Sharon over the weekend, the king warned that any further steps, including Israeli withdrawalsfrom West Bank territory, would be deemed violations of the 1995 Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty - if coordinated only with Washington and the Palestinians. He stressed Jordan would not put up with aIsrael-Palestinian settlement that failed to address Jordan's sovereignty, its interests in the Jordan river basin and the border crossings and in shared strategic issues, such as security and water resources.”

In fact, most security negotiations in the area have had a major input from Jordan, something the State Department may have overlooked when providing the Secretary of State with her briefing.

The latest news is that King Abdullah is about to visit Jerusalem for talks with Prime Minister Sharon.

Jordan has always been worried at the break-down in security, should there be serious Israeli withdrawals. The appearance of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Gaza, the continued attacks on Israeli and other targets and the behaviour of the Hamas “warriors” are not conducive to calming fears. Of course, as the Palestinians seem to have forgotten, the King of Jordan has other ways of dealing with the problem.

As far as the EU and Gaza are concerned, there is yet another big player on the scene: Egypt and, for some reason, Solana does not seem to have talked to the Egyptian government or security services. A big mistake.

As agreed, Egypt has already taken over border control with Gaza. But it has also done a great deal more. Again, according to DEBKAfile of August 22 [quoted here in full]:

“A high-ranking 100-man Egyptian military delegation has taken de facto charge of Palestinian security forces in the Gaza Strip and is handling talks with Hamas to avert an outbreak of terrorist violence.

DEBKAfile's military sources report General Ibrahim Shukri heads the team of three Egyptian generals and several colonels and majors. The same general also led the probe of the October 15, 2004 al Qaeda Taba bombings. His appointment betokens Cairo's anxiety over the threat of al Qaeda terror infiltration of the Gaza Strip.

Our sources add that all Palestinian operations, including the deployment of 24 battalions in the evacuated territory are coordinated with Israel indirectly througha direct channel set b y by General Shukri and Israel's Shin Beit HQ.

A second Egyptian general, Muhammed Ibrahim, is in close communication with the Hamas to guard against wildcat action including gunfire on Israeli targets. General Mustafa Bakri has taken practical command of Palestinian security andintelligence units in Gaza.

The other members of the Egyptian team have divided Gaza into sectors and assumed command of the Palestinian battalions. They have installed their own communications and logistics networks in the Egyptian embassy building in Gaza. The high-powered Egyptian military presence has all but edged Palestinian chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his ministers out of the game.

Egyptian officers in command of the Palestinian units call the interior minister Nasser Yousef by the contemptuous Nasser Yuosif meaning Nasser the Sad Case or Mr. Useless. Israeli officers in dialogue with Palestinian opposite numbers check first with the Egyptian officers for their approval of agreements.

Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qureia visit to Damascus Sunday, Aug 21, was ordered by Gen. Bakri. He was told to persuade Syrian president Bashar Assad to force the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashal to let the Israeli pullout go through without interference.”

All of this activity makes one wonder whether the EU and its “foreign ministry” actually understands what is going on in the area. One cannot help agreeing with the American Enterprise Institute scholar David Frum that the Gaza pull-out may well have been a case of Sharon calling the West’s bluff.

He may have been successful. The West, especially the EU and its members, while castigating Israel, never really wanted or expected a swiftly concluded pull-out from Gaza. Now they are running around like headless chickens.

COMMENT THREAD

The EU is too busy creating disasters to help relieve them

Following on from our observations on the somewhat mute response from the EU on the Katrina hurricane disaster, and from Tony Blair representing the EU presidency, Booker offers a trenchant piece in his column today. "As the appalling scale of the tragedy unfolding in the southern United States became apparent", he writes, "one dog remained conspicuously quiet in the night."

By Wednesday, messages of sympathy were flooding in from all over the world, from the Queen, the Pope, President Putin and heaven knows who. But from the EU in general, and from Tony Blair in particular, as its current president, there was nothing - until Friday, when the Downing Street website reported, between mentions of Baghdad and Beslan, that Mr Blair had sent a letter to President Bush.

There was no mention of sympathy but only an offer of EU "assistance". Curiously, however, this was replaced later in the day by a brief statement saying that Mr Blair had written a letter to Mr Bush expressing Britain's sympathy, but no longer referring to the offer of help from the EU.

Inevitably there has been an ironic contrast between the US's seeming inability to cope with such a catastrophe on its own doorstep and the efficiency of its remarkable response last January to the South-east Asian tsunami. While spokesmen for the EU (and the UN) poured out their sentimental and ineffectual verbiage, the US, Australian and Indian navies were rapidly on the spot, deploying the resources which saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Two weeks after that disaster, the European Commission's president, Jose Manuel Barroso, boasted that the EU had given €2 billion in aid (about £1.4 billion - three quarters of it raised in private donations to charities). But the prime minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, sternly responded that his country did not want aid from the EU. It wanted a repeal of the crippling tariff imposed by Brussels on Thai shrimp imports, which had cost his country, the world's largest prawn exporter, £3 billion since 1997, twice as much as the aid the EU was now offering.

Those tariffs had been imposed to protect the French and other EU fishing industries, which hoover up vast quantities of prawns off the coast of Africa, under "Third World fishing agreements" for which EU taxpayers have shelled out well over £1 billion.

Embarrassed by this revelation, Peter Mandelson, as the EU's trade commissioner, promised at the time to consider trade concessions to the Thais worth "tens of millions of euros". He repeated his promise again on a visit to Thailand in April. So far nothing has happened.

Now, just as Mr Mandelson is yet again plunged into embarrassment by the "bra wars" fiasco, threatening tens of thousands of European jobs to protect the textile industries of France and southern Europe from Chinese competition, he is being urged to impose a further penal tariff on imports of Thai maize, which French and Hungarian growers protest are undercutting them by 50 per cent. Last week the head of the biggest food company in Thailand, the world's fourth largest maize exporter, flew to Paris to plead that this proposed "EU anti-dumping" measure threatened thousands of Thai jobs.

So while the EU prepared to inflict further catastrophic damage on the economies of the Third World (with the aid of that supposed "free-trader" Mr Mandelson), it was too busy, it seems, to send any formal expression of sympathy to the country it loves to hate, America. That antipathy was also exemplified last week by President Chirac's pledge of vast sums of EU money to enable French and German firms to devise an internet search engine to rival Google, and protect Europe against this expression of "Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism".

No doubt Mr Blair's offer of EU "assistance" over the Katrina disaster will be appreciated. President Bush might note, however, that Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's "commissioner for external relations", was looking forward last January to the EU having its 5,000 strong "crisis management force" ready by 2007. For the people of New Orleans and Biloxi, it may come a little late.

And, while the EU is belatedly offering "assistance" now, there has been no formal statement of sympathy from the EU Commission and, given the largesse the EU has dispensed elsewhere, it would not have the commission to have donated a token €1 million to the American Red Cross. However, we are sure that our readers are more that happy to venture where the commission fears to tread.

Photo courtesy of American Red Cross.

COMMENT THREAD

Why the levees broke

It was all the fault of the French apparently. A law instituted in 1724 by a French colonial governor, whose name was Perrier, of all things.

COMMENT THREAD

More news from the fount of moral superiority

This is becoming an every-day event: SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) has had to lift diplomatic immunity again, in order to give the FBI a free hand to arrest another UN diplomat.

This one is another Russian, Vladimir Kuznetsov. As the Washington Times puts it:

“The FBI arrested Vladimir Kuznetsov Thursday night at his Bronx home. He is accused by the Justice Department of laundering money that was paid to a U.N. procurement officer who has admitted seeking bribes in exchange for inside information on the oil-for-food program and other U.N. missions.”

The procurement officer in question, Alexander Yakovlev, arrested some months ago, has been, as they say, singing like a canary. He agreed to co-operate with the FBI immediately, and further arrests have been expected since then. Mr Kuznetsov’s is the first one.

Mr Kuznetsov has worked in various budget-related positions at the UN and is or, rather, was the “chairman of the powerful Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, or ACABQ, a 16-member body that reviews and amends the secretary-general's budget proposal before it goes to the full General Assembly”.

The Russians, on the other hand, seem to be unable to make up their minds whether they should lift his diplomatic immunity or whether he actually has such an immunity. According to UN rules the chairman of that particular committee is its only member with immunity (even though it has now been lifted).

This particular scam, which resulted in Mr Kuznetsov allegedly finding out about the fraudulent scheme that involved kick-backs and money laundering and him taking a share of the “profits” in order to pay the money into his own off-shore company, called Nikal Ltd with accounts in an Antiguan bank.

The whole affair was uncovered by the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services, or OIOS, as part of an overall investigation into the procurement department. The Independent Inquiry Committee under Paul Volcker has said it was unaware of Mr Kuznetsov’s involvement.

One wonders whether another committee or inquiry might uncover some other interesting activity.

Mr Kuznetsov has pleaded not guilty. Mr Yakovlev is not named in the indictment, though there are clear references to him.

COMMENT THREAD

Chirac in hospital

The BBC News website is reporting that Chirac has been admitted to the Val de Grace military hospital in Paris for treatment for a "a minor vascular incident" that has slightly affected his eyesight. An official spokesman says he is expected to remain hospitalised for about one week.

Naturally, the French authorities are downplaying this problem, although this condition has been associated with congestive heart failure and is regarded by some as a risk factor. No doubt the president will be getting the best of treatment in the hospital which was originally scheduled to treat his friend Yasser Arafat when he came to Paris to die last year.

The is no hint that the same fate awaits Chirac, although it has been observed that his early demise, while still in harness, would solve a number of problems for the state prosecutors.

COMMENT THREAD

Which one would you prefer?

The online journal Defense Industry Daily criticises Booker for attacking the MoD’s decision to buy the Italian-built Panther light armoured vehicle at £413,000 each instead of the up-armoured Humvee at £100,000 each.

Even the US, writes DID, is upgrading its armoured fleet, buying in vehicles such as the M117 Guardian (illustrated left). As it happens, the US recently purchased 724 of these vehicles on a fixed-price contract of $258.8m, which equates to $357,458 or £194,092 each - i.e. less than half the price of the Panther.

If you were a soldier in hostile territory, exposed to bombs, mines and gunfire, which would you prefer? The Panther (right), or the Guardian (above)? And, if you were – as you most certainly are – a taxpayer, which would you prefer, £413,000 or £194,092? Well, you have not been given a choice. The MoD have already decided that the Pather is the best vehicle for the British Army.

That, dear readers, is part of the price we are paying for European defence integration.

COMMENT THREAD

Mandy in trouble

According to a Reuters report, EU member states have failed to agree on how to release millions of Chinese trousers, t-shirts, pullovers and other items that are blocked at EU borders.

Little Mandy is going to have to pack a fresh set of knickers as negotiations are going to continue over the weekend. But he looks as if he is in for a hard time as he is complaining that there is "a lack of a unified EU approach on freeing up the goods". Welcome to the reality of the EU, chuck.

However, with an optimism belied by the severity of the current situation – with retail groups throughout Europe lining up to take their own governments or the commission to court – Mandy is claiming that this will not weaken his hand in separate talks with China starting on Sunday. And just who does he think he is kidding?

"I still want and expect member states to agree to unblock the goods. It's a matter of tactics, not principles," he told reporters after a day-long meeting of negotiators.

A more realistic – or honest – "EU diplomat" put a somewhat different spin on the affair, admitting that the: "Talks collapsed ... Too many member states did not agree to lift the block ahead of the negotiations with the Chinese".

"We said to Mr Mandelson that we can go only so far," said a representative from an unnamed member state – one which had opposed letting in the goods before China agreed to give up some of its future EU quotas.

With or without agreement from the "colleagues", little Mandy will have to meet Chinese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai in Beijing on Sunday for talks ahead of a summit of EU and Chinese leaders on Monday.

Bo said yesterday he was confident of solving the problem. But then, as the Chinese hold all the cards, he can afford to be confident. Little Mandy, however, might not like the solution.

COMMENT THREAD

Off-topic but somehow relevant

Sighted in Canary Wharf this afternoon: a young man in a t-shirt with the following (only slightly ungrammatical message):

"Some people are only alive because it is against the law to kill them."

Go figure, as they say over the pond.

COMMENT THREAD

Gays beware

According to Pink News, gay men have been warned to stay well away from Gosforth Park in Newcastle next week as the British presidency is to hold an EU Council meeting in the nearby Marriot Hotel.

The park is popular with gays for "cruising", but they have been told that the likes of home secretary Charles Clarke will be attending the meeting, with other interior ministers of the EU member states. This has led Mesmac, a local gay community group (funded in part by the regional health authority), to warn gay men to stay away from the area.

The original information came from Northumbria Police, provoking some controversy. Local politicians have asked why the local council (which passed on the information to Mesmac) felt the need to spend public money warning the gay community of the event.

More to the point, why is it that only the gays get the warning? I would have thought that all the citizens of Newcastle were in equal danger – or perhaps not.

COMMENT THREAD

Rats to join sinking ship

The Czech Republic has set 2010 as the country's new target date for adopting the euro.

COMMENT THREAD

There must be a better way

The odd thing about the piece in The Times today, headed "Brussels wants immigrants to swear allegiance to EU", is that it wasn't in the Daily Telegraph. David Rennie, the Telegraph Brussels correspondent, filed copy, but nothing appeared in his paper.

It was picked up on the day by the England Expects blog. It immediately saw the point, reporting verbatim what Franco Frattini, the Italian Commissioner for Justice and Home affairs had said:

I am in favour of exploring the possibility of having a dialogue with representative communities of immigrants and trying to identify something whereby, as in France, you can get every immigrant to declare respect for national and EU law and the charter of fundamental rights. I feel this is worth exploring at a European level.

This was (correctly) translated by The Times as "immigrants to Britain will have to swear an oath of allegiance to EU laws and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, rather than the Queen, under a proposal announced by Brussels."

As England Expects observes, "what we seem to be talking about is some pan-European oath for any migrant to the EU… Thus at long last the EU will have found some people whose primary loyalty will be to the Brussels institutions, rather than to the country which hosts them (and in most cases pays through the nose for the privilege)."

The press office will then deny it, saying "Oh no, we don't mean that. This is just one of many options that are currently being discussed. You are just myth making as usual you nasty British Eurosceptic". Then a couple of years down the line, as they have spotted that resistance to the idea is not firm. "This? Oh this is merely a planning exercise, it is a technical logistical process, it has no force in law, don't worry about it".

Then when kiddies are singing the Ode to bloody Joy in school a few years later. "Well you cannot complain now, if you wanted to complain you should have done so five years ago when the legislation was being mooted".

But there is an unwarranted note of optimism here: England Expects adds: "Well today is five years ago. Now is the time to act against this invidious measure. Let them know that we do not want an oath of allegiance to the EU in no uncertain terms, and the idea will be taken off the table."

For sure, the idea may be taken off the table, but it goes back in the cupboard, and a few years later it will be taken out, dusted off and the "colleagues" will try again. And they will keep trying, and trying until they get their way. Time and again we fight these battle, we lose many but at least we seem to win some, until they come up again.

We really cannot continue with this. There must be a better way.

COMMENT THREAD

And I though I was joking

In March of this year, I wrote what I thought was a spoof on the "Single European Tank", venturing that the EU had finally found a means of abolishing war through applying such rigorous health and safety requirements to military equipment that it would no longer be possible to operate it.

But, as they say, truth is stranger than fiction. The Daily Telegraph today reports that "Noise at work rules threaten to knock out Army's tanks", recounting how: "Defence chiefs are fighting to prevent the Army's tanks being stopped in their tracks by the introduction of a European directive on vibration and noise at work."

The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations and the Control of Noise at Work Regulations, it says, have left officers scrambling to discover if the military's armoured vehicles break the rules. But with a slim chance of reducing vibrations in a Challenger 2 tank and the Warrior armoured vehicles, the Ministry of Defence will be seeking an exemption from the rules by invoking an "opt-out" clause.

Soldiers who travel in the back of tanks and are subjected to substantial jolts and constant noise will have to suffer the discomforts until at least 2010 when the regulations become law. "Because it's damaging to the human body we are out to ensure soldiers are looked after like civilians," an MoD official said. "Where necessary and practical we will modify equipment and we do have the opt out which we will use if necessary."

A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive, which is implementing the legislation, said "national security" considerations could mean certain employers were exempt. "If you are in a combat situation then clearly it will be difficult to bring in these regulations," he added.

But then, if you bring in these regulations, it will be difficult to have a "combat situation". Surely that is the point?

COMMENT THREAD

Not fit to run a whelk stall

The first high-profile meeting of the British presidency has been a shambles, leaving foreign secretary Jack Straw embarrassed and the press corps fuming.

The meeting, of the General Affairs Council, was being held in Newport Gwent, although heaven knows why, when reporters racing against deadlines watched their stories disappear into the void as the high-tech communications network rigged up for their use crashed repeatedly.

This gave Reuters a delicious opportunity to report a "visibly pained" Straw telling the final news conference: "I am embarrassed about it. I am very sorry about it, all right?" adding, "As soon as I leave this briefing... I am going to find the people I think are responsible and encourage them to deal with it and to offer them some career advice."

This, however, had only been one element of the debacle. Tempers had flared earlier on as journalists complained at what they called the heavy-handed security at the talks. One German journalist told how he was escorted out of the meeting and back to his hotel after he complained about the queues into the hotel hosting the meeting.

Other niggles abounded, with reporters baffled by occasional bans on smoking in some parts of the grounds outside the building, and miffed to find – crime of crimes - that even the sugar laid on for coffee had run out by midday.

This is the presidency that, incidentally, was going to settle the EU budget, reform the CAP, sort out Africa's problems and lead the negotiations on Turkey's accession. On this performance, however, Straw and his not-so-merry-men are not even fit to run a whelk stall.

But then, you knew that already.

COMMENT THREAD

The fragrant Commissioner is back

Dear me, just like old times. There is the fragrant Margot in fluffy bunny mode.

She and her husband apparently painted their old house and discussed whether anybody cared to do hard physical labour any more. Presumably, people who earn their living that way might but I do not suppose the fragrant one meets anyone so inferior.

There is a great deal of chatter about the books she has read, what she thinks of them all and what she thinks of detective stories in general: “mostly totally meaningless and sometimes cruel stories”. W. H. Auden, she ain’t. For one thing he would never use an expression like “me and my husband”. Yes she does. Honest.

Towards the end of the posting she goes into serious mode.

The killing of the Sri Lankan foreign minister, the Portuguese forest fires, floods in Europe, Katrina and the inevitable pious sentiment: we shall see more of this with the “accelerating climate change”.

Does she mean that as a result of the climate change, accelerating or otherwise, we shall see more foreign ministers assassinated? Who knows what goes on in that fluffy little head? After all, she seems not to have noticed that there have been forest fires, floods and hurricanes in the past and what we have seen this year is not the worst ever.

Then there is a mysterious entry about TB returning to Sweden and hitting 60 children in a school. Just one school? Seems rather odd. I wonder if that has anything to do with the accelerating climate change?

Nothing, however, can beat the sheer silliness of her last paragraph:

“Chinese clothes piled up in European ports has naturally been dominating the news reporting lately. The Commission is trying to find a practical way to deal with the problem and to unblock the goods as soon as possible seems like a sensible solution in the interest of European consumers as well.”

Apparently, it all just happened, possibly as a result of the accelerating climate change and the all-wise Commission is trying to sort it out. Has the fragrant Commissar not grasped that it was the Commission that had caused the problem in the first place? Not on its own, of course, but with the help of the Council of Ministers, but this notion, first propagated by Trade Commissar Mandelson that the problem just kind of arose and nobody is at fault, seems to be popular with commissioners if not with retailers or the public.

COMMENT THREAD

Solidarity with the people of New Orleans

It is not only the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition (who he?) that have been resoundingly silent on Katrina and its effects. Not a squeak has been heard from Hizonner the Mayor of LondON, normally so vociferous on subjects that are not precisely his concern, such as Middle Eastern politics.

The London Assembly? Well, they are still discussing how the name change of Veritas-UKIP to One London might be interpreted: as a daft move or, more probably and infuriatingly, a smart one.

It is best not to let these people cogitate too much. One London has gone into action by declaring London’s solidarity with the people of New Orleans, writing to the United States ambassador to that effect and calling on all and sundry to support the move and to donate money through the American Red Cross.

For the rest of the story, read the inevitable blog.

COMMENT THREAD

There's a surprise

Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach of Ireland will today come out strongly in support of the CAP. Unsurprisingly, the Irish Farmers’ Association has already welcomed what they see as a kick in the general direction of Prime Minister Blair who rather vaguely and unwisely expressed the view that the CAP should be reformed or even abolished.

Of course, it meant nothing, since Mr Blair cannot achieve either of those aims and Mr Ahern is not expected to name names in his accusations against people who are making “negative and simplistic comments about the CAP [that] are driven by self interest”. Comments if favour of the CAP are not, of course, driven by anything as vulgar as self-interest.

At least, Mr Ahern is expected to be quite clear about the aims of CAP. Some waffle about it being good value for money (without specifying of who is paying the money and who is getting the value, if any) but mainly, he will say, that

“… to abolish or undermine the Common Agricultural Policy would weaken the entire European project at a time when Europe needs strengthening”.

Funnily enough, Mr Ahern has been facing some criticism on a different but related aspect. The NGOs are getting at him. Rather blithely he promised five years ago to increase Irish spending on overseas aid to 0.7 per cent of GNP.

A fortnight or so before the UN General Assembly meets to discuss the possibility (remote at the moment) of member states handing over that famous 0.7 per cent to them to be distributed as aid to developing countries or, to be quite precise, their kleptocratic and oppressive governments as well as the various aid agencies, the latter are beginning to get restive.

Hans Zomer, of the NGO umbrella organisation Dochas, has reminded Ahern that

“It was at this very same forum five years ago that the Taoiseach promised to increase aid to reach the 0.7% target. Since then, the Government has announced it will not reach the target by 2007, but has not given us an alternative plan.”

Well, of course, no prime minister who wishes to retain his political career would ever seriously hand over large amounts of money like that either to the unaccountable and scandal-enmired UN or the NGOs.

The Make Poverty History charities, watching the prize slipping away from them, are rather desperately suggesting that the date should be rescheduled to 2010, to make sure that the world’s poor see that “we” do not break our promises to them.”

Seeing how many of the world’s poor have made it clear that it is not aid but a fair crack at trade that they would like and seeing that even the NGOs have had to agree reluctantly that not much will happen as long the developing countries have the sort of political regimes they have, one wonders whether Mr Zomer thinks that everybody’s memory is as short as his own:

“This need for leadership has never been more pressing, given the attempts by some countries to undermine the fight against poverty in the run-up to the UN Millennium Summit in two weeks’ time.”

One of the strongest ways of undermining the fight for poverty is to hang on to the CAP, as Mr Ahern is doing. (Not because it benefits the people who might vote for him, honest, guv.)

The second one is to hand aid money over to NGOs who have no particular interest in changing the situation in the “client” states and the governments who have even less interest in changing anything.

But that, I suspect, is not what Mr Zomer and his ever more anxious colleagues mean.

COMMENT THREAD

Clarke – an unmitigated disaster

The Daily Telegraph in its leader today raises important points about Kenneth Clarke and his leadership bid.

There are three serious anxieties which must be allayed if he is to become its leader, it says, but we need detain ourselves only with one:

Famously, he remains a committed Europhile. His blithe dismissals notwithstanding, the rejection of the European constitution and the travails of the euro have not halted the project of ever-closer union, but merely driven it underground.

The recent brouhaha over clothes imports, or this week's news about mooted European rules preventing the deportation of terror suspects, demonstrate the lively and protean nature of the beast. Mr Clarke's recanting of his former support for British membership of the single currency is insufficient. Conservatives want to know not merely that a leader would not cede further sovereignty to Brussels, but which powers, if any, he would bring home. The former spokesman of Britain in Europe has a tough task ahead of him here.

That is the central point. Such is the momentum of integration that, for it to continue, a British government just has to do nothing and the project will roll on.

A Conservative government under the leadership of Clarke would most certainly not take an aggressive stance with the EU, in demanding the return of powers to the UK. What we would seen as we have seen with the current Tory leadership, is that “Europe” would remain off the agenda, while the Party concentrated on those few domestic issues where some power remains with the British government.

Clarke himself, in his op-ed in the paper argues that "We have to be an effective and aggressive opposition which can take on and defeat not just Tony Blair but the man who will lead Labour into the next general election - Gordon Brown."

But much of the "opposition" to how we wish to run this country comes not from Tony Blair or his successor, but from "Brussels", which is our real government in the majority of policy areas. Unless Clarke is prepared to take this on, he is useless.

Even then, his approach is still flawed. We must halt the Liberal Democrat advance into the Tory core vote - and reverse it – he writes, and we must persuade more people to vote Conservative. "This is not just - or even primarily - winning back lost voters. It is offering a natural home in the Conservative Party to people who have never voted Conservative or even thought of doing so."

This, to say the least, is bizarre. There are six million voters out there who once voted Conservative and do so no longer. But Clarke knows that many of those were disillusioned by the Conservative stance on Europe. He will never recover them, so he wants to pitch for "people who have never voted Conservative or even thought of doing so". To do that, he will have to reinvent the Party, whence it will not longer be the Conservative Party, leaving the core vote disfranchised.

Perhaps that is the real objective, but the only beneficiaries will be New Labour – and UKIP. By that, and any other measure, Clarke would be an unmitigated disaster.

COMMENT THREAD

Katrina update

Mark Steyn and Instapundit are mounting a "blogburst" to galvanise support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Islamic extremists, meanwhile, are rejoicing in America's misfortune, giving the storm a military rank and declaring on Internet chat rooms that "Private" Katrina had joined the global jihad. With "God's help," they declared, oil prices would hit $100 a barrel this year.

Methinks expressions of solidarity with our American cousins would not go amiss. The American Red Cross is accepting donations and Instapundit is listing alternative charities.

COMMENT THREAD

Double standards

Just over eight months ago, when the tsunami hit the countries of east Asia, world leaders were vying with each other to demonstrate their nation's generosity, with gushing concern for the victims of the disaster.

No nation was more generous with immediate practical help than the US, but right up front – in the gushing stakes - was José Manuel Barroso, president of the EU commission. He could not wait to high-tail it out to the disaster area, to hog the television limelight as he pledged other peoples' money to countries affected by the tsunami.

In the wake of the unprecedented disaster occasioned by Hurricane Katrina, however, I cannot trace a single statement of sympathy from the EU, despite the massive loss of life and appalling damage. Barroso, Solana and even the fragrant Margot seem not to have noticed. Although Queen Elizabeth II has offered her sympathy on behalf of the UK, there does not appear to have been an official statement from Tony Blair on behalf of the EU presidency. American lives, it seems, don't matter to the EU.

This is in start contrast to messages of sympathy from other leaders. They include the Pope, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Russian President Vladimir Putin, China's President Hu Jintao, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, and even a clutch of European leaders, including Chirac, Schröder and Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis Even OPEC sent a message, signed by its president and Kuwaiti Minister of Energy, Sheikh Ahmed Fahad al-Sabah.

As for offers of aid, in January, not only were governments falling over themselves, our television screens were saturated with details of how to donate to victims of the disaster. And what do we see now? Interestingly, Venezuela's government, which has had tense relations with Washington, offered humanitarian aid and fuel, while Venezuela's Citgo Petroleum Corp. pledged a $1 million donation for hurricane aid. Israel also offered specialist assistance.

From the EU though, not even a token gesture and absolutely nothing on our television screens. (For those of you who wish to help, however, the American Red Cross is accepting donations.)

Yet, next time there is a major disaster in the world, the Americans will be expected to be at the forefront of the relief effort, with the EU in particular, acting as cheer-leader for greater funding. The US could be forgiven then for looking askance at the EU and its double standards.

COMMENT THREAD