All we need are the white flags

Last Sunday I read with mild interest a couple of defence stories in the mainstream newspapers, one on a new type of parachute and the other on the activities of the SAS in Afghanistan, both written in the breathless "Boy’s Own" style that we have come to expect from the dumbed-down approach to defence that we get from the MSM these days.

Not yet - and one wonders if ever - is any MSM journalist going to write intelligently – or at all – about the biggest single defence procurement project for the Army since the war, none other than the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), estimated to cost taxpayers a cool £14 billion.

You would have thought that just the vast cost of this project – much less the revolutionary thinking it brings to armed warfare – might excite some media interest in the project but no – as we have remarked earlier, regimental cap badges have had more coverage.

Apart from the occasional reference in The Business, therefore, we are left to plod our solitary path, trying to track the fate of this project, which we last visited in April, with the news of a possible stitch-up in the making between French and German armoured vehicle manufacturers, each with an eye on the British contract.

As always, some of our highly informed readers pitched into the forum with their own comments, demonstrating that, when it comes to military matters, much of the expertise lies outside ambit of the conventional media.

Since then, however, there has been another development – once again courtesy of DefenseNews – which suggests that the MoD is in some trouble over the project and is undergoing a major re-think.

Thus does DN tell us that the Mod is "set to jettison a plan to create a high-tech armored utility vehicle" for FRES and instead is seek an upgraded version of an existing armored personnel carrier. This, we are told is because of the slippage in the programme, and the need to bring the effort back from 2016 to the 2012 delivery schedule.

What is particularly interesting is that this news was conveyed by a Defence Procurement Agency team to vehicle makers BAE Systems, General Dynamics, GIAT and Patria at a May 4 industry day meeting. Industry sources subsequently have told DefenseNews that the MoD is interested in several candidate vehicles, including a new version of General Dynamics Piranha IV, GIAT Industries' Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie (VBCI) and Patria's AMV.

BAE is still in the picture though, and may offer a diesel version of the BAE Hagglunds-developed Splitterskyddad Enhetsplatform (SEP) electric hybrid vehicle, or a version of the Piranha, for which it holds a longstanding licence to market in the United Kingdom.

Thus, it seems, the MoD is looking seriously at a Swiss-designed (and built?) vehicle, the Piranha IV, a French vehicle, the VBCI, or a Finnish design, the Patria AMV. The only British contender, BAE systems, is offering a Swedish vehicle (SEP) or an older version of the Swiss design.

Interestingly, the US is currently fielding an enhanced version of the Piranha, re-named the Stryker, and regards this as an interim solution for its own advanced Future Combat System (FCS). The MoD, on the other hand, is at pains to insist that any platform chosen will be "the real thing". This suggests that Britain is opting out of the race to develop "next-generation" armoured vehicles and systems in parallel with the US, and is falling in alongside the Europeans and their own less ambitious plans.

This tends to confirm the contining trend towards the Europeanisation of British armed forces, with the bulk of their equipment supplied by European manufacturers. All we need now are the automatic white-flag dispensers and the take-over will be virtually complete.

COMMENT THREAD

How different from the political life we know

With the Polish coalition just about in place and the perspective of it collapsing within the next 6 months ever higher; with the two main parties neck and neck just a few days before the Czech elections and, thus, probably producing a result that will necessitate another election within a year; we can now look at what is happening in Lithuania.

To paraphrase “Guys and Dolls”: I’ll tell you what’s happening in Lithuania. The government that was set to run the country for a while has collapsed because of accusations of financial misdemeanour.

As Al-Jazeera put it:

“The crisis was triggered by allegations of the misuse of party and state funds by senior Labour party figures. The health minister told BNS on Tuesday he had spent party funds on repairing his car after a crash.

State investigators have also found that the culture minister broke ethics rules by paying family travel expenses from state funds.”

The Labour Party is having its party financing investigated and President Valdas Adamkus has said that he does not trust two of its ministers. So they took their bats home. Well, actually, they just resigned from the coalition government, just as the New Party had done in April.

“Valdas Adamkus, the Lithuanian president, said on Tuesday that he had lost confidence in the two ministers, both from the Labour party whose leader, Viktor Uspaskich (pictured above), a Russian-born businessman and former energy trader, was forced to resign from his post of economy minister last year because of a breach of ethics rules.

Uspaskich, who has investments in agriculture, is known throughout Lithuania as the Gherkin King.”

So Prime Minister Algirdas Brazauskas has announced that he can no longer carry on and the entire government has resigned. There will now follow weeks of negotiations and attempts at agreement, possibly even an election.

This is the 13th government of Lithuania since 1991. If nothing else, the new EU members are proving beyond any doubt that a country can function reasonably well without any government.

COMMENT THREAD

It's the sovereignty stoopid…

Given that there were two important judgements delivered by the European Union Court of Justice yesterday, it is perhaps inevitable that the media went into collective overload, most of the newspapers chosing to report only one of them. Faced with the alternative of the highly technical judgement on Sellafield, with equal inevitability, that choice was going to be the issue which had the highest personal interest quotient, hence the focus on yesterday's decision to annul the data sharing agreement with the United States.

Covered at some little length by The Telegraph and many others, the emphasis was on the potential for chaos on transatlantic flights. Thus did the Telegraph report that millions of tourists and business travellers planning to fly to the United States were left in legal limbo after the ECJ struck down the agreement on sharing the personal details of passengers with US authorities.

What does not come over with any clarity from the media reports, however (although it is mentioned) is that the ECJ found that the Council did not have an adequate legal base within the EU Treaty to concluded an agreement with the United States. It is that on which the Court ruled, but left aside another plea, brought by the EU parliament, that the transfer of personal data breached Community rules on data protection.

Aside from the immediate practical implications of the judgement, therefore, there are some profound constitutional issues. Firstly, it appears that 25 member state governments, when acting together within the EU institutional framework of the European Council, are not entitled to reach a decision unless its nature – and the procedure by which it is reached – conform with EU law. Secondly, although there is an option to consider a separate agreement under a different part of the treaty, it is by no means certain that any decision made would comply with Community law.

Neither, it would seem, can the individual member states act separately, collectively reaching a series of bilateral agreements with the United States, as those individual agreements might also be in breach of Community law.

What this effectively amounts to is a fundamental curtailment of the rights of sovereign nations to act, in respect of agreements with third countries. In this sense, there is some commonality between this and the Sellafield judgement.

Reviewing the Court's press release and the advocate general’s report last January on this issue, it seems that the argument rests on the assertion that, where Community law applies – which the commission argued did apply in the case of the Irish government's complaint about Sellafield – member states are obliged to resolve their disputes within the framework of the Treaty. They are not entitled to go elsewhere for their justice. There is, in effect, no higher authority than the ECJ.

That judgement, which rests on Article 292 of the Treaty, therefore also amounts to a fundamental curtailment of the rights of sovereign nations to act. This, our nation, and the other 24 member states, are subordinate to a higher power. We know this of course, but when we are asked why we have such fundamental objections to our membership of the EU, it is as well to remind ourselves of the basic reason – it's the sovereignty, stoopid!

COMMENT THREAD

It may be pedantic, but…

After the climbdown by the Toy Parliament last February over the "watered down" version of the contentious Services Directive, the plumbers of Europe are now on the march – or so we are told.

This arises from an agreement yesterday by the Council of Ministers on a draft of the directive, prompting headlines from multiple sources, effectively announcing that the new law was in the bag. Thus said The Guardian, "Workers given the right to ply their trades throughout EU", while the Financial Times proclaimed, "EU hails 'breakthrough' cross-border agreement" and the faithful BBC declared, "EU strikes deal on service sector".

But, actually, no… not yet, at any rate. Even the BBC headline is technically incorrect because only the Council of Ministers has reached a deal, not the EU as a whole. There are significant differences between the text agreed by the Council and that approved by the EU parliament, not least that lawyers were added to the Council's draft, despite the objections of the French.

What has happened, therefore, is that the Council has reached what is known in Community jargon as a "common position", as indeed did the EU parliament when it passed the first reading of the directive last February. Now, the draft law goes back for a "second reading" by the parliament, which has the option of amending its position to conform with the Council, or of sticking to its guns.

In the former case, the law goes though but, if there is no agreement, the draft has to go in front of the "conciliation committee", chaired by the commission, where the council and the parliament attempt to thrash out their differences. If there is no agreement, the law falls. Where there is agreement, this leaves the "third reading" in the parliament, which again offers and opportunity to reject what is by then a compromise draft, in which case the law falls at this hurdle.

Most likely, the parliament does not have the heart for another, highly public scrap with the member states, so the chances of a deal being stitched up are quite good. Nevertheless, it is premature to imply that the law is in the bag. As they say, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip.

COMMENT THREAD

We are the bosses now

In yet another extraordinary decision, the European Union Court of Justice has ruled that that Ireland violated EU law by taking a nuclear safety dispute over Britain's Sellafield nuclear reactor to a United Nations tribunal.

The court states that it has "exclusive jurisdiction" as the EU's highest court, and only it could rule on the long-running dispute between Britain and Ireland over the discharge of radioactive materials into the Irish Sea.

Originally, the Irish government has referred the dispute to the UN tribunal claiming that the UK had contravened the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But, said the ECJ, after the EU commission had complained to it, the convention was now also part of EU law and therefore the Sellafield dispute fell within the EU's competence.

Ireland has argued that if it was forced to take the case to the EU court, it would be limited in the possible remedies it could get from Britain, its objective being to get the Sellafield plant closed. When the case came before the tribunal in 2001, however, it ruled that the risks were not sufficient to justify the plant's closure, but still ordered Ireland and Britain to co-operate to prevent pollution of the marine environment that might result from the plant's operations.

Now, it seems, the two parties must deal with the commission, the judgement representing a significant victory for Brussels as it has been sniffing around the site since December 2004 in an attempt to extend its competence into nuclear issues where, strictly speaking, it has no power.

Now, by the inspired stratagem of calling in aid the UNCLOS, it has – once again with the aide of the ECJ – extended its power base that little bit further. Any which way you stack it, it is now increasingly clear who are our real bosses.

COMMENT THREAD

Talking about them… talking about themselves

A few days ago, rather unkindly perhaps, I equated the UK Independence Party with the European Union, pointing out that the two organisations had one thing in common – their obsession with talking about themselves. Nothing, it seems, excites them so much as their own internal affairs, which take precedence over much weightier matters.

If I was being unkind, however, it was in not emphasising that this characteristic seems to afflict most political organisations, and especially the Conservative Party. Its obsession with "self" is most evident from the activists' chatter on the Tory Diary site. Any number of issues are discussed but the comments section only really comes alive when party matters are aired. And even then, much of the issue-based discussion centres on how political advantage can be gained from whatever it is that is currently in the public eye.

Such observations become especially relevant when trying to understand why it is that the general public are turning away from party politics in droves, and why the European Union finds it so difficult to engage with the "citizens of Europe". The simplest explanation is probably the best – ordinary people are more interested in issues than they are politicians. If the politicians take a genuine interest in those issues, then people in turn will take an interest in them. However, as long as the politicos are mainly interested in "self", the people will disregard them.

What makes this especially topical – and relevant - is the growing humanitarian crisis being played out in the Canaries, about which we reported last Saturday, and which was picked up in a news report on BBC's News 24, in a longish item by their correspondent-on-the-spot, another of those witless hackettes, this one by the name of Martha Dixon.

With the essence of her report reproduced on the BBC website, readers can see for themselves that nowhere does Dixon mention that the proximate cause of the migrant exodus from West Africa is the depredations of the EU’s third country fishing agreements. Instead, today, we get another report from the BBC, subtly propagandising for the EU, telling us how the sharing, caring EU – in the form of nine member states – are rushing to the aid of beleaguered Spain, with offers of surveillance aircraft and patrol boats.

The point here is that while this drama is being played out, the mainstream political parties – and UKIP – are silent. Yet what is happening in the Canaries impinges directly on several key issues which would be of very great interest to British people – would that they were told of their relevance.

Firstly, there is that central issue of immigration. Although these people are flooding to the shores of the Canaries, as the news reports tell us, the law in Spain allows for them to be detained only for 40 days, after which they are let loose and are then free to travel anywhere in the European Union. The people whom we see on our television screens today, therefore, are potentially the next batch of arrivals at Dover.

Secondly, there is that vexed issue of African aid, about which so many people profess to be deeply concerned. Rarely, however, do we get such an egregious example of how the predatory policies of the EU directly impinge on the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, or of such a direct link between those policies and enforced economic migration. Yet such is the abysmal level of reporting, and the lack of engagement by the political parties, that the bulk of people are unaware of the link.

Thirdly, there is the overarching issue of our membership of the EU. Behind the issue of the third country fishing agreements is a dark and dirty tale, in which successive British governments are shamefully implicated. As is known to but a few, these agreements are largely "compensation" to the over-large Spanish fishing fleet for being excluded from British fishing waters under the Common Fisheries Policy. Our governments have colluded with the European Union to finance these deals, simply to stave off the pressure from the Spanish for access to our waters, the effect of which would be highly embarrassing to our government.

Putting these three issues together, any political party which brought them to the attention of the public could have a field day, and reap significant electoral benefits through demonstrating that it was in touch with public sentiment. But, each for their own reasons, the parties are silent. Labour, of course, is the party in government, so is immediately tainted by direct involvement in the policies which give rise to this crisis. The Conservatives are compromised because they agreed to the third country fishing agreements in the first place and, in any case, they don't "do" Europe. The Lim-Dims are in favour of the EU, so they won't touch it anyway and UKIP is so burdened by its own introspection that it is probably unaware of what is going on. Thus does silence prevail.

But, if this crisis slides out of the public domain unremarked by the political classes, fishing as an issue is set to come back with a vengeance to haunt the Conservatives. Even as they immerse themselves in facile debates about the Boy King's "A-list", it could have a material effect on their electoral prospects.

This is brought home by a piece in this month's Freedom Today, by MSP Brian Monteith, which deserves wider coverage. Headed, "The sorry tale of a Tory U-turn on the CFP", Monteith charts how, without publicity or any open announcement, Cameron has reneged on the party's commitment, honoured by his three predecessors, to repatriate the EU's fisheries policy.

This, we actually reported in December 2005, while Booker reminded us of it only a few weeks ago. Yet nothing of this has percolated into the general public of political consciousness so the Boy King may well think he has got away with ditching a minor and politically inconvenient policy.

But what he clearly does not realise is that, while "fishing" might be a minor, boring item in the Westminster village, it plays very big in Scotland, which has two-thirds of what is left of the British fishing industry. Moreover, its importance far transcends its relatively minor economic contribution, not least because it is taken as evidence of how the English government gave away Scotland's wealth in pursuit of its own partisan agenda.

Thus, if Cameron is to hope for any political recovery in Scotland – which he must achieve is he is to be sure of victory at the next general election – then he must address the fishing issue. What he has done, though, is betray the Scots, yet again, and the Scots Nats will be quick to exploit the electoral potential of this faux pas, wrecking the chances of gaining any more Tory MPs in Scotland.

That brings us back to our original premise. This is an issue which is of vibrant importance to the people of Scotland and it is being ignored. Immigration, third world aid and the EU are also issues which are of great importance to many people – and they are being ignored, or treated in such a cavalier way that they do not reflect peoples' concerns and expectations.

All of that goes to demonstrate that the political machine is interested only in talking to itself, about itself. But if we, the people, no longer matter – if we are no longer important – the politicos should not be surprised if we walk away in disgust from their own, petty, self-indulgent obsessions.

COMMENT THREAD

Here we go again

This time it is not the spoilt youth of the Sorbonne and other universities, afraid that their supposedly cushy future might become a little less so through a very small reform, who are rioting. No, we are back with the banlieux.

Cars were burned yesterday at two Paris suburbs: Seine-Saint-Denis and Clichy-Sous-Bois. According to Reuters:

“The youths began burning cars in reaction to a police operation in which a young man was arrested several hours earlier. Officials said they did not yet know how many cars had been burned.”

The last time the banlieux indulged in carbecues there was a concerted rush by some politicians (de Villepin and Sarkozy) to make statements and propose solutions to the seemingly intractable social and economic problems.

As we know de Villepin’s solution, a half-baked piece of legislation, died in the subsequent demonstrations and genteel riots.

Sarkozy’s solution, a revamped immigration law, is still going through the legislative process but is, in any case, unlikely to do anything for those already in the country and unable to get jobs because of the existing high unemployment.

We shall just have to see whether this was little more than an extension of the usual week-end entertainment or the start of a long hot summer around Paris.

COMMENT THREAD

The enemy within

The two eminent gentlemen pictured here hardly fit the part of enemies of the state – and nor indeed do their cvs suggest that they might be anything other than upstanding members of the US political establishment.

Both, however, are members of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an organisation which exhibits strong sympathy for the European Union. The first, by the name of Robin Niblett, is an executive vice president and director of the Europe program while the other, Pierre Chao, is Director of Defense Industrial Initiatives. Their cvs are as long as your arm. Crucially, both have testified "on a number of occasions" to Congress and are regarded as authorities on "US-European relations", where their siren voices are heard in favour of European defence integration.

Their influence, though, more is widely felt, not least in today's online edition of the Financial Times, where they offer a commentary on the recent agreement by president Bush to release to Britain sensitive technology on the Joint Strike Fighter.

This issue, though is not about "toys" – it is about influence, malign, insidious propaganda that insinuates its way into the political consciousness, disguised as rational analysis – and the FT piece is a classic example of the genre.

As analysis, it starts off well enough – as you would expect. Niblett and Chao tell us that the visit by Blair to Washington "confirmed the remarkable confluence between UK and US foreign and security policy priorities." They then add that, "it concluded by addressing an issue that is eating away at the transatlantic partnership. US-UK defence technology sharing is a technical and relatively obscure, but periodically explosive, issue."

That much, they have got absolutely right, which is why we have covered the issue so closely on this blog. The latest flashpoint, they say, is over technology access to the JSF but, they argue, rightly, that this is just the tip of a deeper problem.

So far, so good, but then the worm starts insinuating itself into the argument. In the past few years, we are told:

…the US has proved unwilling, in spite of repeated British requests, to overhaul the Kafkaesque maze of restrictions that hampers the exchange of defence technology between the two countries. This situation persists in spite of the long history of sharing information in highly sensitive areas such as nuclear deterrence, classified intelligence and joint military operations.

British representatives, including Mr Blair, have pointed out this glaring discrepancy to their US counterparts, and asked politely whether the US system could be adapted to reflect the close bilateral security relationship. The responses have sounded positive but little has yet happened. Why?

Having posed the question, according to the Niblett/Chao duo, the answers are all one-sided. Partly, the reluctance to share technology stems from the "US desire to maintain technological superiority over all adversaries", in which context the UK is seen as a potential source – like any other country – of leaks of sensitive US technologies to third countries or actors. Secondly, the exchange founders on a US export-control bureaucracy that has no incentive to change and, thirdly, a small clique in the US Congress that believes passionately in further tightening rather than easing the US defence export control regime.

That said, we are told that the status quo "is no longer sustainable". British politicians now believe that Washington is taking for granted UK contributions in Iraq and elsewhere; without closer co-operation on developing and building interoperable defence systems, the ability of UK forces to fight effectively alongside their US counterparts will be eroded over time and a central facet of the special relationship will be undercut; and the new UK defence industrial strategy requires that the UK government possess "operational sovereignty" over its key defence capabilities.

Thus, do Niblitt and Chao argue that the two governments should agree on a framework within which specific companies and individuals from the two countries can be certified to share defence-related information and technologies – from the mundane to the most sensitive – without restrictions, but under the condition that enforceable controls would prevent unauthorised release.

Then follows the punch line: the obstacle to this solution, they say, lies in the US, where some would rather see the Anglo-US relationship go down in flames than alter the US technology-control regime one iota. From this they conclude that, if Mr Bush is serious about sustaining a strong US-UK relationship, "he must put his personal authority behind a durable solution".

Taken at a run, this might not seem terribly objectionable, except that there is no mention, anywhere, of the UK’s growing engagement in European defence integration. As we pointed out in an earlier post - and frequently before that – Blair has made strong commitments to the EU on defence integration and is working closely with European nations which do not share the US view of the world. In fact, most often, they are hostile to it.

Not only that, but through the European Defence Agency and the Framework Agreement, the UK has committed to work closely on defence research and industrial projects which are competitive with US ventures, while the MoD and British defence firms are co-operating with European enterprises which in turn have agreements on technology sharing with strategic competitors of the US, namely China and Russia.

Any clinical and honest evaluation of the relationship between the US and Britain would, therefore, advise caution. The two countries may be friends, but the US national interest must prevail. As long as the UK is working with a cast of characters which are potentially hostile to US interests, the US would be mad to open its books completely.

But then, the CSIS has consistently supported the idea of European defence integration and, no doubt, from its lavish Washington office actively lobbies on the Hill and in the State Department in support of the project. Thus, with Nesbitt and Chao arguing for Bush to give the UK what it wants, without addressing the very real and sensible concerns about technology prevalent in the US, the CSIS is essentially playing the European game.

Certainly, the CSIS is not supporting the US national interest and, by arguing that the UK should have access to US technology despite its attachment to EU defence interests, it is not really assisting the UK, in helping defer the decision between the US and EU which must soon be made – making out that British attachments to the EU and the US are somehow compatible.

Thus do the siren voices speak, uttering their soothing words, concealing from and confusing policy-makers about the growing threat of European defence integration. They are the enemy within.

COMMENT THREAD

What a difference a year makes

A year ago today, with strong rumours of a "no" vote in the offing, we were waiting with bated breath to hear the outcome of the French referendum on the EU constitution.

That the vote, when it came, threw the "colleagues" into disarray is now history – even to this day they are struggling to come to terms with a defeat that was reinforced a few days later by the Dutch rejection of the constitution.

But, while we can take some comfort in this setback for the forces of darkness, the defeat, if anything, was more psychological than real. European integration proceeds apace – albeit at not quite the speed the "colleagues" would prefer – so nothing substantial has changed.

On the other hand, the "no" votes have proved a major reverse for the Eurosceptic movement, especially in Britain. From a time when interest in EU issues was building, when the UK Independence Party had an immediate goal, and where a number of "no" campaigns were setting up and obtaining significant funds, the impetus has virtually collapsed.

The movement has reverted to a low-grade war of attrition and, with no prospect of a referendum in sight, it has little in the way of an immediate objective, around which to rally the troops.

Perhaps more seriously – with the brief exception of the spat over the EU budget – the collapse of the constitution has legitimised a retreat from the subject by the mainstream media and, particularly, the main political parties. Certainly, the Conservative Party hierarchy must have heaved a sigh of relief at being spared a contest that could only have been highly divisive.

In a year, therefore, that could have been dominated by EU issues, we have instead seen that diminution of interest that has allowed the emergence of a new leader of the Conservative Party who is able to treat the issue with disdain, allowing the government itself to consign "Europe" to the margins.

Thus, while the "colleagues" were lamenting in Austria over the weekend that "Europe" was facing its "deepest crisis", they are perhaps being overly pessimistic. Shorn of its immediate rationale – the campaign for a "no" vote in the referendum – Euroscepticism is also undergoing its own crisis, which may be of greater magnitude than is confronting the integrationalists.

"Europe", at least, can survive the indifference of its "citizens", as long as it maintains the support of its political élites. It remains to be seen whether Euroscepticism can prove as enduring.

COMMENT THREAD

The joys of VAT

While it can be said with some confidence that no tax will ever be truly popular, it can also be said with equal confidence that the single most detested tax in the business community is Value Added Tax, or VAT.

But, not only should the business community have cause to resent this tax, everyone in the European Union should hold similar views for the very complexity that makes it so unpopular with business also makes it a thieves' paradise. And we are not taking about peanuts. VAT fraud accounts for estimated losses of at least €60 billion a year – or ten percent of all transactions – representing real losses which have to be made up through other taxes. Furthermore, this is money which helps finance organised crime and terrorism.

So huge is the scale of the fraud that it has even percolated into the corporate brain of the commission. Thus, next week, Laszlo Kovacs, the EU tax commissioner, is set to propose a series of options to the member state finance ministers in an attempt to remedy the situation.

Were this not an EU-devised tax, most if not all of the member states would have ditched it years ago, because of the fatal flaws in the system that make it so prone to fraud. But, national governments, of course, have no powers to abolish EU laws and the commission – which is the only institution which can set such a process rolling, is not about to scrap this tax.

Instead, Kovacs is propose that the tax is no longer refunded to suppliers when their products or services cross borders – through which means most fraud occurs. He wants refunds on cross-border goods and services to be passed directly between governments.

Needless to say, this will require con-ordination by the commission, to set up the cross-border payment system, thereby adding to its powers. It would also lead to increased pressure for harmonisation of VAT rates, as different national rates would be extremely difficult to administer. Thus Britain, Germany and Austria are suggesting the use of a "reverse charge" system, where VAT is paid only by the supplier at the end of the chain.

That is to be included as one of Kovacs' options, as is increased co-operation between national tax authorities, but the commission's preference is for the abolition of direct, cross border refunds.

Any changes, though, will have to be agreed by unanimity. But, since the last fundamental change to the VAT regime was in 1977, with the VAT Sixth Directive, and member states have failed ever since to agree any substantive reforms, the chances of securing change this time round are not good.

Thus, while the commission and the member states bicker and manoeuvre, the criminal fraternity will continue to enjoy its bonanza while the "citizens" of Europe will have to keep paying the bill. Such are the joys of membership of the European Union.

COMMENT THREAD

Ever hopeful

The China View news agency tells us that the

“Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) urged UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to support Lebanon and put an end to Syrian interference”,

as reported in one of the local newspapers.

Syria, according to this appeal, continues to attack Lebanese troops, invade parts of Lebanese territory, arm Palestinian terrorists for carrying out proxy attacks and carry out smuggling (presumably of arms).

The letter went to GenSec Kofi Annan (father of Kojo), the Security Council, the Interanational Socialist Party, the European Union and other international human rights organizations.

Naturally enough, Syria is denying all accusations, though it has issued an arrest warrant, which, as the Lebanese appeal points out, violates international law, against the leader of the party, Walid Jumblatt.

The warrant was relayed to Beirut via Interpol and is demanding Mr Jumblatt’s extradition to face a military court in Syria on charges of “slander and inciting hatred against Damascus”.

What is so touching about this story is the faith Lebanese politicians seem to place in the tranzis. Their assumption that organizations that have shown themselves ready to negotiate with and fawn on terrorist organizations and dictatorships will lift a finger to defend Lebanon’s freedom and sovereignty.

Possibly, the PSP does not actually believe this but is trying to use every method to bring the situation to the world’s attention. The problems between Syria and Lebanon seem to be relegated below the ever growing Palestinian ones. Even so, the ploy has been less than totally successful. If it were not for the Chinese news agency …

To prove that the situation in Lebanon is volatile, we had (some) news of an attack with Katyusha rockets on northern Israel by Hesbollah and Palestinian Jihad groups. The subsequent “skirmishes” seem to have been resolved by UN negotiators.

(In Lebanon they seemed to behave better than in East Timor where all “non-essential” UN staff has been ordered to leave after renewed fighting had broken out. The Australians have remained and will soon be reinforced by other troops. One wonders who those “non-essential” staff was and why they were there.)

Meanwhile, our own Prime Minister has been sounding off about UN reform, a subject that has become the great political filler. As it happens, my colleague managed to find the only interesting story that came out of the Bush-Blair summit. I have been left to pick up a few remaining pieces, the most interesting of which is Blair’s speech at Georgetown University.

The speech seems to have been vintage Blair with lots of feel-good factors thrown in, a little bit of statesmanship – we cannot pull out of Iraq immediately, we know we have made mistakes but the world must unite in helping Iraq to build up its democracy – and a few rather tame ideas for supposed reform.

Blair, as we know, has always been rather enamoured of transnational organizations interfering a good deal more than they do, already. The long, painful and, ultimately, disastrous trek through the UN before the war in Iraq had been his idea with President Bush going along somewhat reluctantly.

So, having Blair pontificating about the need to reform the UN and other transnational organizations is not particularly surprising. Some newspapers round the world have suggested that he saw the speech as an interview for his next job, SecGen of the United Nations. (Well, Cherie should love that – all those freebies.)

But what did he actually suggest? Expanding the Security Council to include India, Japan, Germany, a Latin American and an African country is not a spectacularly good idea if you want the organization to work. Those of us who think that the UN has had it and the sooner it dies the better, would find the expansion of the Security Council extremely helpful: the bigger it is the more likely is it to get bogged down on every decision. But one must assume that Prime Minister Blair does not actually intend that.

The speech also suggested that the SecGen should be given greater powers over his personnel so that the UN can be made into an effective organization that reacted rapidly to world problems.

For the world, as Mr Blair presciently pointed out, has changed since the days the UN was set up. In fact, it has changed since most of the transnational organizations were set up and they should all be reformed. (One wonders if he feels that the EU belongs to a different era as well.)

The IMF and the World Bank, possibly, should be merged and even if they are not, “there is a powerful case for reform”.

“He also suggested that an international uranium bank held by the International Atomic Energy Agency should supply fuel to all countries with a nuclear energy program.”

In other words, there was very little new in his speech, even though it seems to have caught the journalists’ attention all over the world. As the Times put it in its editorial:

“The Prime Minister’s larger theme, one that has come to define him as a politician, is that the world must urgently get to grips with the consequences of interdependence (globalisation is not a word Labour politicians care much to use). When turmoil can spread like wildfire and even the powerful United States can be affected “at breakneck speed and fundamentally” by events beyond its shores, politicians need to understand that “the rule book of international politics has been torn up” and “traditional views of national interest” are perilously out of date.

“Intervention, far beyond our borders” will often be required. For such necessary activism to be acceptable, ways must be found to involve “the international community” in joint strategies to tackle global problems and promote democracy. This means much more than military action, and includes supporting a greater flow of information and education initiatives.”

Does this speech really matter? Well, yes and no. It could be that Mr Blair is looking for another job, not being all that interested in sitting at home and writing his memoirs whenever he or the electorate finally decides that he must go. And, of course, he has always mouthed platitudes about the need for international co-operation and well-meaning interventionism led by transnational bodies.

Other reactions, like the ones in Indian newspapers limited themselves to concentrating on what matters to them – a seat on the Security Council (though why any self-respecting country should want one, I cannot even imagine).

Then there is the Chinese reaction. China is vehemently opposed to Japan acquiring a seat on the Security Council and is equally vehemently opposed to a US-Japanese sponsored suggestion of a reform in payments into the UN kitty. At present China and Russia, both rather large and with permanent seats on the Security Council pay considerably less than Japan does, a state of affairs, they would obviously like to continue.

It was, therefore, interesting to read an article in the Chinese business newspaper, published in Hong Kong, the Standard, which managed to attack Blair without mentioning the real problem: his support for Japan acquiring a permanent seat on that Council.

According to Toby Harnden and Patrick Hennessy (familiar and unChinese names) Blair had been forced by the White House to water down his speech. Their evidence for this is somewhat tenuous and seems to consist of whispers from various officials who had briefed journalists in one way while the speech went differently.

There seems little of any importance that he might have said if Karl Rove or whoever had not locked him up and threatened to make him listen to endless repeats of David Cameron on Desert Island Discs if he did not do as he was told. Can’t blame the man for giving in.

“He also backed away from a planned demand for a major change in the running of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Blair had intended to spell out a plan for Europe and the United States to give up their exclusive rights to install their own nationals as heads of the bank and the IMF respectively. This would help persuade smaller nations to give up their effective right to choose the United Nations secretary general, in favor of a move to install a leading international figure. Instead, Blair's speech glossed over the issues, merely citing a "powerful case for reform."

Another planned section was intended to take a tough line on global warming and the Kyoto Treaty, which Washington still has not signed. In the event, Blair merely claimed: "We must act on climate change," but did not go into detail. At this point, as a mobile phone rang in the audience, he even made a joke about American interference. "I hope that's not the White House telling me they don't agree with that," he said. "They act very quickly, these guys."”

It seems Blair still knows how to play his audience. Or his speech writers do. But, as it happens, none of that is sinister. He has been known to go “soft” on Kyoto before. In any case, anyone who is not obsessed with the idea of Al Gore becoming President would have realized that the Kyoto signatories have not reduced their emission and there are serious and growing scientific doubts being cast on that agreement and the whole notion that global warming is getting worse or being caused necessarily by human behaviour.

As for China, it did not sign up to Kyoto and has no intention of doing so or of closing down any of its newly opened coal stations. No doubt Al Gore will add a few thousand more air miles and fly his private plane to Beijing to remind them of their duty. Or maybe not.

The really frustrating part of all this burbling, whether by politicians or journalists, is that all of it represents a lost opportunity. The world has changed and is changing very rapidly and some decisions need to be taken as to how we shall deal with those changes. Every speech, every article, every paper that prattles on about reform of existing transnational organizations avoids those hard discussions and decisions.

Somehow it does not surprise me that Tony Blair should make one of those speeches of avoidance.

COMMENT THREAD

Political schizophrenia?

I doubt if it would be possible to project two more different views of the Blair project than those respectively in the Sunday Telegraph leader and in the front page Column Seven article in The Business.

The former, accompanied by the cartoon illustrated (above), declares that, "Once again, Mr Blair puts America first", depicting the prime minister as a willing poodle of the American administration. The latter, written by this author and headed, "Euro defence market reform is integration by stealth", paints an altogether different picture – of the UK rushing, lemming-like into the arms of the European Union, as defence integration gathers momentum.

Confronted with two such diametrically opposed views and forced to chose between them, a causal observer – sated by the recent publicity on Blair's visit to Washington – might be more comfortable with the Telegraph view, especially as the continuing military adventure in Iraq constantly suggests an apparently close relationship between Bush and Blair.

However, to make the choice, it seems, is a flawed option. There is no reason why two apparently contradictory political ideas cannot co-exist simultaneously, each or either taking the headlines according to circumstances, as their advocates battle it out in less public forums. Thus, it is quite possible that, if not simultaneously, Blair can support both closer co-operation with the US administration and the idea of European defence integration.

In fact, depending on his appreciation of the two issues, and the nature of the advice he is being given, Blair may not even believe the two policy issues are contradictory. He might actually have convinced himself – or been convinced - that they are complementary, in the traditional manner of the United Kingdom forming a "bridge" between Europe and America, by keeping a foot in both camps.

On the other hand, it could be that Blair is one of those "Walter Mitty" characters who lives in a world of his own creation, detached from reality. Alternatively, he could be the sort of person that agrees with the last person who spoke to him, and chops and changes his mind with the prevailing winds or the expediences of politics.

Dealing with the apparent conflict between the Atlanticist and the pro-EU policies, one can certainly divine from Blair's speeches and behaviour in the United States, that he is avowedly pro-US (and, more specifically pro-Bush), but if you take a longer time frame, things can look very different. Read, for instance, Blair's statement on 5 February 2003 immediately after his meeting with French president Jacques Chirac at Le Touquet.

Here, the Mr Blair that The Telegraph would have us believe is Bush's poodle, happily listens to Chirac – without demurral - telling him:

We have discussed defence. Very often we have not seen eye to eye on this between France and Britain, this is a matter of history, but I remind you that it was in St Malo that we have started, Mr Blair and I, the idea of pooling our resources, having a defence pool, and we have convinced the 13 other partners in the European Union that this was a good move. We have now reached the point where the European Union has a common defence policy which is developing apace. We have progression and this must go on…

only for the prime minister to respond:

In the field of defence, it is as you know four years since St Malo and we had a difficult negotiation frankly to get the European Union and NATO in agreement together. But now that that has been resolved, I think this is the time to push that whole initiative forward, and we have agreed a number of things, as the President was indicating to you…

He then goes on, amongst other things, to talk about the development of a "comprehensive approach to defence capability" with the "establishment of a new agency" in order to make sure that we are matching the aspirations that we have in European defence with capability and efficient procurement. Blair then refers to the "concept of the rapid reaction capability", making sure that "we have the ability to act quickly and deploy quickly in circumstances where we need to".

For sure, this is over three years ago but, since then, Blair's fond expressions of fidelity to Chirac have been translated into the European Defence Agency, which is at the heart of the European defence integration process, while the development and equipment of the European Rapid Reaction Force proceeds apace.

With the aid of selective quoting, therefore, a case may be made for Blair being either or both an Atlanticist or pro-EU, in which case – as I have so often cautioned – when trying to assess politicians, you look at their hands, not their lips. In other words, it is what they do, not what they say, that matters.

Here, of course, Blair's Iraq policy is seen as the most tangible evidence of US support, but there is equal validity in suggesting that his attachment to the venture was driven more by domestic electoral considerations, with him seeking to replicate the Thatcher Falklands effect. Only since the perception has taken hold, that the rapid military victory has degenerated into a debilitating counter-insurgency effort, has the campaign become an electoral liability.

Similarly, the Afghan venture is seen by some as evidence of Blair's support for Bush, but again, this is not necessarily so. The British forces in the region are not in fact working alongside the US but are part of a multinational structure that includes European forces.

On the other hand, the progress of European defence integration is tangible, some of which has been charted by myself, and more yet in a recent report by Statewatch. So much of this, though, is administrative and technical - compared with the high profile operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – that it is largely unreported by the media. It remains "under the radar". People – including the Sunday Telegraph leader writers - may, therefore, be making their judgements on the highly visible, without appreciating the extent of the less visible.

And, if the media has very little idea or understanding of what is going on, all that begs the question as to how much the politician know. Few now believe that ministers are in control and know what their departments are doing – an idea is even less prevalent after the successive debacles in the Home Office. What confidence can we have, therefore, that successive defence ministers or fully in control of their departments, or even aware of what is happening in the administrative bowels?

Here, one of the most important articles in today's newspapers – and possibly least read – is by Katharine Raymond, a former government advisor. Under the heading Step aside, Sir Humphrey, she acquaints us with the "cold reality" that most politicians are helpless in the face of a civil service that can be reluctant or inept. "Between ministers and their civil servants," she writes, "lies an unspoken truth". Both know that the politicians have no real control over their departments. She thus remembers "one testy meeting":

…when a senior civil servant told a minister his opinion "would be taken into account when we make a decision". Fireworks ensued but they did not change the fact that this particular official believed that he was the boss. Most of the time he was.

In this context, we know that in the Foreign Office and indeed in Defence, there are senior civil servants who have strong Europhile loyalties, one such typified by Nick Witney who, after a spell in both departments, has gone on to head the European Defence Agency. These men – and women – undoubtedly have their own agendas and, with political leaders who have only limited control over them, are able to pursue personal and political ambitions that can be at odds with declared, headline policy.

Thus it is, without even Blair being schizophrenic - in a political sense, at least – the system itself can be, simultaneously pursuing diametrically opposed policies.

The shame is, when it comes to the Telegraph leader, its writer(s) see the need to assess the situation in such one-dimensional, black-and-white terms. They argue that the occupation of Iraq is likely to signal the end of the "Blair Doctrine" on foreign intervention, whence they look forward to Britain's international relations being "once again based on the solid foundation of national interest rather than the vapidities of international solidarity".

More probably, the absence of a countervailing pull from the United States will mean an even more decisive lurch in the direction of the EU. Instead of subsuming our "national interest" to the United States as some maintain Blair is doing, we could instead be dragged ever more into the thrall of our European "partners". And, whatever your view of the current situation, that could be considerably worse.

COMMENT THREAD

More reflections

I could not face writing another post about the self-obsessed navel-gazing (tautology, I know) in which the foreign ministers of the EU member states are indulging in Austria.

It comes to a pretty pass, though, when German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, claims that the EU is facing its "deepest crisis". Compare and contrast the petty little obsessions of the "colleagues" with what is going on off the coast of West Africa – and in many other places - and one can only suggest that it is time they "got a life".

Anyhow, the upshot is that they are going to have another year of "reflections", so we have offered our own, for them to be getting on with (pictured).

Not that Steinmeier needs to worry all that much. When it comes to defence integration, things are plodding on quite nicely (from the point of view of the "colleagues"). I will leave you with a link from today's copy of The Business, which sums up the state of play. You might recognise the author.

Enjoy.

COMMENT THREAD

To our eternal shame

Last Tuesday, we posted a piece on the illegal immigration crisis on the Canary Islands, retailing how more than 1,400 immigrant had arrived in Tenerife and Gran Canaria in the previous week, making 2,000 landing in the month, mostly from Senegal and Mali. We also conveyed the plea from the Spanish authorities, who call for help from other EU countries, declaring that it was "Europe's problem too".

What we should also have said, though, was that this problem was largely created by "Europe" in the first place, not least through the inadequacies of its trade policies and, in this particular instance, through the depredations of its third-country fishing agreements, the main beneficiary of which is Spain.

Our deficiency, however, is made up by Mike Pflanz in today's Daily Telegraph, who gets behind the headlines of the great exodus from Africa and describes how thousands are putting their lives at risk, seeking work in Europe as their own fishing industries have been devastated by EU (and other) fishing vessels.

Pflanz records that more than 8,200 West Africans have arrived in the Canaries already this year, but an estimated 1,500 have died attempting the crossing. But, he writes, for many young men in the village of Thiaroye, a poor seafront suburb six miles east of the Senegalese capital, Dakar, the lure of Europe is irresistible. Their plight is summaried by Abdou Ndoye Mbaye, 25, who says he had no choice but to attempt the crossing. "You people talk of these boats being dangerous, but for us, we would rather risk death to find a good job in Spain than stay here doing nothing."

Yet, it is hardly as if there was no warning of this problem. In November 2001, Kim Willsher fronted a graphic report on Channel 4, entitled. "Selling the Future", earlier trailed in The Guardian, when she recorded first-hand evidence of how EU fishing vessels were stripping the waters off Mauritania and running down local fishermen who got in their way. A list was produced of over 200 men who had been killed, either in this way or because they had been forced out into deeper, unsafe waters in their frail boats.

At the time, I recall writing a brief on the problem, to circulate to MEP in the EU parliament. Using then available statistics, I recorded that third country fishing deals with the EU were big business. Between 1993 and 1997 they had accounted for €1053 million from Community funds and in 1998 had accounted for five percent of the total Community external budget.

In December 2001 there had been a study from the United Nations Environment Programme which found that, "Developing countries which open up their waters to foreign fishing fleets may lose far more than they gain". It noted that over-exploitation resulting from such deal is "driving people into ever greater poverty" as well as "robbing the marine environment of a key link in the food chain".

Argentina was cited as an example of how devastating could be the economic impact, the report assessing that the then current EU agreement had actually cost the country $500 million whereas, had they developed their own fisheries, they could have made $5 billion. This had been reinforced by the Namibian experience, where the country refused to enter an agreement with the EU and had developed from scratch an industry worth $10 billion.

The UNEP report described the impact of the fisheries agreement on Argentina as "stark" and, of another agreement in Senegal, noted that it had had "a serious impact on local food supplies".

Yet all of this seems to have passed by the Commission. It sponsored its own report in 1999, which concentrated on the economic benefits to Community countries. This was a strange slant, considering that much of the funding came from the external (i.e. development) budget, but even then conceded that there were problems with the agreements. It noted that countries "did not always have sufficient means to enforce inspection arrangements" - something of an under-statement – and also recorded that, as regards the funds paid to third countries, "the destination of the funds paid into national budgets is not traceable".

In fact, this was (and remains) the biggest scandal of all. Most of the money paid from Community funds went (and still goes) goes to the political élites of the countries concerned. Very little of it reached the indigenous fishermen who were effectively robbed of their livelihoods. Essentially, money from EU taxpayers - including the poor - were being paid to the rich of third world countries - robbing the poor to feed the rich.

Despite this, the EU's third country fishing agreements continue, alongside periodic media reports, such as here, here and here.

Then, only last week we heard of the scandalous Morocco-EU fisheries agreement, whereby the EU is to pay €114 million to the Moroccan government to allow 119 European boats - mostly Spanish and Portuguese – to exploit the coastal waters. What made this particularly scandalous, though, is that the deal included the waters off Western Sahara, a land whose sovereignty is disputed, where the UN has refused to acknowledge Moroccan sovereignty over the land.

Not for nothing did Carl Mortished in The Times call this a "new rape of Africa", making the very obvious point that if the EU stopped taking the Africans' fish and assisted them to develop the resource, there would be considerably less of a migrant problem.

Instead of dealing with this, however, we – and that includes the British government – kowtow to the Spanish, plus the Portuguese and to a lesser extent the French, and cough up ever-increasing amounts of money for them to rape and pillage the African seas. Now, as increasing numbers of dead Africans are washed ashore, it is to our eternal shame that we have allowed this to happen.

COMMENT THREAD

A temporary setback

In a surprise move following the Bush-Blair summit yesterday, president Bush has agreed to agreed to step up Britain's access to sensitive technology in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. "Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft," the official statement read.

Conveyed by Reuters, via DefenseNews, The Times, Financial Times and others, this now makes it very difficult for the UK to dump the aircraft and buy alternatives for the UK's "super-carrier" programme.

This is against the background of UK manoeuvring and heavy spin, with the government cosying up to the French and even agreeing to consider the Rafale, following the Pentagon's attempt to cancel the second JSF engine, in which Rolls Royce have a forty percent stake.

Now that the second engine programme looks set to continue, the indications are that Bush has been listening to heavy lobbying from voices such as Liam Fox and The Heritage Foundation.

Bush has certainly been counselled that it would be politic to make a gesture towards Blair at this critical juncture in the Iraq venture and has been warned that refusal to allow the British access to JSF technology would strengthen the drive towards European defence integration that is already a well advanced feature of British defence policy.

In yesterday's statement, therefore, reference was made to the need to enhance US-British military cooperation, with both Bush and Blair stating that the two countries must "strengthen and deepen the relationship between their defence establishments, achieve fully interoperable forces and leverage the strength of their industries."

Interestingly, that very issue was raised this week in the House of Lords during a starred question by the Lord Hoyle on the JSF. The Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked:

My Lords, would it not be understandable for the Pentagon to be nervous of sharing stealth and other sophisticated technology with us, if it feared that we, under our EU commitments, might have to share it with the French and, through them, more widely? If that is so, does it not mean that the special relationship is pretty well over?

Defence procurement minister, Lord Drayson, predictably, dismissed the idea, stating that there was "absolutely no requirement on us, under British law or any EU treaty, to share technology related to this or any other defence-related project," a somewhat disingenuous answer given the 2000 "Framework Agreement" and Britain's commitment to the European Defence Agency (EDA) - to say nothing of last week's procurement agreement, about which The Business tomorrow will have some comment.

Thus, although the JSF contract is something of a litmus test in the progression of British integration into the European defence camp, the existence of the Framework Agreement, the EDA and other developments – all on the back of the Helsinki European Council of 1999 (when the European Raid Reaction Force was agreed) - demonstrate that nothing fundamental has changed.

Although the US rightly fears that technology passed to the UK will find its way to our gallant European "allies", the risk appears to have been judged worth taking – but it has the hallmarks of a temporary political expedient, calling the bluff of the "Europe firsters" in the British defence establishment who have been trying to engineer the cancellation of the JSF.

In many respects though, this is too little, too late. While it is currently "cutting edge" technology, the JSF is, in a sense, yesterday's project. Procurement decisions are made for ten and twenty years hence and the thinking is focused on unmanned aircraft.

Already, the UK has abandoned any plans to develop a new generation of manned aircraft, but has also pulled out of the partnership with the United States on the development of advanced UAVs in a programme known as FOAS.

On the other hand, the French-led programme, code-named "Neuron" is powering ahead. Although the MoD is being very reticent about publicly declaring an interest, if the UK does opt-in to this multi-national programme, continued British participation in the JSF programme will prove to be nothing more than a temporary setback for the promoters of European integration.

COMMENT THREAD

Transparency no, invisibility yes

The BBC website has picked up on the weekend meeting of the foreign ministers of the EU member states.

In a curiously flat week for EU events, it has little else to report - unless you want to get excited about the EU parliament discussing the taxation of sms messages. It thus makes the most of the spectacle of ministers meeting in the 900-year-old Klosterneuburg Abbey, "to debate ways of making Europe function better".

If you had any doubts that this is empty rhetoric, all you need to do is read our earlier post on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive.

You really, really do wonder about these people. They bring out an insane law – this one which is estimated to add £50 to the cost of a desktop computer, while reducing its reliability – and then they closet themselves in some grand Austrian abbey to prattle on about how to "re-engage" with "European citizens".

Any how, it looks like Austrian foreign minister, Ursula Plassnik, prattler-in-chief want to sidestep discussions on the EU constitution, and wants everyone to focus on "steps that can be taken independently". These now include, "better crisis management, more consular co-operation, better lawmaking and more transparency... in the union's decision-making process".

The constitution, it seems, can wait until next month’s European Council, when another "road map" will be presented to the members. One hopes, for their sake, that they are not relying on Galileo for navigation.

For the moment, though, much is being made of "transparency". Personally, I would prefer invisibility, not like this, but the sort that comes when they shoot off to another planet, which is where the "colleagues" undoubtedly belong.

COMMENT THREAD

Negotiating with the Bear

It is hard to read the runes of the EU-Russia Summit that has just taken place in the pleasant holiday resort of Sochi. (I imagine it was not all that pleasant while the summit was happening but, luckily, it was not a long one.)

Let’s get out of the way the agreements first. The main purpose of the meeting was ostensibly the need to ease up the mutual visa regime, in turn to move, possibly towards a visa-free agreement. There has been some movement on that but as the BBC Russian Service points out on its website (not the English language article on the BBC World site), the new agreement will affect diplomats, personalities in the culture world and students. The rest of us will continue to have problems and pay over excruciatingly high sums (that is, assuming, we can get a visa at all).

Another agreement concerns illegal migrants. Russia has finally agreed to take back from EU member states illegal immigrants who had made their way from that country. Of course, as all matters pertaining cross-Continent and, indeed, any other migration, the practicalities of the problem have not been resolved.

There were also discussions about Iran, the Middle East and human rights, according to the English version on the BBC, though the article gave no details as to whose human rights. Not, one suspects, that of the Russians’ or other nationalities within that country.

“An agreement was also reached on co-funding of a European Studies Institute in Moscow, and an EU aid programme for the North Caucasus.”

There are already various institutes in Moscow that specialize in European Studies. Indeed, I recently took part in a discussion on the BBC Russian Service Moscow with a young man who was billed as an expert on European integration. He appeared to know a good deal more than many of our own so-called experts. So, the Russians do not lack institutes or experts but they might like a bit of EU money to subsidize them.

As for any aid programme for the North Caucasus, we must beg leave to doubt its efficacy. In the first place, the Russian authorities do not let foreigners into the North Caucasus most of the time. Therefore monitoring will be impossible.

In the second place, a recent Court of Auditors report looked at what happened to the money paid over by the EU to Russia under the TACIS programme. Alas, little if any of it reached the people it was supposed to help.

This brings us to the most important issue – energy security and dealing with Russia that is sitting on a very large amount of oil and gas, being quite prepared to use that fact in political battles with anyone President Putin perceives to be the enemy inside or outside the country.
It is on this subject that reading the runes becomes a little difficult.

Economic liberalization in Russia has receded with oil, gas, metallurgical firms and many other industrial firms gradually being taken back into state control, though in a somewhat round-about fashion. Not for Putin out and out nationalization. The process is done through enforced sale of shares, appointment of cronies to management positions and a creation of a new class of “oligarchs”, who are dependent on the state and on Putin’s personal favour to stay in the place they have been put or to advance.

This is of particular importance in oil and gas production, since the Russian economy lives off that to a great extent. At present the prices are high and Russia is doing its best to kept them there. Whether as a result of the renationalization or for some other reason, productivity in both spheres have fallen.

In the short term that is useful for Russia – lower productivity means higher prices. In the long term that is less clear, as the eminent economist and political writer Yegor Gaidar pointed out recently in the newspaper Vedomosti. [The article is in Russian but some of our readers might be able to make use of the link.]

Mr Gaidar’s points are straightforward: Russia has been using her wealth of natural resources to conduct an unnecessarily hard bullying policy towards her neighbours. He also hints that the wealth and the abnormally high prices have contributed to the gradual undermining of democratic freedoms and processes in the country itself.

Above all, he warns, this is not a solid foundation for an economy as the Soviet example of the 1980s proved. Prices fell and there was nothing the Soviet leaders could do. Of course, he adds, Russia now could diversify her economy with greater ease than the old Soviet Union did. It has to be admitted, however, that there is little sign of it happening, unless one considers the sale of arms diversification.

The EU was intent on making President Putin see the light in various ways. In the first place, they were hoping for some assurance that the episode of gas being cut off to the Ukraine (and, hence, Western Europe) early this year, will not repeat itself.

They got cold comfort from the Russian president, who said according to the BBC Russian Service:

“When Russia fights for her interests, she looks, just like other countries do, for acceptable ways of solving her problems. It is curious that anyone should have difficulties understanding that. We all know what sort of means and methods the United States uses when protecting its interests.”

There is no getting away from the fact that Putin is a Soviet apparatchik through and through. His language shows that beyond any doubt.

The truth is that Russia uses economic power to pressurize countries that are not, in any real way, a threat to her: Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia. As Putin’s former adviser, Andrei Illarionov put it in an article a couple of days ago:

“These countries have become the enemies in the new "chilly war" being waged by Russia's authorities. At the same time, new friends have emerged in the shape of the leaders of Belarus, Uzbekistan, Iran, Algeria, Venezuela, Burma and Hamas. A quite different G8.”

There is little the EU can do about it and the promise of a possible free trade agreement, dangled before President Putin by Commissioner Benita Ferrero Waldner is unlikely to work. Despite the rosy view taken by the BBC English language website, it is clear that Putin has stonewalled every proposal. The EU delegation (Barroso, Schüssel, Ferraro-Waldner and Solana) seemed pathetically grateful for his assurances that he was not intending to divert oil and gas to China. As there is no pipeline at the moment, they can rely on that promise for now.

At the time of the Ukrainian crisis in the first days of January, there was some talk in Germany of the need to diversify its sources of energy, not to be at Russia’s mercy. Those talks have died down. As all German governments seem to be completely beholden to the Greens, there can be no question of nuclear power. The country remains a major producer of coal but that seems to be insufficient for its needs. And renewables are unlikely to fill the gap.

Far from looking for alternatives, a move that might concentrate President Putin’s mind and one that he would appreciate as one of genuine realpolitik, Germany is a partner in the new Baltic pipeline that will bypass Poland and the Baltic states. (Former Chancellor Schröder, as we know, has taken an important part in the creation and, now, the running of that concern.)

This subject, too, came up during the Summit and, graciously, Putin agreed to a bigger role for the Baltic countries. But, he added, any share they will have, must come out of the German one.

Then there is the question of western investors in the Russian energy market. To that, President Putin gave a categorical negative, though he pointed out that, in order, for the West to be allowed into the “holy of holies” of the Russian economy, the European countries must give something in return.

One assumes that the references were to the possible flotation of Rosneft in London and the mooted acquisition of Centrica by Gazprom. Mr Illarionov had harsh words on both subjects:

“The former economic adviser to Russian president Vladimir Putin has warned that the planned flotation of state-owned oil giant Rosneft would see "the London Stock Exchange being used to distribute stolen assets". …

"This is a crime which will be investigated by a new government and reversed," he said in the latest salvo against the controversial initial public offering. His comments follow denunciations of the sale by investors including George Soros and Foreign & Colonial, which recently raised a warning flag over Russia's corporate governance practices.

Rosneft's assets include Siberian oil explorer Yuganskneftegaz, responsible for 11pc of Russia's oil output and forcibly "acquired" by the Kremlin in December 2004 after the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oligarch jailed last year for tax evasion. "We are dealing with a company with a very questionable history. We just don't know what happened," Mr Illarionov added.”

Nor was he too impressed with the notion of Centrica becoming part of President Putin’s armoury of weapons:

“Speaking in London, he also questioned why Prime Minister Tony Blair had apparently left the door open to a mooted takeover of British Gas-owner Centrica by Gazprom, the Kremlin-controlled gas producer.

"I'm puzzled. Many people have expressed concerns, but this is a very clear statement that it is ok for Centrica to be bought by a state-owned company. I do not hear anything similar from anyone else in Europe.”

It is not so much that Gazprom is state-owned but that the state is a hostile one, as seen through its own pronouncements, and always ready to use economic methods to achieve political submission.

Mr Illarionov has made it clear that he thought the G7 should boycott the G8, whose next summit will be in St Petersburg. Allowing for the fact that the G8 is a largely pointless organization and for the fact that Russia should never have become a member, a boycott at this stage seems unlikely and, probably, injudicious.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta (Independent Newspaper), one of the few Russian media outlets that is not either completely controlled by the state or has submitted to its instructions, points out in its detailed report of the Summit [again in Russian] that this was clearly a precursor of the July G8 meeting. The basic and, apparently, unbridgeable disagreements between the two sides are indicative of what is likely to happen.

NG also adds an interesting detail. Sochi is hoping to host the Winter Olympics of 2014. Thus, the EU-Russia Summit was intended to strengthen the city’s international image as well as Russia’s. To this end, the whole resort was washed and flower borders were planted along the roads. These, the local population has christened kolodyazhki after Viktor Kolodyazhniy, the Mayor of Sochi.

COMMENT THREAD

The ultimate in fatuity?

For some months now, we have been following the increasingly surreal saga of the EU's "unintended" ban on lead organ pipes, through the combined effects of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and the Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directives.

While this saga seems to be coming to a messy end, with the likelihood that church organs will escape the ban – an issue which Booker will deal with in this Sunday's column – it has focused our minds on the broader impacts of these directives and, in particular, the Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS), about which, so far, we have written very little.

This, it turns out, has been a major omission on our part as, with the Directive coming into force on 1 July, only now is it emerging that this will be imposing billions of pounds in extra costs to industries throughout the world, to deal with a non-existent threat, and increasing the harmful impact on the environment. In short, while there is no shortage of examples of harmful EU legislation, this directive must qualify as one of the most, if not the most egregious example.

The particularly damaging aspect of this new law which, to give it its full name, is Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, is the ban on the use of lead in electronic equipment, thus prohibiting the use of lead-based solder.

It is transposed into UK law as The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2005, linked with the WEEE Directive. And therein does the trouble start.

Although the WEEE Directive aims at increasing the amount of recycling of electronic equipment, the EU commission has decided that a significant volume of this waste will still be landfilled and some incinerated, while much will be handled in recycling centres. With the equipment containing metals such as mercury, cadmium and chromium, the RoSH Directive claims these, "would be likely to pose risks to health or the environment".

Thus, says the Directive, "the most effective way of ensuring the significant reduction of risks to health and the environment relating to those substances" is the substitution of those substances in electrical and electronic equipment by safe or safer materials." Restricting the use of these "hazardous substances", it adds, "is likely to enhance the possibilities and economic profitability of recycling of WEEE and decrease the negative health impact on workers in recycling plants."

So it is that the Directive bans the substances listed from use in a wide range of electrical and electronic equipment and while there may – and I stress may – be some justification in controlling the use of some of them, there is no good evidence that the use of lead-based solder in electronic equipment is posing any threat whatsoever to the environment or the health of workers, either during manufacture or recycling, or when disposed of in landfill.

What is surprising however – although it should not be – is that, despite the claims of health and environmental threats, the latter based on the risk of lead-contaminated leachate from landfill sites, at the time the directive was being discussed, that data were largely theoretical, based largely on US studies. It was only when a number of field studies were subsequently carried out – such as this one here - examining the actual amount of lead leaching from landfill sites, that is was realised that there was no problem at all.

Especially significant was a year-long study by the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Applied Research Foundation. Released in March 2004, this concluded that heavy toxic metals, including lead, did not pose an existing or future health threat in municipal solid waste landfills.

The foundation reviewed existing research and concluded that the natural conditioins in landfill sites, such as precipitation and absorption, provide chemical reactions and interactions that prevent heavy metals from dissolving into the soil. They concluded that out of 130,200 tons of heavy metals placed in municipal landfill in 2000 from electronics, batteries, thermometers, and pigments, almost all - 98 percent - was lead. Cadmium and mercury made up the remaining amount.

According to the authors, "The study presents extensive data that show that heavy metal concentrations in leachate and landfill gas are generally far below the limits that have been established to protect human health and the environment."

By then, it was too late – the "train had left the station" and the momentum for new legislation was too great. But, by 2005, the US Environmental Protection Agency had got its act together and produced a 472-page report, assessing the full, life-cycle environmental impact of banning lead solder.

From this work, it emerged that when the impact of mining and refining substitutes was taken in to account, the higher energy consumption in using the lead-free solders, which require higher temperatures, and all the other issues were factored in, the banning of lead – far from having a positive impact on the environment (and worker health) – actually had a significant negative impact. Amazingly, though, this work had never been done by the EU and the legislation was, by then, already in place.

It was then left to member states to justify the ban, which the UK attempted to do in a series of "regulatory impact assessments", which can only be described as a parody of the genre.

In the first attempt, in 2003, The authors plaintively note:

It is very difficult to quantify the precise costs of the Directive given its complexity and scope of impact. In addition there is currently limited information available about the extent and cost of substituting the banned substances. Research and tests, which are necessary to fulfil the Directives' requirements, are still ongoing and the results are uncertain.

In page after page, it was not to get any better, the report offering only the vaguest of estimates as to costs, although it did concede that Orgalime (a trade association of electronics manufacturers in Europe) had estimated a cost across Europe of €15 billion for "new investment to deal with required technological change". This, it said, "implies costs to the UK of the order of £1.7 billion", most of which were attributable to the use of lead-free solder. And that was just to deal with the changes needed to deal with new material, to which must be added to higher material and energy costs, estimated at around £200 million extra per year.

Small businesses were then considered and the view was that RoHS "could disproportionably" affect them "as they may not have the financial resources to undertake R&D; projects to develop substitutes". Chillingly, the report added, "They may also find difficulty in absorbing the additional costs, to comply with the Directive." To this day, no one has the first idea of how many jobs will be lost.

As to the reduction of health risks, the official estimates were equally vague, the assessment noting that the ban "will entail a reduction in the use of certain hazardous substances in EEE and therefore should result in reductions in risks to human health and the environment." However, the report added, "it is not easy to quantify the resulting benefits."

By the time of the final assessment in 2005, the estimates had got no better, although the Department of Trade and Industry was now claiming that the overall costs in the UK would be £700 - £13000 million, with absolutely no figures attached to the benefit and no evidence offered as to whether they would be realised.

Nevertheless, the final document bears the signature box of the minister of state for energy, Malcolm Wicks, declaring, "I have read the regulatory impact assessment and am satisfied the benefits justify the costs".

On the basis of this charade, proprietors of firms not obeying this cretinous law can face unlimited fines and imprisonment yet, worryingly, there are still many serious doubts about the reliability and suitability of lead solder substitutes, so much so that military equipment has been exempted.

For the rest of us, though, courtesy of this utterly mad EU legislation, we are to pay more for less reliable equipment, with an overall greater harmful impact on the environment. There are no words sufficient to describe the utter, complete, total fatuity of a system that can allow this to happen.

COMMENT THREAD

Boring us all to death

A slightly left-of-field question: what have the EU and the anti-EU party, the UK Independence Party – and, to an extent, other political parties - got in common? The answer, it seems to me, is that for each, their favourite occupation is talking about themselves – to the exclusion of practically everything else.

Certainly, this has to be true of the European Union which, we are told, is planning yet another interminable round of navel-gazing for this weekend.

Foreign ministers of the member states are to gather in Klosterneuburg outside Vienna on Saturday, "to brainstorm ways to end the political stalemate over plans for an EU- wide constitution", even though almost all member state leaders say they have already come to the conclusion that it is on ice for the foreseeable future, and with it any prospect of closer European integration.

That hasn't stopped Luxembourg premier Jean-Claude Juncker wailing on German radio that "Europe has lost its bearings”, reiterating that "there is no consensus" on what to do about the constitution.

Needless to say, the meeting is not due to produce any decisions, but one "idea" – which is very far from new - is a proposal to open to the public Council of Minister discussions on new legislation. Another is to bolster cross-border cooperation in fighting crime "by removing national vetoes over EU initiatives", something that should be a real "wow" in Eurosceptic Britain.

Given the drearily repetitive refrains, one is almost nostalgic for the days of "up yours" Delors, wishing for a little spark and controversy. Now, the wonder is whether the "colleagues" are trying to bore us all to death, or whether they are in danger of suffering that fate themselves. Perhaps, though, this is all part of a secret plot, hoping we will all switch off, whence they can get on with building their new superstate.

As for the relevance of the photo – there isn't any. Just a nice pic, nicked from David Rennie's blog.

COMMENT THREAD

The best laid schemes…

EU plans to rake in a financial bonanza from its Galileo satellite system seem to be in jeopardy, and projections of thousands of jobs stemming from the project have also been cast into doubt. China, on the other hand, looks poised to reap the rewards from the £2.5bn European investment, which includes an estimated £200 million of British taxpayers' money.

This is the sombre conclusion to be drawn from recent statements by Rainer Grohe, executive director of the Galileo joint undertaking, the EU's executive authority charged with managing the development of the system. He is contradicting the hubristic predictions by the EU that variously 100,000 and 150,000 "high qualified jobs in Europe alone" could be created, with three billion receivers and revenues of some €275 billion per year by 2020 worldwide being generated, warning that China is gearing up to mass-produce cheap receivers.

This potentially catastrophic scenario is one of the EU's own making. Failing to attract sufficient capital from its own members to get the system up and running, it has sold a development partnership to China, which is contributing nearly £150 million, and is negotiating with India on the same basis.

Unlike the US government and its "Navstar" system, which holds the exclusive copyright on chipsets required for the receiver units and is able to control commercial exploitation, China – and possibly India - has acquired rights to mass produce receivers, and will be able to undercut European enterprises.

Thus, while US manufacturers are confident of being able to cash in on a GPS market which is estimated to be worth nearly £14 billion a year by 2008, EU-based firms expecting Galileo to provide a similar bonanza may go empty-handed.

This adds to the woes already affecting the project, which is now €400 million over budget in its first phase. Not only that, the EU has, as yet, failed to secure all the funding needed to deploy the full constellation of 30 satellites.

With the commissioning date also having slipped from the original 2008 to 2010, there is very little good news emanating from the project. One very small consolation though, is that the EU court of justice has upheld the commission's right to use the Galileo name.

The commission had been challenged by a Barbados IT firm, Galileo International Technologies, when it transpired that the commission lawyers had not even checked ownership of the rights to the name before the EU started using it.

However, after a German court initially found against EADS Astrium GmbH, a German unit of the eponymous European company that is building part of the system, the ECJ has weighed in with a ruling that Galileo International Technologies had not established that the commission's use of the name hurt their trademark rights.

Nevertheless, this may prove a hollow victory. In all, the EU is proving to be about as skilled in managing this project as it has been in running the Common Fisheries Policy.

COMMENT THREAD

D for agoras

They do love their pretensions, don’t they. Agoras! I ask you. An agora was a marketplace in the Greek cities just like the forum was in Rome and the various other cities of the empire.

A marketplace is where you discuss things and where individuals can make decisions that might or might not affect bigger issues. That is why it is possibly the most democratic institution in the world but it is not really conducive to legislation in the modern world. Ah but it is not legislation we are talking about but another way of bringing the citizens closer to the European project.

The EUObserver reports that some MEPs would like to revive what they fondly imagine was the agora (I think they mean only the Athenian one, which was the hub of that city’s political and judicial life for many centuries – as long as you were a free, male Athenian).

“The idea of "agoras" has been filed by the parliament's vice-president, French Green MEP Gerard Onesta whose original ambition was to present the project to the public exactly one year after his co-citizens rejected the new EU constitution, on 29 May.

"Through the no vote in the Netherlands and France - I hope - the citizens did not say no to Europe but they said stop! Now we want to participate. Please help us to participate," Mr Onesta told EUobserver.

Under his proposal, the parliament would organise five to six forums per year with around 300 participants to discuss issues chosen by the parliament's political group leaders.”

Well, one can argue what it is the citizens of France and the Netherlands said “no” to and my guess would be that a good deal of it had to do with the sort of managerial, unaccountable governance that M Onesta is part of but one cannot quite expect him to see it.

The big question is why does he think that the rather negative attitude as expressed in the “no” votes should change because the European Parliament gets together groups of carefully picked citizens of various EU member states or, perchance, representatives of various businesses and lobbying organizations and allows them to discuss some carefully selected topic.

M Onesta’s response to all the carping criticism that greeted his proposal was to point to the fact that if it is introduced, at least some of the lobbying will be done openly in a transparent fashion.

Apart from admitting that at the moment there is a great deal of untransparent lobbying going on behind the scenes, M Onesta seems not to have understood the basic problems. (And neither have some of his critics like the usually astute Jens-Peter Bonde, who said initiatives like this should be from the bottom up.)

In the first place, there are already assemblies in all the member states that are accountable (more or less) to the people through elections and who ought to be legislating but whose role has been reduced to powerless scrutineering.

Growing out of that is the second point that also seems to elude the various members of the Toy Parliament. No amount of organized jaw-jawing (and whom precisely will 300 people six times a year represent?) makes up for the fact that the EU legislative process will not change.

It is not Europe that the “no” votes were cast against. One cannot actually vote against a continent or a very general cultural concept. They were, one way or another, cast against the European project and adding a few little tucks and frills to it is not going to alter the fact that the dress does not fit and is, in any case, unappealing.

COMMENT THREAD

Between a rock and a hard place

The odious but not unintelligent Charles Tannock MEP has a letter published in The Daily Telegraph today, which raises interesting questions in the wake of the Montenegrin vote for independence.

He points out that if countries in the western Balkans, such as Montenegro and Kosovo (also demanding sovereignty), not to mention future possible extension to tiny EEA states such as Iceland and Liechtenstein, join an enlarged EU under the current Nice formula, each with its own commissioner, minimum of six MEPs and disproportionate votes in the Council of Ministers, this will cause a serious political imbalance unfavourable to large member states such as Britain.

It is also clear, writes Dr Tannock, that a state the size of Montenegro (with a population of 620,000 people) will be severely administratively stretched to hold the six-month rotating presidency.

His conclusion, therefore, is that even if (he writes "once") the EU finally abandons the unlamented constitution, and given that the Nice Treaty is inoperable beyond 27 states (ie, after Romanian and Bulgarian accession), the EU will need to consider adopting a new, slimmed-down, consolidated treaty.

That is the point. Come what may, the member states (not the EU) are going to have to negotiate a new treaty, if they are going to continue with the core policy of enlargement. That means another intergovernmental conference, opening up the whole can of worms all over again. The crucial question for us will then be whether our then prime minister will feel it necessary (or be forced) to permit a referendum prior to ratification of any new treaty. The words, "rock" and "hard place" come to mind.

COMMENT THREAD

A one-way street?

Thank heaven for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. If we ever needed reminding that the political élites of Europe are represented by an arrogant, detached, totally self-absorbed technocrat, here he is for all to see, popping up in The Financial Times to give us the benefit of his wisdom.

And, oblivious to the fact that, even now – nearly a year after their rejection of the EU constitution - Giscard says the French should be given "a second chance" to vote on the treaty.

The very nature of his phrasing betrays the man – a "second chance", as if he was doing his countrymen a favour. But then the scenario he paints is positively surreal as he tells the FT that, "It is not France that has said no. It is 55 percent of the French people - 45 percent of the French people said yes."

There is a sting in the tail though, because the man's idea of a "second chance" is either a second referendum or a parliamentary vote - after next year's presidential elections. No prizes for guessing which one he would actually prefer. "If we had chosen to have a parliamentary vote last year the constitution would have been easily adopted. It is the method that has provoked the rejection."

Then, ignoring the very fundamentals of treaty law, he argues that because 16 out of 25 countries that have ratified the constitution – the latest being Finland – there is a "qualified majority". Effectively, he is saying – or certainly implying – that a group of countries can vote to take power from other countries. All he is concerned about is the "modalities" of adopting the constitution.

Nor does he think that the idea that resubmitting the same question to the French people is "anti-democratic". "People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake," he declares.

Pity, therefore, that the FT did not put to him the logical outcome of this statement. If people who have said "no" can be asked to vote again, do people who have said "yes" also have the right to change their opinion – or is change a one-way street?

COMMENT THREAD

Going after the real enemy

[Health warning: this post is not going to be about immigration. Some readers might, therefore, decide to skip it.]




Careful readers of this blog would have noticed that we oppose all unaccountable transnational organizations (hereinafter referred to as tranzis). This includes erstwhile charities that became NGOs some time ago and whose political activism – always on the anti-Western, anti-capitalist, above all, anti-American side – far outweigh any good they may achieve on the ground.

Of these one of the most obnoxious ones is Amnesty International. I find that particularly difficult as I have worked with sections of Amnesty in the past and know that it has a hard-working and underpaid staff (not the people at the top, of course) who do try to achieve the impossible – help individual people in the many countries where they are imprisoned for expressing their opinions. All those people who get so worked up about the unproven horrors of Guantànamo might like to know that this is the case in the rest of Cuba. (Oh you didn’t know Gitmo was in Cuba? Well, well, well.)

Amnesty also, theoretically, tries to fight maltreatment of prisoners (of conscience and others) in the many countries where this happens a great deal.

The trouble is that Amnesty International as an organization always had a political agenda. Its research department, based in London, may produce very valuable information and may undertake useful campaigns. The people at the top prefer to strut around in tranzi politics, claiming all sorts of rights that unaccountable organization should not have and attacking democratic governments considerably more ferociously than others. In part, of course, the reason is that it is so much easier to find out what is happening in the democracies.

The other part of Amnesty is the national organizations, which consist mostly of volunteers. The idea is that each national organization follows developments in other countries not its own.

For various reasons, too complicated to evaluate here, these national organizations have tended to attract activists who, though undoubtedly well-meaning, tend to come from the left of the political spectrum.

It is not hard to see that all this can cause problems of credibility. For example, last year we were treated to the extraordinary spectacle of the Secretary-General of Amnesty International announcing that Guantànamo (yes, it’s them again) was the modern Gulag. When challenged, she blithely explained that while, of course, nobody has been killed in Guantànamo while many thousands perished in the Gulag; and while, of course, the shocking maltreatment of prisoners in the latter has been well documented and appear to be somewhat worse than not getting the right amount of peanut butter; nevertheless, in essence the two were the same.

I was told by a very good friend who works extremely hard in this benighted organization that the staff were horrified not least because they realized that much of their careful research will now be dismissed. In fact, I understand that even some of the national organizations were shocked and the Swedish one put up a robust rebuttal on its website. Eventually, under pressure from on high, this was taken down.

So that is the background or some of it to the present row about Amnesty International. It has now produced its annual report on the state of human rights in the world. That in itself is a blatant misreading of their remit. They are supposed to be working on behalf of prisoners of conscience.

The Secretary General’s press statement sums up the problem. It is devoted almost entirely to Guantànamo and the possible but still non-proven detention centres that are allegedly being set up as part of the war against terror. SecGen Irene Khan seems seriously uninterested in the many prisoners of conscience in countries such as China, Egypt, Iran, various African states, Saudi Arabia, and so on, and so on.

In fact, SecGen Khan decided to use another hyperbole:

“Not since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 has there been such a sustained attack on [its] values and principles.”

Unexpectedly, she even managed to mention Katrina and its aftermath, the need to fight poverty by giving aid and the French riots (the first lot not the second).

“2005 saw the biggest ever mobilization of civil society and public support to eradicate poverty. But in response, the UN Summit showed governments miserably failing to match promise to performance on the Millennium Development Goals. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and riots in France, 2005 was also a year which showed the glaring disparity, discrimination and alienation in the heart of richest countries of the world.”

What any of that has to do with prisoners of conscience is anybody's guess.

As a study produced by Capital Research Centre says, Amnesty International has concentrated most of its ire and condemnation on the United States and Israel. The obsession with Guantànamo is paralleled by the fact that more reports were produced about Israel in the last 16 months than any other country or organization. It seems that when Palestinians are attacked, imprisoned and tortured by the PA or other militias their fate no longer matters. And, of course, everyone imprisoned in Israel is a prisoner of conscience!

“Soft on tyrants and terrorists, hard on the free nations that confront them, Amnesty International has squandered its reputation as an impartial advocate for human rights," and has become "just another voice of the transnational Left.”

How true. But Amnesty International must be a little surprised at the moment. For the American government has decided to hit back.

Once again, through the invaluable Little Green Footballs, we have news of a statement:

“State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed allegations by the Nobel Prize-winning rights group, which cited reports that US prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and elsewhere were subject to "torture and ill-treatment."”

Mr McCormack then went on the offensive:

“He went on to point out Amnesty's role in documenting rights abuses during the 24 years of Saddam's rule before he was deposed by the Americans in 2003 and later captured and charged with crimes against humanity.

"But when it came time to put Saddam Hussein on trial, which is happening right now, they (Amnesty) are absent. They've done zero, zip, nothing, to assist in those efforts," McCormack said.

"So in terms of where they might focus some of their efforts, I would just offer the humble suggestion that they might follow through in actually assisting with or providing some support to this trial for what they acknowledge is one of the great human rights abusers of recent times."”

I particularly like that “humble suggestion”. Who says the State Department has no sense of humour?

COMMENT THREAD

Unintended consequences

The UK, of course, is by no means the only country to be affected by the wave of immigration from the new accession countries. A significant "beneficiary" of the population movement has been Ireland, which has taken more than its fair share of Latvians, including Russians posing as Latvians, and Poles.

This however, has had unintended and unfortunate consequences, in that it has reversed the downwards trend in road deaths, with the new carnage being wholly attributed to these migrants, a point we noted in our blog.

Nearly a quarter of all road traffic fatalities now involve immigrants, partially because they drive on the wrong side of the road and partially because they have a devil-may-care attitude to drink driving. Many, it is said, believe they will not be caught for traffic offences.

Given this clearly identifiable problem, and the extremely dubious nature of the driver testing systems in the accession countries, the most obvious – and undoubtedly effective - stratagem would be to require entrants from these countries to take the local driving test, and to prohibit them from driving until they had done so.

The trouble is that Ireland, like the UK, is no longer an independent country and is obliged under the EU dictum on non-discrimination to recognise Latvian, etc., licenses.

Thus we come to the absurd situation of Fine Gael's road safety spokesman, Shane McEntee, proposing that road signs in Latvian, Russian and Polish should be installed on Ireland's twisting country roads, to remind these killer drivers to drive on the left and avoid alcohol.

The absurdity of this suggestion can readily be seen from our illustration of a Welsh road sign. Millions have been spent on multilingual signing and the net result is to add confusion and incomprehension. With the Irish authorities already having created their own quota of confusion, having converted their road signs to metric, one can now see chaos reign.

Absurdity, however, should not be confused with amusement. In the final analysis, this situation is leading to a not insignificant number of unnecessary deaths and injuries, all because governments have been so keen to surrender their powers to our masters in Brussels.

COMMENT THREAD

Enough

Both The Daily Telegraph and The Times today point out that British citizenship has been granted to nearly one million foreign nationals since Labour came to power in 1997.

Not only that, a record 161,000 obtained a UK passport last year, a 15 percent increase on 2004, and a further 214,000 lodged applications that are now being processed. Similar numbers are likely to have applied this year, on top of 750,000 new citizens already created in the previous eight years.

The rate of overseas settlement in Britain, say both papers, is now the highest ever and is four times greater than in the mid-1990s - reflecting unprecedented levels of immigration. In the late 1960s, about 75,000 new citizens a year were accepted for citizenship but this fell to about 50,000 after new laws were introduced in 1971.

For about 25 years the annual figure remained near or below this level, falling to a low point of 37,000 in 1997, the year Labour took office. Since then, there has been a spectacular increase, with the rate of growth accelerating every year. The scale of new settlements is a principal driver behind the increase in Britain's population, which is expected to grow by five million by 2020 while birth rates fall in other countries.

Whatever view you take of the general merits or otherwise of immigration, there can be no dispute that the absorption of so many people, so fast, into our society, is problematical. It is also fair to say that this government had no electoral mandate to open the gates and permit such a massive increase in immigration, in what is obviously a policy-driven issue.

Thus, one cannot disagree with Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch UK, who says that, "Immigration on this scale is changing the nature of our society without public consent. It is no longer acceptable."

In fact, most people would agree, as indicated by a Populus/BBC survey for the Daily Politics programme poll yesterday, which indicated that immigration is regarded as the most important issue facing the country, with more than half of voters placing it higher than health or education on a list of concerns. Interestingly, the poll suggested that almost half of those questioned were "more worried about immigrants coming into Britain from Europe" than those coming from further abroad.

This is where the current figures are highly misleading, in that they record immigrant from non-EU member states, with about 30 percent of the new citizens last year born in Africa and 19 percent were from the Indian sub-continent, with Serbia and Montenegro close behind.

When it comes to the EU, however, there is nothing close to an accurate record. The official figure disclose that 392,000 individuals from the eight Eastern European states which joined the EU in May 2004 have come to Britain, but this figure relates only to those who have chosen to register for work. There are no statistics on how many entered unofficially, how many stayed and how many returned.

We are thus in the double bind of having to cope with a massively increased immigrant population while also being hampered by having no real idea of how many people have actually entered, and from where. It is hardly surprising, then, that people are saying "enough".

COMMENT THREAD

Not big enough for both of them

An odd feature of this blog – not always easy to explain – is how we can leave a subject for a while and then return to it, only to find that it then crops up again immediately afterwards.

Thus is it with the Turkish-Greek situation, which we touched on briefly yesterday, in the context of the Cyprus elections, having not dealt with it for some time. Then, not 24-hours later, we find ourselves returning to the subject, with news yesterday of a mid-air collision between Greek and Turkish fighter aircraft in disputed airspace over the Aegean Sea.

The Guardian, amongst others, does not hesitate to draw serious inferences from the event, talking of a "crisis" and the re-ignition of age old rivalries.

The crisis seems especially serious as the two aircraft are believed to have rammed each other, in full view of a passing commercial passenger aircraft. The Turkish pilot, Halil Ozdemir, was rescued by a merchant ship after ejecting, but last night emergency services were still searching for the downed pilot of the Greek F-16 jet.

The Greeks are claiming that the aircraft collided at 30,000ft after the Turkish fighter had "violated air traffic rules", causing the collision by a "sudden manoeuvre". On the other hand, the Turkish military claim that the crash had been caused by a Greek fighter interfering in Turkish manoeuvres in international airspace.

However, although this incident has just now hit the news, we drew attention to the continued jousting between Greek and Turkish aircraft in October 2004 and, of course, it had been going on long before that.

That much is confirmed by the mayor of Karpathos, the island closest to the collision, who told the Guardian, "We see them up there fighting it out every day … At some point something like this was bound to happen."

Up to press, Greece, supposedly, has been a leading champion of Turkey's bid to join. But this incident, added to the tensions in Cyprus following the weekend elections, makes it very hard now to see how the Greeks can be reconciled to Turkish accession to the EU. It is not only aircraft that collided yesterday, but two political systems. The thinking now is that the European Union is not big enough for both of them.

If that proves to be the case, the political ramications for the European Union are huge.

COMMENT THREAD

The pace quickens

Only a few days ago – on 19 May to be precise – we saw in The Telegraph a poignant plea from the Spanish authorities in response to a new flood of illegal immigrants into the Canary Islands.

"This is Europe's problem too," went the refrain, after more than 1,400 immigrant had arrived in Tenerife and Gran Canaria in the previous week, making 2,000 landing in the month, mostly from Senegal and Mali. This compared with 4,751 in the whole of last year.

It cannot have been a complete coincidence that, only two days later, we read in the Sunday Telegraph of plans to set up an EU coastguard service, not least of the functions of which would be to assist member states in controlling illegal immigration via maritime routes.

Now, courtesy of Associated Press, we learn that the EU is preparing to deploy aircraft and patrol vessels in support of the Spanish authorities, in an attempt to stem the flood of migrants headed for the Canaries.

The "help" was announced by EU justice and home affairs commissioner Franco Frattini, himself a staunch advocate of an EU coastguard service. He has pledged the EU to "provide operational support as fully as we can to the Spanish government to deal with an urgent and difficult situation."

In addition, the EU's external border security agency, Frontex, would send two emergency coordination teams to the Canary Islands.

Frattini added that Frontex would also co-ordinate in the coming weeks surveillance aircraft and patrol vessels, manned by soldiers and police, drawn from eight EU member states to prevent the would-be migrants from making their way to Europe.

"We already have eight which are prepared to express their solidarity and make available to us rapid offshore vessels and reconnaissance planes," Frattini said, adding that the EU-mandated mission would patrol the coast off western Africa down to Gambia and Senegal, from where most of the would-be migrants are sailing. Frattini said member states governments, including Spain, will be able to benefit from joint EU repatriation flights.

But, if these are temporary expedients, the commission is not being reticent about exploring the longer-term potential of this "beneficial crisis". Frattini is also calling for member states to back plans for an emergency EU fund for quick responses to mass flows of migrants, as well as setting up a permanent plan for EU patrols in the Mediterranean to intercept illegal migrants – with a start-up kitty of €3 million already earmarked.

From a vague, theoretical concept, the EU's ambitions are taking on a more tangible form with remarkable rapidity.

COMMENT THREAD

Baroness Nicholson is displeased

Baroness Nicholson, formerly known as Emma Nicholson, now a Lib-Dim MEP and Vice-Chairman of the Toy Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, is justifiably unhappy. Countries are apparently behaving foolishly and she would like the European Parliament or the Foreign Affairs High Panjandrum, Solana do something about it. What they can do, remains a mystery but:

“She said she would put forward an emergency resolution and a parliamentary question to commissioner Benita Ferraro-Waldner, Austrian ex-foreign minister and the commissioner for foreign affairs in the European Commission.

She would also raise it with the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.”

Loath though I am to say it, but she is right – paying ransom to terrorists is a very bad idea. Given how many different gangs there are in Iraq, many of whom appear to have no political ideology at all but think that kidnapping journalists, aid workers and the odd engineer is obviously a wonderful money spinner, governments that fall for this are endangering their own nationals first and foremost.

It was an article in the Times yesterday that created the fuss. Daniel McGrory maintains that the newspaper has seen documents that prove the handing over a total of $45 million by the governments of France, Italy and Germany in order to rescue their nationals.

This is not precisely a new story and we have covered it on numerous occasions. What Mr McGrory has provided is definite figures:

“FRANCE $25 million
 Florence Aubenas: held for 157 days, freed June 2005. Ransom $10 million
 Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot: freed December 2004. Ransom $15 million

ITALY $11 million
 Giuliana Segrena: taken February 2005, freed March 2005. Ransom $6 million
 Simona Pari and Simona Torretta: taken September 2004, freed 20 days later. Ransom $5 million.

GERMANY $8 million
 Susanne Ostloff: taken November 25, 2005, and freed three weeks later. Ransom $3 million
 Rene Braunlich and Thomas Nitzschke: taken January 24, 2006, and freed on May 2. Ransom $5 million.

BRITAIN No ransom paid
 Kenneth Bigley: taken September 16, 2004; seen being beheaded on video released on November 16
 Margaret Hassan: abducted October 19, 2004; murdered on November 16”

As it happens, I believe there is some doubt as to what really happened to Margaret Hassan.

Furthermore, as the article explains, Britain is not entirely blameless. Though the government, rightly, refuses to pay ransom, it gives in on other matters.

“British officials have been criticised for giving the kidnappers of the peace activist Norman Kember time to escape to avoid the risk of a gun battle with Special Forces troops sent to rescue him and his two fellow captives from a house in central Baghdad in March.

Only when Jill Carroll, an American journalist, was freed eight days later did intelligence experts discover that she had been held by the same notorious crime family, who were working with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the wanted al-Qaeda leader in Iraq. That revelation infuriated US officials in Baghdad, who had let Britain take the lead in tracing and freeing Professor Kember, 74, and his two Canadian colleagues.”

This is particularly annoying because of the difference in behaviour exhibited by Jill Carroll, on her release, and that of the grumpy and ungrateful peace activists.

The three governments continue to deny the payment of ransom but give no explanation as to why their hostages were released on those dates.

COMMENT THREAD

Credit where it is due

If Dr Liam Fox seems oblivious to the growing encroachment of the European Union in defence affairs, not so the Tory defence spokesman in the EU parliament, Geoffrey van Orden MEP.

In the Telegraph today, which has finally reported on the EU defence procurement developments, van Orden is cited as saying, "Of course we want to encourage European armies to procure more effectively. But the driving impulse behind this is European political integration."

To give him due credit, van Orden has been consistent in warning of the moves by Brussels to promote European defence integration, although his concerns do not seem to have percolated into the hierarchy of the domestic Conservative Party. But then, as we all know, the Boy King doesn't "do" Europe. Telling us all to be "happy" is much more important.

COMMENT THREAD

Another EU success

The European Union might be about promoting fraternal feelings between member states – or so it keeps telling us - but something is going badly amiss with the "project" in Cyprus.

The entry of the island into the EU two years ago was supposed to bring forth a classic demonstration of “soft power”, reconciling the warring Greeks and Turks who have been divided since the Turkish invasion in 1974. But, at the time – even with the intervention of the UN (or perhaps because of it) -reunification did not occur and only the southern half of the island is within the EU.

Now, two years later reunification seems further away than ever after elections in the Greek south. Voters have brought back the ruling coalition with an increased majority, endorsing leaders who oppose reunification attempts.

Half a million Greek Cypriots were voting for 56 representatives – their first chance to pick MPs since a referendum on reunification was rejected in 2004 – and, according Deutsche Welle, president Tassos Papadopoulos' DIKO party won 18 percent of the vote - up 3 percent on its last showing. His allies from the communist AKEL party won 31 percent and the pro-reunification opposition party, the DISY, lost ground to come a close second with 30 percent of the vote. The European party, a new right wing group, won a mere 5.7 percent of the vote.

The result dashes hopes that the Greek Cypriot government would show flexibility on the Turkish Cypriot community’s demand to be allowed to trade directly with the EU, and is regarded as the latest setback to attempts to re-unify the island.

Some commentators believe it could even undermine Turkish efforts to join the EU. The pinch point here is Turkey refusing to allow Cypriot ships and aircraft access to its ports and airports as long as the island remains divided. So bitter has this dispute become that Papadopoulos has given Ankara an ultimatum that, if they are not given access by the end of the year, Cyprus will veto Turkey's bid to join the EU.

So much for the peacemaker extraordinaire – two years on and things are worse than when the EU first got involved.

COMMENT THREAD

The engineer of human souls

Reluctantly I once again turn my attention to the Boy-King of the Conservative Party, who, according to Peter Oborne in the Evening Standard, is the coolest leader that party has ever had. Mr Oborne, to be fair, admits that it makes him and Conservatives like him feel queasy but he sees some merit in Our Dave and his lovely wife attending a party given by the Beckhams. My own feeling is that attending parties given by the Beckhams is vieux jeu. Just about every airhead has done that.

In order to show that he is not a complete airhead but has serious ideas (cue: drawing together eyebrows, narrowing eyes and looking soulfully into the middle distance) the Boy-King has been pronouncing on happiness.

It is tempting to draw a parallel with Ken Dodd, who sang a song called “Happiness” and had a “Happiness Show” but I feel that is an insult to a talented and hard working entertainer who was extremely popular and gave pleasure to a large number of people.

In a way, that is the point the Boy-King seems incapable of grasping: that happiness, contentment and many other things that make life worth living are not to be provided by politicians or the state, assuming he is ever in charge of that vehicle.

His latest pronouncement (approved by the Guardian as something that wrong-foots Gordon Brown) tells us that “there is more to life than money”. Sheesh. There is something I would never have thought of myself. I mean I really need a wealthy politico who has never had to work for a single thing in his life to tell me that life consists of more than just a bank balance. (Mind you, for people who have had to struggle to achieve a bank balance, it may well be the epitome of happiness.)

What these comments do is expound the Boy-King’s own Third Way (Gorbachev, Blair and now Cameron – will they never learn?).

“The traditional response of the right – that government can't do much about all this and shouldn't try – is inadequate. But equally, the response of the new left – that government should regulate the specific details of working life – is too ineffective. It produces unintended consequences that end up damaging our competitiveness. It's vital to create a space... which stands firmly between regulation and indifference. I refuse to choose between the intolerant impulse to right every supposed wrong by passing new laws, and the coldly amoral refusal to even take a view on the actions of others.”

Of course, enabling people to make the best of their abilities is not precisely coldly amoral but shows a belief in freedom, individual rights and responsibilities as well as faith in people.

Furthermore, the number of people on the right who believe there should be no rules at all and any employer be allowed to do whatever they like on the basis that the market will take care of it all, is strictly limited. So to say that those of us who believe in freedom of enterprise, absolutely minimal government and the importance of private life are refusing “to even take a view on the actions of others” is stupid, ignorant and insulting, not to mention ungrammatical.

What is it the Boy-King really means? Since he manages to throw in the compulsory reference to “competitiveness” whatever he might think that is, one assumes that he means such matters as minimum wage and benefits. What are they if not money? What on earth makes the man think that money handed out in the form of benefits will somehow contribute to the sum total of human happiness? Surely, if anything, it is money earned that is much more likely to do so.

In any case, what of those benefits, minimum wage, state run health service, the lot? What if it becomes so expensive that jobs will have to go to other places and unemployment will rise? (In fact, it is doing so already.) The state sector cannot leach off the private one for ever. Will that make people happy?

But who am I to argue with such noble impulses? If the Boy-King really does want to be the engineer of human souls, as Joseph Stalin called Soviet writers according to Commissar Andrei Zhdanov at the 1934 Writers’ Congress; if he really thinks that there is some kind of a utopia in which happiness can be provided by political actions; this blog is ready to suggest some ideas.

Many of us would be reasonably pleased if this country once again became an independent state and a constitutional democracy. That would mean taking it out of the EU and negotiating completely new agreements with other European countries. It might also mean a new Bill of Rights and possibly another constitutional document that enshrined what we consider to be the ancient liberties of this land.

In order to protect this country, its liberties and individual rights we need security – defence for the country and a workable police and judicial force for the individual. It would make us very happy if the Conservatives turned their minds to these matters.

Many people were made happy by the fact that they acquired their own property and could aspire to a better life, to give an even better and more spacious life to their children and could achieve all that on the basis of their own efforts not because goodies were handed out.

Much unhappiness is caused by our educational system, which does not train our children to get jobs and does not provide them with personal development and knowledge, the very tools that create personal happiness. We would all be immeasurably happier if the Conservative Party, led as it is by people whose families were immensely fortunate in being able to afford good education, would introduce changes into the system that allowed parents to choose the best for their children and for schools to provide the best education. No, dear Dave, it cannot be done by well-meaning toffs or gentlemen and ladies in Whitehall or the Town Hall. That has been tried and has been found wanting. Our children are neither able to compete nor are they happy.

In fact, one could sum it all up by the following comments: in so far as happiness can come out of politics, we would all be much happier if we had an effective opposition and if we had at least one party that did not mouth outdated semi-socialist shibboleths.

Since, however, happiness is not provided by politics (the arrogance of the man!) we should all be a lot happier, more fulfilled and more contented if the government, the politicians and all the officials simply butted out of our lives. Not much to ask for, is it? Think how much that will do for the sum total of human happiness.

COMMENT THREAD

Can he deliver?

"What is the point of defence?" That is the question asked by shadow secretary of state for defence, Liam Fox, in a speech this morning at Chatham House on "the challenge of defence and energy security".

In his speech, Fox turns the defence issue into one of protecting our energy supplies, pointing out that we are no longer self-sufficient in energy. Therefore, he says, energy security now acts as a driver of foreign policy and, in defence terms, we have to "balance our security through … effective military structures to underpin our diplomacy".

That much is hardly new – it has always been thus – and it is thus self-evident that, as Fox says, "an indivisible energy security and national security policy will inevitably have consequences for the necessary shape and capabilities of the armed forces required to serve those interests". Fox then goes on to declare, very much in the same vein, that:

Politicians need to provide a very much clearer framework within which national security interests can to be served. In other words. We need a foreign policy out of which a credible defence policy – rather than merely spending plans – can flow.

So far, so good but what Fox then dismally fails to do is set out in any detail – or at all – the specifics of that framework, or how it would impact on our current defence policy.

What he does tell us is that he wants to develop global associations with nations and regions that can contribute to countering the key threats to our energy security, directed primarily through NATO – something which he acknowledges would put us at odds with EU ambitions. But as to our defence policy, all we get is that our approach to energy security must be "underpinned by a security margin of resilience which only updated global military structures can provide".

What that actually means is anyone's guess – and is it any wonder that we are so despairing (and contemptuous) of politicians when they cannot express themselves with any clarity? But, insofar as there is any meaning in the words, Fox seems to be making a pitch for greater seapower to protect our energy supply lines, working closely with a range of allies that includes the USA, Japan, and other players within the Pacific region.

If that is the case, Fox has a problem. The bulk of our future naval equipment plans, including the purchase of the two aircraft carriers – for which further design contracts were recently awarded - are currently predicated on building up an expeditionary force to support the European Rapid Reaction Force, a force which is (or will be) primarily dedicated to fulfilling Petersberg Tasks.

This is not a force which will be capable of projecting seapower or one with any significant independent global reach – and neither is it one designed to mesh with US or Pacific forces.

As to the Army, huge expense – some £16 billion - is being devoted to re-equipping it as an expeditionary force, with a rapid reaction capability, again with a view to it becoming a component of the ERRF. The RAF, on the other hand, is primarily equipped (with the Eurofighter) for a static, air superiority role.

None of the intended armed forces structures would seem at all capable of undertaking the primary role of protecting our energy supply lines and, given the necessary limitations on our defence spending – and the huge cost of equipping a credible expeditionary force – we do not have the cash to spare for both roles.

It is all very well, therefore, for Fox to argue the need to provide a much clearer framework but, as it stands, the framework set by the current administration for future conduct of operations is that of an integral part of the ERRF.

From that stems procurement decisions with a multi-billion price-tag and a reach of twenty years or more, committing us to the strategy thus defined. Unless Fox is prepared to gainsay the current structures and commit to a fundamental restructuring of our forces, should the Conservatives gain power, what he is actually saying is so much hot air - he will not be able to deliver.

COMMENT THREAD

A vote for serfdom?

I am probably one of the least qualified to pronounce on the merits or otherwise of the Montenegrins' referendum, but it is interesting to note that the BBC website is running the headline Montenegro chooses independence.

With 55.4 percent of the electorate voting to secede from Serbia, just over the 55 percent hurdle set by the EU, however, one must recall that the primary driver behind the separation movement is not independence per se. What is uppermost in the minds of its advocates is the expectation that the new state, divorced from the delinquent Serbia, will find it easier to join the European Union.

With a population of 620,000 people, this would be barely a mouthful for the EU to absorb, and the influence that those few people could exercise over the European empire would be minuscule. Thus, it would seem, the Montenegrins are not so much voting for independence as serfdom.

For the time being, that status will have a substantial cheque attached to it, and it will take many decades for the Montenegrins to learn the reality of the construct they join – if they are allowed in – but the "colleagues" will no doubt take succour from the fact that yet another nation is rushing, lemming-like into the fold.

COMMENT THREAD

The march of the EuroArmy

As flagged up just over a week ago, twenty-two European Union member states have signed up to the "voluntary" code of conduct of defence procurement.

By so doing, they are agreeing to open defence contracts worth €1 million or over to competitive tendering from any company within the EU, so waiving their "national interest" rights under Article 296 of the Treaty which, hitherto, have excluded the bulk of defence purchasing from the procurement directives.

The agreement is only "voluntary" in the sense that there is no legislative compulsion, but it was reached against the background of the commission threatening to propose legislation if the member states did not come into line. No doubt, a concerted effort by the EU leaders could have seen off the commission but this would have led to an undignified public scrap and, it appears, none of the players seemed willing to fight this out in a public arena.

As it is, two nations to opt out of this round of integration – Spain and Hungary – with Denmark having a permanent opt-out. Whether the commission will takes steps to hoover up the stragglers remains to be seen.

Business Week reports this move as "designed to open the 25-nation bloc's euro30 billion (US$39 billion) arms industry to increased cross-border competition," citing European Defence Agency, but, of course, it is no such thing.

This is all part and parcel of the commission's plan to create a European defence industry which is the precursor to developing a European defence identity. The Eurocrats are well aware that, in these days of technology-driven warfare, he who controls the procurement decisions can eventually control the shape and structure of the armed forces which rely on the equipment and thence decide on deployment plans.

Needless to say, we get the ritual burbling from Nick Witney, CEO of the European Defence Agency, who tells us that, "This regime will create new opportunities for companies across Europe, strengthen our defence technological and industrial base and offer better value for money to the armed forces and to taxpayers."

That is so much bullshit. The arrangements are designed primarily to exclude non-EU bidders and keep defence procurement within the EU "family", many of which players are party or wholly state-owned and heavily subsidised.

However, the business-orientated language is enough to gull the increasingly dim and ill-informed media commentators into believing that this move is simply a commercial issue, to be relegated to the business columns, if indeed it is reported at all. That it is a major step forward in the progressive integration of the armed forces of EU member states will completely pass them by.

And thus, stealthy step by stealthy step, does the process of integration continue, unrecorded and unchecked, all because our media fails to do its job, our politicians have lost the plot – and no one gives a damn anyway.

COMMENT THREAD

Nuclear fission

Although Tony Blair has put the nuclear option "back on the agenda with a vengeance", his avowed enthusiasm is creating stresses in the European Union, where there is a considerable divergence of opinion on the utility of nuclear power.

This, reports Reuters could well impact on the attempt by EU member states to forge a common energy policy, highlighted by a meeting in Austria of energy and environment ministers this weekend.

For instance, Austria's environment minister, Josef Proell, believes that nuclear power "isn't the future.". He is to stage a debate in the EU parliament in June to discuss "strategic planning" on nuclear energy, when he will try to convince his EU partners to look at other sources such as renewable energy.

On the other hand, Finnish Environment Minister Jan-Erik Enestam, who will be in the chair when his country takes on the rotating presidency of the EU in July, believes that nuclear is a necessary, if temporary, solution. "Climate change will bring new elements to the discussion. It's not that black and white anymore," Enestam says. "If you have to choose among the existing resources and existing technology, you can't exclude nuclear power."

The Finns are already planning to add a fifth nuclear plant to their portfolio. The want to avoid using coal and prefer building its own plants to importing nuclear-generated electricity from Russia. "In Finland you have to choose between two evils: nuclear power or coal, and nuclear power is not as bad as coal," Enestam declares.

To add to the discord, his near-neighbour, Latvian Environment Minister Raimonds Vejonis, has other ideas. More than 60 percent of his population is against nuclear yet it relies on nuclear power plants in next-door Lithuania, from which it imports some of its electricity. The country will suffer after 2009 when Lithuania closes nuclear plants and no decision has yet been made on how to compensate for that loss.

In Germany, however, there is very little debate, as the government plans to phase out nuclear power completely. German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel argued that it is unfair to solve our energy problems and to put the waste to future generations. He also takes the view that, if industrialised nations chose nuclear energy, they will have fewer arguments to prevent countries such as Iran and North Korea from attempting to do the same.

Other major players, like Italy, Spain and Poland, have yet to declare their views but we do know that France is committed to expanding its nuclear capability.

The current technology, of course, still relies on nuclear fission – splitting the atom – but, as the arguments develop, it seems that this will not be the only nuclear fission in the EU. The member states also are – it seems – irreconcilably split.

COMMENT THREAD

All that glitters is not gold

The aggressively Europhile Observer has today trotted out a strident condemnation of the CAP, under the strap, "Exports of cheap European dairy products are crushing the livelihoods of developing world farmers".

Lest one think that the paper has gone soft, and joined that ranks of the loony Xenophobes – aka Eurosceptics – the title of the piece gives that game away: "Who's creaming off EU subsidies?" This is a left-wing, anti-capitalist rant, picking up recently obtained data that demonstrate that the "fat cats" are the primary beneficiaries of the EU's agricultural subsidies.

Thus does the newspaper tell us that British-based exporters, including Nestle and Dairy Crest, have claimed £126m of taxpayers' money over the past two years for sending surplus butter and milk powder to poor countries such as Nigeria and Bangladesh. The biggest winner, Fayrefield Foods, was able to bank more than £22m over two years, 2004 to 2005.

Philpot Dairy Products, the export arm of Dairy Crest, which owns well-known brands such as Country Life and Clover, also claimed a total of almost £22m. These levels of subsidy are enormous relative to the size of the companies: the £10m claimed by Fayrefield Foods in 2004 was worth almost 10 per cent of its turnover, for example, and dwarfed its profits, which were less than £1m. Nestle, whose export of skimmed-milk powder to developing countries has long been controversial, received more than £7m.

Interestingly, the paper sources this information to "to a new report obtained exclusively by The Observer", now obligingly placed on the internet by its author Jack Thurston of campaign group farmsubsidy.org.

A further clue as to the left-wing provenance can be gleaned from the short cv of Thurston. He is currently a non-resident Transatlantic Fellow of the German (strongly pro-EU) Marshall Fund of the United States. He was formerly a political adviser to Nick Brown, when Minister for Agriculture, and has been a Senior Research Associate at the Foreign Policy Centre in London since 2002.

As to his writings, his articles have appeared in The Guardian, The Observer, European Voice, New Statesman, Prospect and Tribune and, firmly to cement his left-wing credentials, he is also a regular contributor to BBC Radio Four's Farming Today.

That said, the article in The Observer today is grist to the Eurosceptic mill, pointing out that the total cost of the dairy subsidy regime across the EU is more than €1bn, and then giving a neat little resumé of the EU’s export restitution system and its baleful effect on third world economies.

For instance, it points out that British firms were handed £11.8m over a two-year period for sending milk products to Nigeria, for example, and almost £6m for sending products to Côte d'Ivoire. This is on top of a recent report by Cafod that found that imports of cheap, EU-subsidised milk powder had devastated the Jamaican dairy market, causing domestic production to plunge, and damaging the livelihoods of small-scale, local producers.

It is intriguing that lefty, pro-EU campaigners should apparently have common cause with the Eurosceptic movement, but the explanation is probably very simple. Basically, the commission and most intelligent Europhiles would like to see the back of the CAP, not least because it provides an endless fount of bad publicity, with which to attack the EU.

More importantly, because CAP funds are fixed by regulation, to which qualifying farmers are automatically entitled, the funds (which still account for over 40 percent of the EU budget) give the commission very little political leverage. The commission would much rather have discretionary power of disbursement of funds, by which means it could increase its influence over a much wider range of issues.

But for France – and to a lesser extent Germany – the CAP would by now have been abolished and it is very much in the commission’s interest that it should be. Thus it was that Franz Fischler in his last days as agriculture commissioner brokered the “poison pill” of the CAP mid-term review, anticipating that it would bring down the policy. And, as part of that objective, it was fully expected that, through diverse sources – such as farmsubsidy.org – the commission would also start briefing against the CAP, undermining the last vestiges of political support for it.

Thus it is that Eurosceptics – who have always targeted the CAP – are now in the uncomfortable position of supporting the commission’s own agenda, and acquiring some strange bedfellows in the process. But these people are not Eurosceptics – we need to be mindful of the old adage, "all that glitters in not gold".

COMMENT THREAD

A reason to support the EU?

Oddly enough it was just this morning that I pointed out that, despite not being quite as old as Methuselah, I can remember a time when football was something only sports writers commented on. If you followed a team you knew all about it; if there was a particularly interesting event going on, the rest of the country knew about it; otherwise we were mercifully free of endless articles, pictures, discussions of footballers, managers, their girlfriends, their salaries, their clothes and whatever else may be considered essential by our media. In parenthesis, let me note that no other country has the same attitude – mostly football stays on the sports pages.

It seems that we have the solution to this problem. According to an article in the Sunday Telegraph the EU is producing a plan to control various aspect of football.

“The scheme, to be unveiled this week, will propose an EU-wide "good governance" structure to overrule national football associations on almost every issue. It will include "strict rules" on the ownership of clubs and even a salary cap for high-earning players.”

As we know from bitter experience, anything that comes under EU governance tends to get ignored by the MSM. Once the EU runs the wretched thing, we shall not hear about Wayne Rooney’s toes, Beckham’s tattoos or feet, anybody else’s night out with the lads. We shall be spared stories that can all be entitled: “Young footballer has girlfriend”. The next manager of whichever football club happens to have lost the last one will no longer be front-page news. Well, one can dream.

As a matter of fact, I quite like the game. I don’t think it is the “beautiful game”, a phrase that is so stupid as to require no particular discussion. But it is a good game and, as a child, I played it. As a child and as an adult I have watched it.

The political aspect of sport is also something I am very conscious of. There is no need to drag out the Berlin Games again to remind people of the political implications of major sporting events and of sporting teams. One only needs to think back to the great Hungarian football team of the early fifties and the attempt to make it into a symbol of the new socialist Hungary; or to that famous final in the 1954 World Cup, which profoundly both the losers (Hungary) and the winners (West Germany). (Not to mention the various Olympic Games and World Cups that have taken place in the last few decades.)

In other words, this is our old friend the Adonnino plan to create a European identity at the expense of national ones. First we shall control the structures of the football teams and the associations, then we shall think of an EU team, though how they can ensure that all the member states field at least one player remains a mystery. Theoretically, that will ensure a greate feeling for the European project. In practice, people will go on supporting their local teams.

Unsurprisingly, “football sources” maintain that the suggestion will create more problems than it will solve. Well, naturally. That is what centralization at the “European level” does – create more problems. Then we can have more officials and more regulations to deal with the problems created and more officials and regulations to deal with the problems these create and so on, ad infinitum.

I have a feeling that Blair, being more of a “man of the people” than, apparently, the sports minister who waxes lyrical about “European football”, may declare this one off side. Alas, we shall continue to read about the wretched footballers in every section of the newspaper.

COMMENT THREAD

The EuroNavy cometh… slowly

Justin Stares has come up with a good story in The Sunday Telegraph this morning, claiming that Brussels is drawing up a plan for an "EU navy".

This is the EU commission planning to set up a European coastguard, giving rise to fears of a back-door attempt to create an EU navy with its own powers to stop and search shipping.

According to Stares, the plan involves upgrading the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) into a fully-fledged coastguard, and is "buried" in a document revising European Union (EU) transport policy that is due to be published next month.

Apparently, the commission is says that a European coastguard would help to enforce maritime legislation. It would have the authority to intercept shipping across all of Europe's traditional maritime borders, which could require that crews be armed - and raises questions of national sovereignty over coastal waters.

The issue was raised last week in Lloyd's List (for which Stares works), which accused the commission of attempting to build up a navy by stealth in a leading article. "The concept of a European coastguard has a federalist charm about it that causes eyes to brighten instantly among gatherings of Europhiles, tired of endless discussions about fish or agriculture," Lloyds List said. "In a way, it is a European navy, by the back door."

Oddly enough, we raised precisely this spectre way back in October 2004 when we retailed the comments of an official from commission’s enterprise DG, Ronal Vopel, declaring:

We've established the EU's right to define territorial waters for the purposes of ship pollution control, ship safety and fisheries policy. The next step is littoral security and that points to coastguard and naval issues.

Even then we were remarking that the eventual destination might be the creation of a EuroNavy, and we followed this up with a story December 2004, reporting that the fledgling European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) was to charter its own emergency oil spill vessels, covering most of Europe's sensitive coastline.

But, while the commission has been beavering away in the background, the most strident calls for an EU coastguard have in fact been coming from the member states themselves, as in last March, when EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini was calling for an EU coastguard service in the Mediterranean, "to fight human trafficking and rising numbers of illegal migrants".

Although Frattini is a member of the commission, he was speaking very much as an Italian politician, his agenda being to obtain EU financing to help towards the cost of policing Italian waters in order to control illegal immigration. And that agenda goes way way, with a report in January 2003 of the launch of an “EU fleet” to patrol the southern shores of Europe and head off the pirate flotillas that ship illegal immigrants from North Africa.

The scheme, called Operation Ulysses, involved five European nations, including Britain, which contributed a Customs cutter, Seeke, and was viewed as the first step towards a common EU border guard. The "fleet" was made up of vessels belonging to Spain's Guardia Civil, with Italy, France and Portugal also sending vessels.

One could now say that the issue is coming back onto the agenda, except that it has never been taken off it – just that no one has been taking any notice. Sure enough, though, it will disappear from the media after the brief attention from The Telegraph, representing yet another classic example of the slow, incremental progression of European integration.

In the fullness of time, we will be seeing armed patrol vessels sporting EU flags and the proto-EuroNavy will be there – by which time it will be too late to protest. In the meantime, of course, any suggestion that the EU is planning to create its own navy will be strenuously denied.

COMMENT THREAD

You wonder what they use for brains

Believe it or not but journalists in the MSM do actually get some training. And they are told the facts of life occasionally. But there are times when you wonder whether they just spend their time sleeping through the training.

Through the invaluable Little Green Footballs we find a story filed by Reuters about events at a Middle Eastern business conference, organized by the World Economic Forum at Sharm el-Sheikh.

It seems that at the press conference the “guest list raised questions”, according to the title of the piece. Questions from whom? Well, the assembled media, of course.

Did they want to know what ideas the 1,200 businessmen had about trying to develop the economies of the Middle East? Goodness me, no. Did they ask how Sharm el-Sheikh was surviving and whether it had overcome the blow it had experienced a couple of years ago of the massive terrorist explosion? Pshaw, such trivialities.

No, what the fourth estate’s finest wanted to know was why had the Forum not invited Iran, Syria and Hamas to the gathering. It apparently had not occurred to any of these people that terrorism is not considered to be legitimate business.

In any case

“Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, said he did not want political tensions from any Iranian presence to overshadow the meeting”

Given Iran’s tendency to use every international gathering to promise the speedy destruction of Israel and an equally speedy jihad against all its enemies, which include numerous Middle Eastern countries as well as the West, it is probably sensible not to have them along. They can hardly contribute a huge amount to any discussion on economic development.

The CIA has estimated that for 2005 Iran’s per capita GDP was $8,100, despite as one correspondent on LGF put it, the country sitting on a sea of oil. Given what we know about levels of unemployment and the poverty in many of its regions, this does not sound inaccurate.

Syria, Mr Scwab implied, was invited or, at least, he did not precisely explain what happened there. It is, of course, possible that the organizers decided not to invite either of the biggest terror masters in the region.

What of Hamas? Well, it seems that Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority is there, being the recipient of the invitation. Hamas did not have a separate one from the Palestinian Authority.

What precisely can Hamas, who is busy fighting a civil war with Fatah in Gaza, contribute to a discussion about economic and business matters? On past record, it is likely to be a long whine about how badly they are treated by the whole world, which is not handing over large sums of money for them to buy even more guns and explosives. President Abbas can do that for them.

COMMENT THREAD

Week-end rumination

My colleague is away for a couple of days (back tomorrow evening), which means that some of our readers will ignore this blog till he returns. Which, in turn, means that I am free to ruminate and not post about toys at all.

Possibly predictably my thoughts return to the subject of my previous posting – the need for a set of British values – and the comments on it. I was intrigued to see that my insistence that learning one’s language, its grammar and punctuation was either ignored or greeted with some hostility.

Let me, quite unusually, tell a personal story. (No, it is still not about toys, though I do know what a tank looks like having seen them roll down streets as a wee child.)

On my family’s arrival to the UK (yes, sorry guys, we did come in and ask for political asylum but then, I expect, many of our readers’ ancestors did as well) I was sent to the local grammar school. It was a very ordinary grammar school in north-west London and the parents of most of my class-mates had not been educated beyond the age of 14.

So, the fact that they had passed the 11-plus (I admit that one can argue about that particular exam) and were receiving a first class education, most of them heading towards some kind of college or university, did not mean that they were rich. Quite the contrary.

I am making this point because in his latest pronouncement, David Cameron, the Boy-King of the Conservative Party, proclaimed himself and his party to be against any kind of choice and selection in education as that would benefit only the rich. No-one seems to have told him that the system as it exists, with complete control by the state either centrally or through local government, benefits nobody but those who can afford to opt out. But I digress.

For some reason, my grammar school had a hang-over from a previous system, whereby at the end of the third year we all took a set of Lower School Certificate exams. They made no difference, except maybe to one or two people, but gave an indication.

At the end of the exams, the top results were as follows: first came a girl whose parents were refugees (or, possibly, economic migrants) from Cyprus and could barely speak English. (All three children went to good universities.) Second came a boy from an Indian family, who were also first generation immigrants. I came third.

What astonished me even then was the reaction of at least one of my classmates’ parents. She went home and told them about the results, making the point that the three top places were taken by people whose native language was not English, who were, in short, foreigners. She was then told by her father that naturally, they would come top, precisely because they were foreigners. She repeated this piece of wisdom to me, clearly agreeing with it, and using it to warn me against too much swank.

In some ways, I suppose, attitudes have remained the same. We (times have changed and I am no longer a foreigner, except maybe to one or two of our readers) still accept it as given that foreign students will know our language better than those educated here.

The fact, that there are differences in English usage around the world, each with its own set of rules, is used as a good argument for not learning our own rules. It is sad. The English language is, let me repeat, one of the great treasures of world culture. Its literature, which is read more and more attentively in other countries, is possibly the richest in the world.

By sheer coincidence, the Wall Street Journal, which runs a Saturday series of “five of the best” today listed the five “top books” on the history of the English language, as perceived by David Crystal, himself a prolific writer on the subject.

Of course, one can argue about his choice and any other choice. But there can be no real argument in my own mind about the excellence of two of the books he mentions: “The Oxford English Dictionary” and “Roget’s Thesaurus”. I inherited several versions of the first from my father, who used his incessantly, and my mother, herself a lexicographer; and the Thesaurus, also inherited, is, alas, falling apart from over-use.

I should, however, add another book to that list, without which life is immeasurably duller: Partridge’s “Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional Language”. Oh yes, there is Fowler’s “Modern English Usage” – incredibly useful in settling ferocious debates. And for all matters American, Webster’s Dictionary. There I shall stop and not even mention the various dictionaries of quotations as they are not really about the history of the language. How's that for self-control?

The £15 million heist

A robbery of mega-million magnitude is normally big news – but not, it seems, if the perpetrators are the government… and the victims are immigrants.

We have heard a great deal of late about illegal immigrants and the failure of the Home Office to deport foreign criminals, but very little is written about that band of legal immigrants, who have made their applications, gone through all the hoops and are here perfectly legitimately, making valuable contributions to the British economy.

But, for want of dealing with the illegals, it is these people that the Home Office is shafting, to the tune of £15 million.

The people affected are those from outside the EEA and include those who have been granted work permits on the "Highly Skilled Migrant Programme". They entered this country through stringent, merit-based immigration schemes and, as part of the schemes, the government undertook that, after four years of continuous contribution to the Exchequer, and not seeking any public funds or benefits, we would be entitled to apply for "Indefinite Leave to Remain" (ILR).

On the 3rd of April 2006, however, the Home Office arbitrarily changed the rules, extending the qualifying period for ILR status from four to five years, not only for new entrants to the schemes, but to existing permit and visa holders.

Thus, the people already in the country, making an active contribution to the economy – many of them in skilled occupations, where there are acknowledged shortages of skills – are finding themselves in the position of having their existing visas and permits running out before they are entitled, under the new rules, to apply for ILR.

And here lies the heist. With no option but to continue with the extra year, the Home Office is demanding one year visa and work permit extensions, at respectively £335 and £153, the total coming to just over £15 million.

According to the Home Office announcement, this change is to “bring our practice for the qualifying period required in line with the European norm”, which means that and administrative diktat is being applied retrospectively to people who can't fight back.

In an attempt to draw attention to this manifest injustice, a group of these immigrants have set up their own website and are attempting to mobilise MPs to support them – with little effect to date.

Clearly, these people have missed the point. If they had turned up without papers and demanded asylum, they could have lived off benefits without a care in the world. But their biggest mistake was to trust this government, so putting their fates in the hands of a gang of thieves.

COMMENT THREAD

Of rumours dark and devious

Matthew Parris in The Times today argues that the Boy King and his pals, far from sliding towards the centre in all things, have in matters of foreign and defence policy shifted the opposition to the right.

He thus asserts that we could be just a few years from a Cabinet in which the prime minister, the foreign and defence secretaries and the chancellor are to the right of Margaret Thatcher in their view of Britain's place in the world, in what he calls a "Europe-hating and Pentagon-loving party".

Parris cites a number of speeches and events to support his thesis, which are worth having a look at. For myself, I am not at all convinced. We are all too old and wise to rely on hints, innuendo and reading the runes. When you are dealing with politicians, and especially Tory leaders, you watch their hands, not their lips. And their hands are not reaching across the Atlantic.

That said, The Scotsman is retailing a Reuters report that tells us the Conservative Party has ignored a last-ditch attempt to put off their exit from the EPP, and are ready to form a new political grouping in the EU parliament. According to a "senior party source", the deal is all but done, even if the final move may have to wait until after the summer, for administration reasons.

The Conservative Home site chews over the details, which leave the editor less than impressed. "The Tory leader must not think delivery on the EPP pledge will satisfy the demands of Britain's Eurosceptic majority," he writes. "In itself it will do nothing to restore powers to Britain. 87 percent of Tory members want the European Union to return responsibility for fishing and aid policies to member states and, in good time, Mr Cameron's new grouping must lead calls for such repatriations of power."

That, rather than the vapourings picked up by Matthew Parris, will be acid test and there is no sign at all that the Boy is prepared to take it on board.

There are, however, some dark rumours which if true, could change the political dynamics. According to one "highly placed source", the current leader of the UKIP MEP group, Nigel Farage, is to make a bid for leadership of the party, whence he and a small-group of like-minded MEPs intend to defect to the Tories.

This would not be the first time Farage has considered defection and now – as then – his problem could be that the Tories themselves would not entertain the switch. But, should details of any deal – even if not fulfilled – become officially known, they could have considerable ramifications for both parties. For the moment though, we are dealing with rumours – about as firm as the idea that Cameron is a Eurosceptic.

COMMENT THREAD

Guns but no butter

Great excitement in the European Parliament on Tuesday when Mahmoud Abbas, otherwise known as Abu Mazen addressed that august assembly, they having nothing much to do at the time, and explained that there was one Palestinian politician around who was ready to negotiate with Israel.

That politician was himself and it is true that he did signal before the last set of elections that the notion of acknowledging Israel’s right to exist and the creation of two states in Palestine were things he could live with. Unfortunately, this did not extend to anything like a control of the various terrorists. Instead, he spent almost all the money the Palestinian Authority received from the World Bank and other organizations on employing more and more people to work for the authority and to join various militias, not forgetting money for the families of members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade who had suicided, successfully or unsuccessfully, themselves.

Still, Mr Abbas is viewed as a moderate in Palestinian politics and was greeted rapturously in the Toy Parliament, whose members seem to be uncharacteristically modest and silent on the subject of the effective civil war that is going on in Gaza. Usually, those overpaid bozos in Brussels/Strasbourg pass resolutions and demands at the drop of a hat.

The Parliament President Josep Borrell flattered the man mercilessly and, inevitably, touched on the subject of the impoverished Palestinian Authority that is creating a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank:

“The EP President said Europe fully respected the results of January's legislative elections, even though these had caused serious concerns in the international community. "That community is starting to realise the dangers of cutting off aid. The Quartet meeting this week gave the EU responsibility for finding a mechanism for aid to the territories at least to keep public services running." He noted that the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly had warned of the chaos that could result if aid was cut off. The EU, he said, was the only body capable of talking to all parties at the same time. He told Mr Abbas: "You are the umbilical cord linking to the path of peace."”

I guess President Borrell is too busy to read the reports his researchers must have given him (mustn’t they?) about what is going on in Gaza, where Hamas, the leaders of that impoverished Palestinian Authority, have just put on the streets yet another 3,000 strong militia, complete with first-class guns and ammunition.

Little Green Footballs reports that

“The Palestinian Authority is asking a federal judge to reconsider an order to pay nearly $200,000 to the estate of a couple killed in Israel in a terrorist attack, saying the PLO Mission here will have to close if the money is turned over.”

The heading of the piece “Don’t Whine For Me, Abu Mazen” implies a certain amount of scepticism about pleas of poverty.

There is a link to another blog that sums up the story of the new militia, the existing militias and the “shocking and astonishing” revelation that the late unlamented Chairman Arafat had spent large amounts of aid money on arming terrorist groups. Whatever his wife did not secrete in Paris, one assumes. Well, of course, none of us knew this. Goodness me, no.

Nothing much changes, it seems. As the Hedgehog Blog puts it: “Millions for Kalashnikovs Not a Penny for Economic Development”. And not just Kalashnikovs but many other kinds of guns, ammunition, rockets and explosives. Somehow, despite the humanitarian crisis being created by the wicked West not giving bucketfuls of money directly to the Palestinian Authority, there is never any shortage of it for the arming of the various militias.

COMMENT THREAD

Do as I say…

I doubt whether they call it the Inland Revenue in Sweden but, like every tax authority everywhere, it is keen to extract as much money as possible from its unwilling "clients".

In this spirit thus did the Swedish tax authority recently produce a series of advertisements encouraging taxpayers to pay up on time, intended for broadcast at peak time viewing.

What has now emerged, however, much to the embarrassment of this self-same authority, is that the films were made in low-cost Estonia, partly in a bid to escape high Swedish taxes. Apparently, they would have cost 50 to 100 percent more to make in high-tax Sweden.

Not content with that, the authority has had to admit that the high cost of doing business in Sweden has it tax office to make films in Barcelona and Majorca, and print brochures in Finland.

According to the latest Eurostat figures Sweden has the highest tax burden in the EU at 50.5 percent of GDP in 2004, up from 50.2 percent in 2003. The average tax rate for the 25 EU countries was 39.3 percent of GDP in 2004 versus 39.5 percent.

The rapidly growing Slovakian, Polish and Estonian economies also have the lowest tax burden in the EU.

According to a report in Dagens Industri, Sweden has lost 60,000 production jobs since 2001 as Sweden's buyers - like the tax office - opt for goods and services from lower-cost countries.

COMMENT THREAD

The UN hits out at the US

One of the least surprising pieces of international news was reported on the BBC and Al-Jazeera (with the latter providing a far more balanced and straightforward coverage than the dear old Beeb). The story has since been picked up by just about every other western news service and will, no doubt, be chewed to death in the evening news broadcasts.

The United Nations Committee against Torture has ordered the United States to close down Guantánamo and various other prisons where suspected terrorists are housed.

It has also insisted that the detainees, released or otherwise, should not be sent to countries where they might be tortured or maltreated. This presents certain problems, since most of the detainees, who had simply been taking a holiday in Afghanistan, carrying large amounts of ammunition and explosives as anyone would, come from countries where they are almost certainly going to be maltreated.

In fact, a number of ex-Gitmo inhabitants have been sent back to Russia (though they begged not to), where they promptly disappeared. A similar fate befell those that were sent back to France. Several released detainees are still in Guantánamo because they have nowhere to go, their home countries being somewhat unpleasant and the very liberal European countries, who are always ready to criticize the US, not wanting, understandably, to take them in.

Not content with making idiotic suggestions of that kind, the Committee, which consists of 10 “independent” experts (more of them below), has also demanded that the United States create a federal crime of torture, having professed itself to be pleased but not entirely satisfied with assurances that torture was not allowed to be carried out in American prisons or by American officials.

The truth is that unlike some other countries, the United States actually prosecutes those who are accused of torturing prisoners. The idea of making something a federal crime because a United Nations committee says so is abhorrent to that country as wishes to preserve its independence and democratic accountability.

That and other demand “to broaden the definition of psychological torture” are nothing but variants of our old friend: the tranzi demand that the constitutional and democratically elected government of the United States submit to the authority of a completely unaccountable body, made up of international “experts”, part of a seriously corrupt and unreformable organization. We have written about the UN and its shenanigans often enough on this blog.

While we are on the subject of experts, let us have a look who are the members of this Committee at the moment. In the past they have had representatives from DR Congo and Egypt, among other countries where human rights are highly respected.

The present 10 members are:

Ms. Essadia BELMIR Morocco
Mr. Guibril CAMARA Senegal
Ms. Felice GAER, Vice-chairperson United States of America
Mr. Claudio GROSSMAN, Vice-chairperson Chile
Mr. Fernando MARIÑO MENENDEZ, Chairperson Spain
Mr. Andreas MAVROMMATIS Cyprus
Mr. Julio PRADO-VALLEJO Ecuador
Ms. Nora SVEAASS Norway
Mr. Xuexian WANG, Vice-chairperson China
Mr. Alexander KOVALEV Russian Federation

Those one can check back on are not precisely experts on anything but officials either in the human rights business, such as the American representative or just the government, as the Latin American ones.

Then we have a representative from China, who appears to be a diplomat (so far as we know he was never a tank driver) and a representative from Morocco. Just the sort of people one wants to take instructions from on the subject of human rights, torture and legality.

COMMENT THREAD

Detached from reality

Although we covered the arrival yesterday of the A380 at Heathrow fairly comprehensively, we cannot resist commenting on the editorial marking the event in The Independent today (subscription only). The relevant part reads:

The completion of the A380 also gainsays the pervasive doom-mongering about the European Union. Airbus is one of the EU's great successes. That the consortium has brought this ambitious project to fruition shows that the sometimes quarrelsome Europeans are capable of impressive co-operation when they put their minds to it. For all the logistical problems of assembling components in so many countries so far apart, Airbus has also proved itself competitive. So far, 16 firms have placed orders, including Virgin Atlantic.

What is remarkable here is the pathetic attempt by this Europhile paper to attach the Airbus project to the EU, and to make out that it is a product of that political construct which, currently, comprises 25 member states.

The Airbus consortium is, in fact, comprised of industrial partners from four member states, France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom – soon to be three with the departure of BAE Systems. Thus, whether it is a "success" or not – and the jury is very much out on that – it has nothing to do with the EU.

This is trouble with the Europhiles. So devoid of real success (or any) is the EU that they grasp at any passing straws, desperate to show the utility of their construct. In inhabiting that little fantasy world of their own creation, however, they are completely detached from reality.

It is, therefore, not possible to have any engagement with them. The only useful strategy is to adopt the Harrison Ford solution.

COMMENT THREAD

In the "difficult" file

"There is a need to know how we are going to move forward, how Europe intends to move forward and how the UK intends to respond to that." So spoke the Lord Blackwell in a House of Lords debate yesterday, outlining the four possible options discussed.

Some said that the constitution is now dead and buried and that we should forget it and move on. Some said that there is so much in it that could and should be implemented and that the EU should find ways of doing that on a piecemeal basis. Some, think that we need a constitution and that some form of constitution should be put back on table. And some, like the Noble Lord, feared that, whatever we decide, the EU will carry on implementing much of the constitution regardless through the existing treaty base, and that our only choice if we do not want to be part of that is now to opt out.

But the one thing that did not emerge from the debate was the Government's position, other than that it was not yet time to answer any questions on the future of the European Union.

Cue Peter Riddell in The Times this morning, who declares: "Europe will not go away, so let's start discussing its future." Like this blog, he has noticed that, ever since the Budget deal in December, the main parties have avoided talking about Europe.

Despite the fantasies of some EU leaders, writes Riddell, the draft constitution is dead, as was recognised in the Lords debate by such Europhiles as Lord Brittan of Spennithorne and Lord Hannay of Chiswick. "To pretend otherwise, or that it will somehow be introduced by the back door, is misleading alarmism", Riddell asserts, the adding, "but questions about how the EU is governed will return before long to the centre of the EU agenda."

"Nothing will be decided until there is a new French president in spring 2007," he says, but "it is a classic British error to pretend that what we do not want to face will not occur. It is far better to start thinking now about the future of the EU."

We would prefer it if people started thinking about our future as a nation, but we take Riddell's point. Unfortunately, it is likely to go unheeded. The European Union is "difficult", so it has been carefully buried in the filing cabinet. That is where the politicos prefer it to remain.

COMMENT THREAD

On a collision course

The EU commission has already shown its teeth when it comes to imposing its regulations on the marketing of genetically modified seeds, and has had a gaggle of member states in court – including Austria, France and Germany – for defying its edicts and daring to ban GM seeds in their territories.

But this, it seems, has not dissuaded Poland from taking on the might of Brussels. Yesterday, in defiance of EU law, president Lech Kaczynski signed into Polish law an Act banning trade in genetically modified seeds. It also forbids the import of GM seeds and the inclusion of genetically modified seeds/plants in the national plant record.

This is largely the work of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. It has been running the campaign "Stop GMO's in Poland - Create GMO free zones" since June 2004 and achieved its first success in September 2004, with the declaration by one province for a GMO free zone. Others followed, until, on 16th February 2006, the last of the 16 declared.

In February of this year, the ICPPC hosted an international conference in
Krakow (pictured), with the participation of representatives from 13 countries, drawing up what it called the Krakow Declaration, calling for a 10 year moratorium on all GMOs.

The Act banning GMOs was passed on 27 April 2006 by the Seym (lower house), having already been agreed by the Senate, an action that now puts Poland on a collision course with the commission, which has consistently refused to accept national or regional independent banning of GMOs.

Whether Kaczynski's action is bravado, or he plans to make the new law stick, remains to be seen, but the commission is going to have to hold the line on this issue if it is to retain its authority. Poland looks to be heading straight for the ECJ and the question is, what will it do then?

COMMENT THREAD

Flying into stormy weather

"This is a great day for London, a great day for Britain, a great day for British manufacturing and a great day for European co-operation," said Gordon Brown on the occasion of the first visit from the Airbus A380 "superjumbo" to London Heathrow.

When it enters service, the A380 will overtake Boeing's 747 jumbo jet as the world's largest commercial jet, but this will come at a price. To accommodate the aircraft, Heathrow operator BAA is having to spend some £500 million upgrading the airport, including strengthening a runway at a cost of nearly £200 million.

The fanfare of the aircraft's arrival also obscures that fact that the Airbus company is flying into stormy weather. Not least, despite Gordon's praise for "European co-operation", that co-operation is about to end when BAE Systems pull out of the Airbus consortium.

Despite the hubris, the order book for the $13-15 billion programme is stuck at 159 aircraft after six years of marketing, and is now facing new competition from Boeing which has launched an updated 747. While this seats only 450 passengers, against the A380's maximum 550, Boeing's new aircraft, code-named the 747-8, is offering exceptional fuel efficiency which could rule out the use of an A380 on routes that do not utilise its full 550 seats. Industry analysts estimate that this could cost Airbus most of the 200-500 seat market, worth over $600 billion in the next 20 years.

A more immediate problem, though, is the A350, the long distance wide-bodied competitor to Boeing's 787 "Dreamliner", which is fast coming unstuck. Having attracted a mere 100 orders – none from first-line carriers – against 400 for the 787, potential purchasers have warned Airbus that it will need a complete re-design if it is to become competitive, pushing the company against its financial limits.

Turning to the traditional source of development funds, however – the governments of the countries which produce the Airbus – has put the company in the firing line from the US again, which has warned that any increase in subsidies would intensify the long-running dispute, currently before the World Trade Organisation.

Furthermore, Airbus is suffering a dramatic nose-dive in sales of its mid-market, wide-body jet, the 300-380 seat A340 500/600. It has been comprehensively outpaced by Boeing's equivalent, the 777, which sold 155 models in 2005, compared with a mere 15 for the A340.

As a result, for the first time in five years, Boeing's order book now exceeds that of Airbus and, in order to recover its position, Airbus is looking at having to launch an all-new, wide-body family to replace both the A340 and A350.

Apart from creating financial strains, and bringing the WTO issue back to the boil, this would create serious credibility problems for the company. It would be forced to admit that it launched an aircraft (the A350) and made performance promises to customers well before the design was finalised, which it cannot currently deliver.

On top of that, EADS, which owns the bulk of Airbus – and is set to acquire the BAE Systems share – is looking to expand its activities in the defence sector, which will compete for funding priorities within the company. That will be happening while Airbus suffers a short-term loss of sales as the new range is developed and, if that was not enough, around 2010, the company will have to invest in developing a replacement for its best-selling A320.

Yet, if it wants to remain a serious player in the civil aviation market, Airbus will have no option to meet all these challenges. Thus, with the A380 still nowhere near break-even, the next six to eight years looks to be a lean time for the European manufacturer. Boeing, on the other hand, is set to romp away, into new realms of profitability.

The A380 flying into Heathrow today may have been applauded by Gordon Brown but its parked shape alongside the custom-built pier begins to look more like a stranded whale, a fitting symbol for the "old Europe" that created it.

COMMENT THREAD

Wanted: set of British values

After the bomb explosions on the London Underground last July and after it became obvious that the men who perpetrated the crime were not immigrants or asylum seekers but lads who had been British born and bred, there was a certain flurry of excitement about having to impart British values to all our citizens, particularly those who might not be terribly in favour of them (if they knew what these consisted of).

At the time we pointed out in two separate postings (here and here) that before British values can be imparted they need to be defined and for various reasons they have never been. In the past they may have been understood in a rather muddled and often contradictory fashion but there was no need for a definition.

Now that a definition would be useful the co-ordinates are missing. Nothing daunted the government has announced that

“All secondary school pupils could be taught about "core British values" such as freedom, fairness and respect under new plans unveiled today.

A six-month government review will look at whether learning about how values such as freedom of speech are embedded in British history could help social inclusiveness.

The aim is to give children what officials called a 'strong sense of British identity and an understanding of British culture and traditions', beyond the citizenship classes which already form part of their curriculum.”

The very language used in the announcement tells us why this is a doomed project. Social inclusiveness? British culture and traditions? What are all those things?

A number of people on all sides of the political spectrum (there are some sane people on the left) have pointed out that culture, traditions, values, identity are not concepts that can be defined and imposed by the state. Well, they can be as they were in the Soviet Union, where there was a reasonably clear official line about those values, but it is not advisable if support is to be maintained.

The Pub Philosopher, for instance, rightly points out that schools should concentrate on teaching children how to behave rather than tell them what is the behaviour that is most likely to be part of British cultural tradition. (He also suggests that the poem "If", which just happens to have been voted as people's favourite poem in this country, sums all that you need to know about core values.)

“I'm not sure that trying to teach a set of prescribed values is necessary or achievable. The grammar schools that used to produce such good academic results often had an underlying ethos but it was rarely overt. It was usually reinforced by rewarding and punishing behaviour, rather than by reference to a published set of values. Which would be more effective, telling children that queueing is an example of a core British value - politeness, or just encouraging them to queue when at school?”

Personally, I do not think queueing is as important as all that, though obviously, it is quite useful. But it is a little trivial to be a core value, unless it is seen as part of a general set of good manners, in their turn, seen as part of an acceptable, courteous and less selfish way of behaving.

In the same way, freedom of speech, which never really existed and cannot really exist in full (particularly not in a country that has the most ferocious and unjust libel laws in the world that are used by crooks, tyrants and financiers of terrorists from all over the world to silence their critics) has become a substitute for the old-fashioned concept of freedom and liberty.

Not only is the government not the right body to start defining or imposing core cultural values but teachers are not really the right people to transmit them as is perfectly clear from some of the comments from the unions. It could, after all, be argued that it is the teachers who have destroyed all understanding of what Britain and Britishness are all about.

Setting aside the waffle about teaching of religious values and, particularly, what is to be done about the teaching of Islam, one can discern that the review will be led by head teacher Keith Ajegbo. I know nothing about Mr Ajegbo, not even which school he is the head of, but would it not be a good idea to find out what sort of values and standards it lives by?

Then there are all the idiotic statements by spokespersons of teaching unions.

“The initiatives have also been broadly welcomed by teaching unions, but they have expressed concern at what exactly the government means by "core British values".

"It would not be appropriate to promote an imperial British myth by teaching that values such as democracy, justice and fair play are exclusively British or that Britain is superior to other countries," said Philip Parkin, general secretary of the PAT [Professional Association of Teachers].

National Union of Teachers (NUT) general secretary Steve Sinnot said the London bombings had "triggered rightly a "reflection on how society can tackle ideologies which lead to terrorism".

But he too warned the so-called core values should not be taught as the only ones that count, saying: "There is another core value which the government needs to promote, and that is respect for different points of view."”

A mish-mash, in other words. But then, what can you expect from a government whose members are unaware of the importance of parliamentary democracy and believe that gaining more votes than other parties gives them the right to do anything they like to anyone they like?

What can you expect from teachers’ unions who have consistently undermined all attempts to teach the English language (surely the greatest of all core values and integrating factors) or English-language literature or the history of this country and the way it has impacted on the world? Hint: the rest of the world has been learning all those things. A recent report that showed foreign students to have a much better grasp of English grammar and punctuation was not particularly surprising.

Then there is the problem of the European project, one that all the other member states are having to deal with. It is not a question of whether Britain is European or not. In some ways she is, in some she is not. In any case, there are so many different, often contradictory aspects of being European that any assertion for or against is going to be meaningless.

The real problem is that at the heart of the European project lies a desire to do away with the national identities of European nations on the slightly insane base that wars and massacres have been caused uniquely by European nationalism. But national identities were real, if poorly defined; European identity remains a chimaera. So, at a time when we in the West are being challenged by determined groups whose aim is to undermine and destroy our values, we can present only a weakened version of what we might or might not be fighting for.

None of the so-called European or, for that matter, British values can stand up to any kind of examination. Tolerance? Tell that to the Catholics or Elizabethan England or the victims of the Gordon riots.

Freedom of speech? I have already referred to our libel laws.

Parliamentary government, constitutional democracy, the pride of the Anglosphere? What of all that legislation that cannot be thrown out or reversed that arrives through the managerial governance of Brussels? What, for that matter, of the ability the Executive in this country has of emasculating the Legislative and, controlling the Judiciary?

One can go on like this for a long time. Perhaps, I should now turn to more specific points and make some suggestions about what could be taught as subjects, that would bring about an understanding of those nebulous core values.

First and foremost, there is the English language that has not been taught properly in our schools for several generations. Britain may be the only country in which people are proud of not knowing how their language – one of the greatest treasures of world culture – works; proud of not understanding the grammatical structures and of having no idea of the punctuation.

In addition, there is a strange notion abroad that it does not matter whether you learn the language or not. So, here are my first two suggestions:

Restore the teaching of the English language to the schools of this country and ensure that no 16-year old leaves without knowing how to read extensively and write correctly. (Given the facts of the teaching of English for the last few decades, we may well have to introduce wide-spread remedial teaching.)

Secondly, stop wasting taxpayers’ money on producing official material in twenty-seven different languages. If private firms want to recruit for their own purposes in other languages, that is their business. But it is not the job of a local council or of the NHS to encourage ignorance of the language of this country.

If people do not want to learn, they should not be forced. First generations of immigrants often did not learn the language of their new country in the past either. But such people will have to rely on the assistance of their friends and families to guide them through officialdom.

Next point: history. Readers of this blog are probably aware of me snarling about the lack of historical knowledge in this country. We need to know the history of Britain and of other countries because no country develops or evolves in vacuum. Luckily, as someone has once pointed out to me, the history of Britain is the history of the world.

So, here is my third suggestion: teach children history from an early age. Not bits and pieces about the Tudors and the Second World War but history from beginning to as close as possible to our own day. It can be done. Other countries do it.

There is no need to keep exalting British achievements or explaining how everything Britain did was for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Children will make up their own minds on the basis of reasonably accurate information and will acquire a clear idea of their identity.

The history of Britain and of the British Empire is the history of many peoples and many nations. There is room in that narrative for all.

Next: constitutional matters. It is not citizenship, a nebulous concept if ever there was one, that we need to teach but a clear, factual knowledge of the constitutional structure of this country, of the various institutions within it and the international organizations it belongs to.

The school in which I took my A-levels had something called Civics for the sixth-formers. It was a purely factual class and the head teacher who took it, went through British legislation, other countries’ legislation, structure of UN, NATO and the then Common Market. Jolly useful, it was, too.

Of course, these matters should be taught truthfully. There is very little point in affirming that Parliament legislates in this country when the truth is that Parliament has no right to reject EU directives and regulations.

Above all, we must stop being the only country in the world where generations are growing up without knowing who the Head of State is, what the National Anthem is and how did the Union Flag come to be what it is. Believe me, every French child knows the Marseillaise and the history of the tricoleur.

If, on top of all that, schools, parents and other establishments insist on certain standards of behaviour and, of course, resume teaching other subjects as well, we might find that those core values develop all by themselves without any intervention on the part of the politicians, who, as we know, have no values whatsoever.

COMMENT THREAD

They can also see it

We noted earlier the strange lack of political response to the Watts judgement from the ECJ, two days ago, not least the facile, party-political point made by shadow health spokesman Andrew Lansley.

But, if the mainstream British parties don't get the point (or are intent on ignoring it), it has not been lost on the Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin. They have been quick into the lists, in a press release, asserting that the ECJ ruling "strengthens argument for all-Ireland health service".

The declaration that health service patients forced to wait longer than they should for medical treatment are entitled to reclaim the cost of being treated in other European countries, the Party says, will have far-reaching consequences for both health departments across Ireland.

It will means that health departments on both sides of the border "must now stop paying lip service to the establishment of an all-Ireland health service and start taking positive and concrete steps to make the creation of a single health service on the island of Ireland a reality." Spokesman John O'Dowd adds:

The harmonisation of health services on an all-Ireland basis would deliver major benefits for tens of thousands of people across Ireland. This is about ensuring the free-flow of patients, based on clinical need, from one part of the country to the other. It is about removing unnecessary impediments, which are preventing the harmonisation of health systems on the island, and delivering a modern, flexible service fit for purpose that can cater for the needs of all.

From his perspective, such an outcome is obviously desirable, but O'Dowd clearly has not thought it through. What applies on an all-Ireland basis clearly has the same force of logic when applied to a pan-EU level. Where there is a free-flow of patients across borders, the argument for a strategic, cross-border health authority becomes very powerful and highly attractive to the integrationalists.

As we observed last Tuesday, therefore, the Court's judgement was a significant step towards a European Health Service. That our politicians do not want to address this issue confirms further the degree of denial which infects the British body politic.

COMMENT THREAD

Fishing in muddy waters

It says something for the wonders of the internet that the words of a Luxembourg politician should be recorded by a German newspaper and posted on its website, for them to be picked up by a small political group masquerading as a news agency, based in the EU parliament in Brussels, to be retransmitted by a Chinese news agency, then to be trawled over by a blogger in Yorkshire, England, and posted back on the net via a server in California.

The politician in question, as you might have guessed, is Jean-Claude Junker, prime minister of the principality of Luxembourg, his comments recorded on Xinhuanet in terms that he does not think that a deal on the EU constitution is possible before 2009 – and even that date is optimistic.

This originally emerged from an interview with German newspaper Sueddeutsch Zeitung, with Juncker counselling that, instead of rushing to revive the constitution, the EU should instead extend its "period of reflection on the constitution," scheduled to end in June.

Such caution comes from a man who was at the helm during the traumatic period (for the "colleagues") last year when first the French and then the Dutch rejected the constitution. At the time, he seemed to have had the greatest of difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "no", so his conversion to the cause of realism is all the more welcome.

Unlike the commission, which is relying on its recent "special Eurobarometer" to perpetuate the myth that "citizens" want "more Europe", Juncker seems to believe there is a serious crisis for the very opposite of reasons, that "there is no longer a majority of Europeans who want more (EU)."

Like others in his class, though, Juncker believes that the intervening time should be spent extolling the virtues of "Europe", picking on the same areas outlined by the commission - international organized crime and terrorism – as well as underlining the importance of the single currency, all to demonstrate the utility of the construct.

What he perhaps does not fully appreciate – or is studiously avoiding – is the determination of national politicians (and the media) to avoid discussing "Europe". This is not only a British phenomoneon but one which will increasingly prevail in France and the Netherlands, as national election campaigns dominate the political environment.

Meanwhile, we are left with a paradox. The top level "political Europe" might be atrophying, but the classic Monnet-style economic and administrative integration continues apace, aided and abetted by the EU Court of Justice – as we saw recently with the Watts judgement.

Nevertheless, this too is having its reverses, not least with the failure to promote greater integration of the energy market and the problems with gaining acceptance of the services directive.

Juncker, therefore, is fishing in muddy waters. It is not surprising that he is forecasting delays in the timetable of integration, but neither he nor anyone else is yet able to see whether the operators might eventually be forced to recognise a greater reality and post a "cancelled" notice on the destination board.

COMMENT THREAD

We're shocked!

For all the huffing and puffing last February over the French move to block the merger between the Italian energy giant Enel and the French utilities company, Suez, it has come to naught.

This was the move which, as readers will recall, had the then Italian economy minister, Giulio Tremonti, squeaking in protest that it was "1914 all over again", talking excitedly about "war" and calling on Berlusconi, his then prime minister, to take retaliatory action.

Europe was "drifting into crisis", according to Tremonti, who warned that we would "end up like Europe's royal families after the Great War: all pointing their fingers at each other and saying 'you started it'".

Well, it turns out that the EU commission wasn't in the least impressed. Despite charges of "economic patriotism", it has decided – according to the International Herald Tribune - that France did not violate internal market rules by carrying out a "pre-emptive" merger between state-controlled Gaz de France and Suez, even if it was engineered to thwart the bid from its Italian rival.

The commission, you will be pleased to learn, has spent several weeks labouring over information about the French government's role in this affair and the spokesman for Charlie McCreevy, the EU internal market commissioner, has informed us that the reply from the French government was "satisfactory". "At this stage it really seems that this is enough for us," he says.

This is, effectively, a re-statement of McCreevy's view at the time, although it was hotly disputed by his commission colleague Franco Frattini, who declared that nothing less than the "European interest" was at stake.

This had prompted the commission president, José Manuel Barroso, joined belatedly by McCreevy, to issue a series of sharp oral warnings about the deal, saying the French action broke the "spirit" of EU law. But McCreevy still said he would need more proof to rule that France broke the letter of EU regulations.

Now, with the French documents well and truly studied, McCreevy has firmed up on his original statements and decided that there is not enough evidence to make a case that Paris breached EU law.

And, although the commission has not ruled out taking action once the French regulator had investigated the government's involvement in the merger, with Neelie Kroes, the EU competition commissioner, leading a review of the merger on antitrust grounds, this looks like the end of the affair. War has been averted. The tanks can go back to their bases and the troops can go home to their loved ones.

As for any suggestion that France has got away with it once again, all we can say is that we're shocked at the very idea, truly shocked, I tell you.

COMMENT THREAD

What does it take?

I despair. Really, I do. The media is full of blather about the supposed drought in the south and whose fault it might be. Not one article, as far as I can make out, even mentions the EU Framework Water Directive (2000/60/EC) and the insane amount of money that has to be spent every year on the implementation of every single one of the items, whether they make sense or not. Only when they have done that can water companies even start to think about mending pipes and stopping leakages.

Looking for some intelligent reporting and analysis I turned to the Daily Telegraph business section and read Damian Reece’s column. Couldn’t argue with most of it – we need a genuinely business-friendly government; Blair makes all the right noises, notably at the CBI dinner yesterday; lack of forward thinking (or, indeed, any thinking) on the part of the opposition.

“However, I doubt we will see much in the way of concrete changes that will solve, for instance, the country's desperate shortage of electrical engineering graduates. As far as business is concerned, the more you listen to the rhetoric the more obvious the gaps in the government's thinking become.

You then realise how totally irrational it is that the opposition front benches are hell-bent on using UK companies as whipping boys to get elected, rather than gaining their support and trust as a leg-up to government.”

How true. Nor can one have any kind of an argument with the final sentence of this section:

“[A] future UK government needs to help us face outward to the world and look after the interests of Big Britain rather than Little Europe.”

The trouble is that Mr Reece seems a little hazy as to what that little Europe is and how it operates.

One of his, apparently very sensible, suggestions is that the government of the opposition should spend a little time in thinking about targeting the money better in public procurement “to help Britain’s crucial entrepreneurial base”?

Money should be spent with smaller companies (who cannot precisely produce all those toys my colleague is so fond of but can provide services), which are often backed by venture capital. Well, of course it should. And the idiotic amount of paperwork that any firm that tries to bid for a contract or, even, manages to win one, should be reduced. What is the point of earning £1,000 and spending 4 days filling in forms?

There is, however, another aspect to the problem. Has Mr Reece not heard of the Procurement Directive (97/52/EC) with its many additions and corrigenda? Apparently not. At least, he does not mention it any more than all those articles about the drought mention the Water Framework Directive.

Rather courageously, Mr Reece goes on:

“On a wider issue, perfectly rational, sane and highly successful chief executives are consistently telling me of their growing concerns over the influence of Brussels and the European Union. Being a key trading partner is crucial but the political and policy benefits of being linked to the EU have been, well, questionable to say the least.”

Are we to understand that somehow criticism of the European project and Britain’s membership of it is somehow irrational and the preserve of complete failures?

In any case, rational and highly successful they may be but neither they (if they are quoted accurately) nor Mr Reece seem to understand that EU legislation is not “influence” but the law of the land. In other words, those directives and regulations that come out of Brussels have to be implemented – it is a legal requirement.

What would it take for people who have apparently risen high in the business world and, more to the point, leading journalists who write about that business world, to understand the truth of the situation? For unless people do understand, they cannot start thinking of how to solve the problem.

COMMENT THREAD

Getting the point

The Times leader today comments on yesterday’s ECJ ruling in favour of Yvonne Watts.

Interestingly, in its piece, headed, "The European Court's unerring knack of erring", it mirrors the line taken by this blog. Thus it suggests that, while "at face value" the ruling would appear to hold potential benefits for NHS patients, in fact it is going to create a legal minefield.

More to the point, The Times notes the way the Court has defined healthcare as a "service", thus allowing the court to invent a huge amount of new law. It "has now become a player in the NHS, on the ground that it is legislating on free movement of services," the paper concludes.

That is very much the way we saw it, with the added proviso – we think - that this paves the way for the commission to propose "harmonising" legislation affecting the provision of healthcare throughout the EU.

Thus, while The Times considers that yesterday's ruling "is further proof that when given the choice, the European Court will always place its limitless desire for harmonisation and integration before all else, including the interests of the sick," it is also a step change in the process of integration.

Despite the significance of the judgement, though, the politicos have been remarkably silent about its implications.

If The Times is getting the point, the Conservative website simply has Andrew Lansley using the ruling to make a facile party political point about the government's "target culture". Possibly, Lansley does not understand what has happened, but then he could hardly complain about more integration. After all, the Conservatives don't do "Europe" any more.

COMMENT THREAD

A matter of geography

From the rush of media reports on the immigration chaos today, with The Telegraph offering a particularly strident front page, reporting that "immigration control was denounced as a mockery yesterday", one can only conclude that the very term "immigration control" has been elevated by this government to the status of an official oxymoron.

Any idea of immigration actually being controlled, it seems, has flown out of the window, as Home Office officials no longer even bother to excuse or conceal the fact that they have “not the faintest idea" how many people are here illegally and no figures on the extent to which people refused asylum were followed up for deportation.

Furthermore, Dave Roberts, who holds the title Director, Enforcement and Removals, at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, says that checking on individuals was "not an effective strategy..." adding that, "we are making huge efforts to remove them but not at the basis of tracing individuals".

And, to add insult to injury, it now appears that not only are individuals not pursued, hundreds of thousands of National Insurance numbers are given to foreign nationals without any check on their status.

But what is especially chilling are the responses of home secretary John Reid and Tony Blair – the latter at prime minister's questions this morning.

Reid started the rot yesterday saying that, "We are not going to be able to solve this (immigration problem) until we have biometric passports and ID cards counting those who leave." He was then followed by Blair this morning saying that "electronic borders and identity cards" were part of the solution.

Unwittingly or not, what both these men have done is point up that they favour the "continental" model of immigration control rather than traditional British methods.

The difference is that on a continental land mass, with highly porous land borders between nations, there is no realistic chance of implementing effective entry controls. The system must rely, therefore, on a system of internal and administration checks, all based on the provision of identity cards to citizens – which differentiate them from illegal immigrants.

The British system, on the other hand, is able to exploit the fact that we are an island, providing a convenient natural barrier between ourselves and our neighbours. This means that entry controls are a realistic proposition. And, if controls at the points of entry are properly carried out, this means that we can have a fairly relaxed internal system, on the presumption that very few people will be in the country who are not entitled to be there.

It would seem that part of the chaos in the immigration system is the result of having dismantled the British "insular" system while not having yet introduced the continental system – which explains the enthusiasm for ID cards. But that begs the question as to why our politicians feel the need to change systems in the first place.

Undoubtedly, this is – at the very least – "guided" by our need to harmonise our systems with our EU "partners" and, as such, yet again illustrates the fatuity of adopting Europe's "one-size-fits-all" approach to administrative issues.

But, if the EU is having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that we are an island nation – and thus are able to do things differently – our politicians should be staunch in reminding them, and insisting that we exploit the advantages of our island status.

The trouble is that our politicians are now so imbued with the "European way" that they have evidently lost sight of what being British means, with the results that are only too obvious. Somebody, perhaps, should give Mr Blair an atlas and remind him that the British Isles are precisely what their title states – islands – on which basis, he should relearn the fact that immigration controls are largely decided by geography.

COMMENT THREAD

Quelle surprise!

News comes that Dominique de Villepin has survived a no confidence vote called by the Socialist opposition in the Assemblée Nationale. To pass, 289 votes were needed and only 190 were mustered.

This is not altogether suprising as the government coalition of parties holds 364 of the 577 seats. Of course, de Villepin himself has never been elected to any post but these are minor considerations.

COMMENT THREAD

Cui bono?

The naked populism of the EU in seeking to cut mobile phone roaming charges is getting increasingly surreal.

Following the opposition of the industry regulators, which came in the wake of some of the major players slashing their own charges, it now transpires that the EU's plan could have the effect of increasing domestic mobile charges.

This is according to Reuters which is retailing warnings from operators, after EU information society and media commissioner Viviane Reding revealed the detail of her proposal to MEPs in Strasbourg yesterday.

Inbound calls from abroad, it seems, would be free of roaming charges, while an outgoing call would be charged at the same rate as if it had been dialled back home, rules that could see operators being forced to offer outbound roaming services at up to 19 percent below cost, wiping €4.3 billion from the European industry's collective revenues and €2.3 billion from its profits. Some operators could see their profits fall by as much as 20 percent.

Vodafone, one of the biggest operators in Europe, said the proposal would be unlawful and leave customers worse off as operators will not be able to subsidise loss-making inbound calls.

ETNO, the European Telecommunications Network Operators, which represents incumbent national operators said Reding has put forward plans before completing an in-depth assessment of their likely impact on customers and the industry. This is, it said, contrary to the commission's core "better regulation" policy of completing an assessment first to see if the benefits of legislation outweigh the cost.

Reding, however, told MEPs that she would not be swayed by industry's concerns or pre-emptive tariff cuts. But this may have something to do with the fact that she has strong support in the EU parliament where, it is said, this is one of the most popular policies to come out of Brussels in years.

And who are likely to be substantial personal beneficiaries from the reduction in roaming charges? Why, MEPs of course.

COMMENT THREAD

The reluctant empire

Noticeably lacking from any of the announcements on the forthcoming round on enlargement, to bring Romania and Bulgaria into the "European" fold, is any sense of the enthusiasm, much less euphoria, that accompanied the “big bang” of two years ago.

Thus, on the day that the commission was supposed to give the "all clear" to these two new entrants, in anticipation of their joining the EU on 1 January 2007, The Times and other sources tell us that the decision is to be deferred for six months.

Depending on whether both countries can then satisfy the commission that they have dealt more effectively with corruption and organised crime, the entry date may then be deferred until 2008.

For Romania, there are also a number of technical shortcomings, such as the lack of EU-compatible computer systems for tax collection, poor food hygiene standards and a failure to set up agencies for paying regional and farm aid,

However, even if there is a delay, there is no sense that the 22 million people of Romania and the further eight of Bulgaria are regarding accession as anything other than inevitable. And despite the huge disparities of income, the massive unemployment and the other problems, which are bound to create further strains in an already stretched EU, neither is there any sense that the current 25 member states are anything but resigned to the entry of two more members.

Effectively, this represents the latest step in the failure of the EU to develop a coherent policy towards its near neighbours and its lack of any ideas on how to assist the former Communist countries, short of absorbing them into the Union.

There is no question, though, that the appetite for further enlargement is now fading. Although, potentially, Bosnia and Serbia could be brought in, and the negotiations are proceeding with Turkey – with the Ukraine and outside possibility – the momentum has gone out of the process.

With the full implications – and effects – of the last round of enlargement yet to be fully felt, there is already a fear that bringing Romania, in particular, into the EU, will be especially troublesome, not least with predictions of at least another 300,000 migrants on the move.

Even then, France, Germany and the Netherlands have yet to ratify the accession treaties for the two applicant countries and there is an outside chance that any one of them will draw back from giving their final approval, although this may be unlikely in the longer term.

Whatever else, though, the delay confirms that the EU's days of unbridled expansion are coming to a close. It has become the reluctant empire.

COMMENT THREAD

Could we not all play that game?

Through the always interesting Environmental Republican we get the news that in one Paris suburb, that of St-Denis (one of the ones where there were carbecues last autumn, I believe) a street in the “Human Rights District” has been named after Mumia Abu-Jamal, described by the daughter of American writer Richard Wright, as “our Mandela”.

Julia Wright, a translator in Paris, appears to live off her father’s name but seems to have forgotten that Richard Wright, an immensely talented African American writer fought real racism and stood up against the murderous bullying of the Communist Party as well. To my knowledge, he never defended murderers.

So who is Mumia Abu-Jamal and why should he have a street named after him in a Paris banlieu? He is the man who has been convicted of the 1981 murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.

“Abu-Jamal, 53, was sentenced to death in 1982 for the shooting of Faulkner, who was 25. A memorial plaque honoring Faulkner has been installed at 13th and Locust Streets, where he was shot.

Abu-Jamal, a former Philadelphia journalist, Black Panther member, and critic of police brutality, has maintained his innocence.

Last year, a federal appeals court agreed to consider Abu-Jamal's appeal of his conviction. The court said it would consider Abu-Jamal's allegation of racial bias in jury selection, as well as claims that the prosecutor gave an improper summation and that a judge in a previous appeal was biased.”

The fact that Abu-Jamal knows how to play the American legal system (there would be no appeals of this kind in France, where only politicians can be exonerated) does not alter the fact that the evidence at the time was fairly conclusive.

It is hard to tell how official the campaign to free Abu-Jamal (what business is it of the Paris literati exactly?) is but, clearly, the naming of the street had to be done by the city fathers.

Should we all now start playing that game? Perhaps a street in Washington could be renamed Dien Bein Phu Street after that infamous (from the French point of view) battle? Or Djamila street after the two Algerian young women, Djamila Boupacha and Djamila Bouhired, members of the Algerian FLN, arrested and horribly tortured by the French forces in 1957? Then again, maybe it is best to leave the French to their own devices.

COMMENT THREAD

Towards a European Health Service

This morning's news that the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ) has supported 74-year-old grandmother, Yvonne Watts, comes as no surprise.

The court, in its final ruling, has effectively paved the way for thousand of NHS patients who travel abroad for surgery to have the costs of their treatment reimbursed by the government, with huge implications for the whole structure of the NHS and the provision of state health services.

The case arose after Yvonne Watts sought treatment for osteoarthritis in a British hospital in 2002, when she was placed on a one-year waiting list for surgery, despite a consultant finding that her mobility was severely hampered by her condition.

When she applied for treatment abroad, Bedford primary care trust refused to provide her with an E112 form allowing her to seek treatment elsewhere in the EU, saying that the 12-month wait was in line with government targets setting an upper limit of 15 months.

However, Mrs Watts finally went to France and paid £3,900 for a hip replacement operation in March 2003. She then sought reimbursement through the courts and, in October 2003, the UK High Court ruled that patients facing "undue delay" in waiting for NHS operations had the right under EU law to receive funding for treatment overseas.

This finding was supported by the ECJ Advocate General in December 2005, who argued that contrary to the position taken by the UK government, the EC Treaty provisions on the free movement of services apply to the case in question.

He declared that medical services are not exempt from the scope of the EC Treaty and that Mrs Watts received such a service in return for remuneration. The fact that the NHS is an entirely public body, funded by the State and providing health care free at the point of delivery, was irrelevant for determining whether the situation fell within the scope of the Treaty.

The role of the NHS was merely instrumental in relation to the main transaction between Mrs Watts and the hospital in France. He thus took the view that there was "no doubt" that Mrs Watts was a recipient of services for the purposes of the EC Treaty.

Already, there has been mixed reaction to the ruling. Dr Scott Greer of University College Hospital, London – an expert on the influence of Europe on UK health policy – says the court ruling was both "inevitable" and extremely serious because it now means we really have a European health system.

We are, in fact, not there yet, but this case comes on the back of others which – rather like the defence sector – is tightening the noose on national systems, gradually creating the framework for that "European" service.

Not least there was the B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds judgement in July 2001, which accepted that a system of prior authorisation, before patients could seek treatment abroad, was justified, if there were overriding reasons connected with "the financial balance of social security systems" and "the maintenance of hospital services available to all", provided such restrictions were not applied arbitrarily.

The Watts judgement seems to go a little further in defining the conditions where treatment must be authorised, and is a classic example of the incremental, or "salami-slicing", approach taken by the ECJ.

What is puzzling, though, is that in citing the treaties, the Court is relying on the right of "EU citizens" to receive services within the community but the treaty actually offers no such right. Article 49 of the Treaty only confers the right to provide services, outlawing any restrictions imposed in respect of nationals of member states. It thus seems a classic piece of legal adventurism that the Court has somehow transmuted a right to provide services into a right for everyone to receive them.

This notwithstanding, at one level the judgement is benign. It challenges the monopoly of the individual member state to provide free-at-the-point-of-use medical services, and expands the right of the individual to chose treatment anywhere in the EU.

On the other hand, there are significant sovereignty issues in that the member state no longer has the power to define how, where and under what conditions taxpayers' money will be spent. Furthermore, if the small trickle of "medical tourists" ever became a flood, this could have serious economic implications, and possibly impact on employment levels in UK medical services and their suppliers.

These issues present a serious challenge to Eurosceptics. Most would welcome a weakening of state control over health services and wider patient choice, but it is uncomfortable to find that the impetus for "liberalisation" comes from the European Union.

On the other hand, no Eurosceptic will entirely welcome the drain of wealth and employment to other member states, especially when we have a system which treats EU nationals free, while our own nationals are charged in EU member state hospitals, with our taxpayers having to foot the bill.

What may tip the balance of argument, however, is the certainty that this process of incremental integration is far from over. And, as the net tightens, it is a racing certainty that the commission, though the ECJ (to say nothing of Art. 52 of the Treaty), will seek to harmonise standards in hospitals throughout the EU, as a means of promoting the "liberalisation" of services.

That, if anything, is the hidden peril of the series of ECJ judgements in that the Court has quietly slipped in the concept that state-provided health services are simply another "service". They thus come fully within the framework of EU law, allowing controls to be imposed by qualified majority voting.

While "schools 'n' hospitals" have hitherto been the exclusive province of domestic politicians, this is no longer the case with hospitals. And, if they are "services" within the meaning of EU law, can schools long be excluded? Moreover, if these become EU-controlled, what will our politicians do then, poor things?

Whatever concerns we might have about our own NHS, therefore – and there are many – the prospect of the Service fully in the grip of the mad regulatory machine in Brussels, bringing to bear the same skills it has deployed in the CAP and CFP, is not one that could be embraced with equanimity. Thus, the apparent gain Mrs Watts seems to have made on our behalf may, in the longer term, prove illusory.

COMMENT THREAD

Not long now

Suddenly, postings on a military theme have become like busses – none for ages and then two arrive at the same time.

This one picks up on what the "colleagues" like to call a "side meeting" to the general affairs council, which met yesterday in Brussels – the executive board of the European Defence Agency, the EU's proto-procurement organisation which Drayson calls a " dating agency".

What happened yesterday was pretty routine stuff though, an expression of confidence by CEO Nick Witney that most of the member states would join the "voluntary" scheme for online sharing of defence contract details. It seems that, aprt from Denmark - which has a prmananet opt-out - only Spain, Hungary and Poland are poised to stay out, which means the scheme is set fair to start in July.

This is just the latest development in a number of small steps by which the commission aims eventually to bring EU member state defence procurement into the community maw, a process that started in earnest in November last year, which continues with the commission gently chipping away at the edges.

Given the Telegraph's sudden interest in defence procurement yesterday, it will be interesting to see whether it reports this detail, which brings us that little bit closer to an EU army.*

One thing it did not report was the publication last Wednesday of a Defence Select Committee report, which (perhaps unwittingly) displayed another side of the same coin.

The Committee is complaining that UK government spending on defence research and technology (R&T;) has slumped, down by about 50 percent compared with the early 1990s and at an all-time low. Spending was insufficient compared with the UKs’ its rivals and committee chairman James Arbuthnot called for the MoD to remedy the situation. "This threatens to impact both our industrial competitiveness and our military effectiveness," he said, adding, "We see defence research funding as a key investment for the future."

So important is this spending that many see it as a key issue for the long-term viability of an independent British defence capability, with Keith Hayward, head of research at the Royal Aeronautical Society, declaring that, "If they don't put money in, then slowly, over time, we will lose the capabilities we have built up through earlier investment in research."

Of course, the government is not going to respond. From its enthusiasm for developing European ventures, it is clear that it is going to funnel its research funding though European enterprises, with much of the intellectual property going offshore.

Thus, by steady incremental means do we wind down our independent capabilities and, at this rate, it will not be long before the deed is done.

* Of course, not a word in today's edition: the moving hand writes; and, having writ, moves on.

COMMENT THREAD

Why does he (try to) deceive us?

Don't worry – it's a rhetorical question. I'm not expecting an answer. But the question remains there, hanging over the new home secretary, John Reid, after his performance in the Commons today.

Having admitted that 98 of the 1,023 foreign prisoners released without being considered for deportation remain at large, and that the number included one murderer and eight rapists or child sex offenders, he then revised the level of serious offenders freed from 150 to 179. Furthermore, 57 serious offenders had gone on to commit further crimes following their release from jail, with 19 involving violence or a "sexual element".

Then we got shadow home secretary David Davis pressing Reid on Blair's pledge to "automatically deport" every foreign offender. "When does the home secretary believe he will fulfil the prime minister's undertaking of the third of May to automatically deport every foreign national who has served a prison sentence?" he asked.

Reid, we are told, said that "the presumption" would be that foreign criminals convicted of serious offenders would be deported. "It is my aim," he said, "to ensure that foreign nationals who serve significant custodial sentences in this country face deportation automatically."

Hang on…!? Did he say that all foreign nationals… would be deported automatically? Er… no! He said they would "face" deportation... In other words, they would be considered, but not necessarily deported as a result.

This reflects the reality of the situation. Both in terms of the ECHR and EU Directive 2004/38/EC, Reid knows that he cannot deport anyone "automatically" (and many, not at all).

He knows that. We know that. Why does he try to deceive us?

COMMENT THREAD

They get what they deserve

Although other newspapers have done it, The Times has run big today the story that shoppers have been "duped in organic meat scam".

In its own ponderous style, the paper tells us "it has learnt" that an investigation "will be launched into the sale of bogus organic meat in butchers' shops and at farmers' markets around Britain", as enforcement agencies start a nationwide inquiry into the sale of ordinary meat labelled as more expensive organic produce, after a growing number of reports of the practice.

Some butchers, says the paper, are believed to be cashing in on the higher value of organic meat, which sells for up to five times the price of that from a conventionally reared animal. The crime carries little risk because it is very difficult for shoppers to tell when they are being duped.

Well, whoopee do! For years I’ve been telling any journalist that cared to ask – and that is quite a few – that if they add up the total number of "British-reared" organic chickens sold in London alone each year, it actually comes to more than are produced in the entire country.

As for organic meat, in many instances there is absolutely no difference between the organic variety and those from the thousands of suckler herds reared in this country, most often the distinction being that the farmers and slaughtermen are not prepared to pay the Soil Association's extortionate fees for the dubious privilege of being able to offer an "organic" lable.

But, most of all, this is straight from the wellspring that guides those dim, self-absorbed fools of EU legislators (who have willingly lent their name to an "organic" standard). But do they really believe that, where there is no intrinsic difference in end product and its value depends entirely on the accompanying paperwork and labelling, that the paperwork is not going to go with the money?

Do they really believe that a slaughterhouse chain, with a valuable order from a supermarket for organic beef, that suddenly finds itself short of a carcase or two, is going to send short-measure down the line and tell the supermarket boss they can fulfil his order? Or is the paperwork going to be finessed?

And that is the problem with these people whose naïve faith in their own paperwork and procedures defies gravity. They are not of the real world, they don’t know how it works and they somehow believe that, because that it what is says on the wrapper, this is what go get inside – merely because they say it should.

As for the shoppers being "duped" – they dupe themselves. If they really believe that they can rely on a regulatory system that doesn’t know which way is up, then they get exactly what they deserve.

COMMENT THREAD

Tight security as Ken meets Hugo

Hizonner Ken Livingstone hosted a lunch for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez today in order to prove that he is still part of the great anti-Western movement.

His aim, as described in London@Work was to learn about democracy as well as energy and environmnet policies. Some things he does not need to learn about. One London has the report on what happened when the leader of the Conservative Party, Bob Neill, invited some Venezuelan dissidents to a meeting in the Great Glass Egg.

COMMENT THREAD

Dereliction of duty

It is a bit of the bloody nerve for The Telegraph to start pontificating now about the poor state of kit supplied to our armed forces deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a newspaper which – like most of the MSM – has retreated from any serious commentary on defence matters, its greatest concern in recent months being our Forces' underpants and cap badge designs (and here).

For sure, one cannot disagree with the thrust of its front page story, which claims that the lives of troops will be put at risk if the Ministry of Defence goes ahead with plans to refurbish a fleet of vintage helicopters as a cost-cutting measure.

Some 30 former Royal Navy anti-submarine Sea Kings helicopters, it seems, are about to be taken out of mothballs for service in operational areas, pressed into use as troop transports. It is feared that their low speed and poor performance in the desert heat would make them "sitting ducks".

Furthermore, it is impossible to disagree with the sentiments expressed in the leader, headed "Lions equipped by dinosaurs", which, for the first time in recent memory, offers of critique of MoD procurement policy. "There are several structural reasons why our defence procurement is so woeful," it says:

First, it operates without any market discipline. The MoD is a monopoly purchaser, and BAE Systems comes close to being a monopoly producer. During the 1980s, Tony Benn was struggling to explain why capitalism had not collapsed under its own contradictions, when he hit on the answer: defence procurement, he realised, was conducted on Marxist principles. Not only is the MoD protected from competition; it is also shielded from democratic accountability. Very few MPs go into politics because they are interested in weapons systems.

In consequence, defence ministers tend to play it safe, invariably following the advice of their officials. We thus have one of the purest forms of producer capture in Whitehall. The old saw about generals gearing up to fight the last war is an almost perfect description of current procurement policy. The Navy is good at defending the Atlantic sea-lanes from Soviet submarines. The RAF, now hugging itself with glee over the preposterous Euro-fighter, is ready to beat off a massed assault by MiGs.

The Nato command structure, to say nothing of the EU's growing military role, more or less guarantees that our strategic thinking remains Euro-centric and that we are not especially well prepared to garrison Iraq or Afghanistan. The misallocation of resources within the MoD means that we lag behind when it comes to drones, advanced satellite systems, high-tech missiles and modern military computers.

It then concludes that, "until procurement properly accountable, the problem will remain. Our Servicemen deserve better than this".

Actually, as readers here will know, that is only the half of it. The Telegraph cites the admirable book by Lewis Page, Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs, which sets out some of the more egregious procurement disasters, but neither the newspaper nor Page address the European issue, set out in my pamphlet The Wrong side of the Hill. There, I identified £5.8 billion wasted on overly expensive or unnecessary European procurement projects, in pursuit of the hidden Europeanisation of Britain's armed forces – not counting the colossal waste on projects like the Eurofighter. It is there that we see a massive "elephant in the room" which is sucking the lifeblood out of our Forces.

But, while we can be critical of the Telegraph for its late and wholly inadequate response (and the other media), we must also focus on the ranks of useless MPs who have largely ignored defence procurement issues. It has been left largely to the likes of shadow procurement minister Gerald Howarth and back-bencher Ann Winterton to make the running. Admirable though their efforts have been, they have not been enough, without the support of the wider House.

Thus, while the media should be ashamed, our MPs should be more so, for letting the government get away with what can only be regarded as a dereliction of duty.

COMMENT THREAD

It's still there

We wrote about it at the end of last month and watched developments since, with a faint hope but very little optimism.

Sadly, but as expected, peace has not come to Darfur. Reuters has the full story and gives some further background.

In the history of our modern civilisation, the traumas of the peoples of this benighted region of Sudan will surely be market as the moment where it became clear that Western civilisation lost its bottle.

If we can’t sort this out, we deserve to go down.

COMMENT THREAD

I don't think so

Even by its own terms of reference, this story is a tad mixed up - but then what do you expect from the Observer?

The substance of the story is welcome enough, reporting as it does that "Pipe organs saved from EU threat", an issue we raised when it was first brought up in March and again towards the end of that month .

However, on 30 March we also reported that the fragrant Margot had excluded organs from the framework of the WEEE and RoHS directives and, in the absence of a like response from this side of the Channel, it seemed that the obstacle was our government, not the commission.

Now – or so The Observer reports - in an apparent volte-face by the government, minister for energy, Malcolm Wicks, has said pipe organs should be exempt from the directive. "Our clear view," he stated, "is that pipe organs do not fall within the scope of the directive[s], and that view is widely accepted in the European Commission."

Yet, even having quoted Wickes saying that the government's view is "widely accepted in the European Commission," The Observer then goes on to suggest that it "puts it on a potential collision course with Brussels". But the truth rather seems that the government has come into line with the commission, the former rather than the latter creating the problem.

It is odd that The Observer does not seem to be able to cope with that.

COMMENT THREAD

The stench of hypocrisy

I was quietly pleased to see the front-page story on the Sunday Telegraph reporting that "green bin rounds" were leaving dustmen "black and blue".

Unions for refuse collectors, it seems, are threatening to strike over what they say is a rising tide of violence that has seen one in five of Britain's 40,000 binmen injured in physical attacks at work and more than two thirds verbally abused.

They blame the violence on growing frustration with complex regulations requiring people to minimise waste and separate recyclable materials. If households fail to sort their waste or put out too much, binmen are ordered not to take it.

Following on from our piece the day before, which also deal with the upsurge in violence resulting from the frustrations arising from increased controls over waste disposal, this story sort of re-affirms our own news values and our ability to spot a good story.

Continuing in "preen mode" (we don't do it very often), we note, however, that The Sunday Telegraph – like the Telegraph and Argus the day before – failed to pick up on the EU link, and thus failed to remind us that the bulk of the petty restrictions stem from the implementation of EU law on landfill and recycling.

Regular readers of this Blog will have noted that we have dealt with this issue not infrequently and this is the latest chapter in the growing disaster of our "green" waste policy, the full nature of which is only beginning to dawn on the wider population. It will not fully impact, though, until the bills start mounting, estimated at £10 billion for infrastructure alone with a further £5-8 billion a year in running costs.

But what we find so loathsome about this whole issue is that, while faux greenies like the Boy King prate about recycling, and boasted over the local election campaign that Conservative councils had higher recyling rates than Labour boroughs, few people are asking about what happens to the "recycled" material.

One newspaper, to give it its due, which has been following the trail is The Guardian which, as early as September 2004, was reporting on how more than a third of the waste paper and plastic collected by British local authorities, supermarkets and businesses was being sent 8,000 miles to China for disposal.

Then, exports to China were running at 200,000 tons of plastic rubbish and 500,000 tons of paper and cardboard a year, and all the indications are that the "trade" has increased substantially. Agents for Chinese companies are now buying up and exporting thousands of tonnes of unwashed bottles, containers, and other household waste.

We know also that much of the green glass, deposited so assiduously in bottle banks and collected so expensively by council collectors, ends up in landfill, simply because there is no market for it in the UK and continental users have their own supplies.

And, as for the treatment electronic waste – soon to be subject to the depredations of the waste electronics and electrical equipment (WEEE) directive, this is nothing short of a scandal. Numerous reports suggest that huge quantities – from the US as well as Europe - are being sent to China, where materials are being reclaimed under the most primitive of conditions, a practices recorded in detail here and here.

The central problem, affecting all these schemes, is that they are based on a flawed economic model. They are regulatory-driven, thus creating huge surpluses of materials which drag the price down and actually make recycling uneconomic except for low-cost societies like China. Thus, as China "corners the market", successive British companies – who are required to maintain high regulatory standards – are driven out of business.

One business that is flourishing, however, is Valpak, a company set up in the UK to administer EU-related recycling schemes, whose chief executive is none other than John Selwyn Gummer. As environment minister in Major’s government, he set up the schemes in the first place. Valpac has opened its own office in China, where it can monitor the flow of waste imported, and credit British firms with having "recycled" the quotas demanded of them by EU law.

Had the Tories elected a proper conservative for their leader, he could have revisited these schemes and come up with an effective, market-driven system which would have ensured that such material as is collected is properly used. Instead, however, the Boy has bought into the EU scheme with his fatuous Vote blue – go green campaign, advised by none other than John Selwyn Gummer.

Europhile Gummer is hardly likely to gainsay his beloved EU systems, especially as he makes such huge financial benefits from them. And such is the grip the Europhiles exert on the Boy that, as Booker reports this morning, he has appointed to advise him on foreign policy a small group of "wise men" including Chris Patten, Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind.

They make it even less likely that a "green" Conservative policy will kick over the EU traces, leaving us with a chaotic recycling policy that puts binmen in hospital, costs us a fortune and despoils developing countries.

As most people remain ignorant of this, the policy still has enough "feel-good" factors for the like of Cameron to parade but, as you lift the lids of your recycling bins, you should have no difficulty detecting the stench of hypocrisy.

COMMENT THREAD

Have they thought this through?

It was in February last that this blog dealt – in a rather cavalier manner, some of our readers thought – with the EU attempts to impose standards on vodka production in EU member states.

Then, the Agriculture Council had the Polish delegation, supported by the Danish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Finnish, Swedish and German delegations, arguing over "the importance of restricting the current definition of vodka" in the commission's then current proposal on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks.

And, amazingly, it goes on. With member states still deadlocked, the commission has come up with an absolute corker – restricting the legal definition of vodka to drinks which are made only from potato or grain.

This has precipitated another of those periodic Brussels "wars", this time between Britain and the group of Nordic and Baltic States whose produce would confirm with the EU plan. Britain is at a particular disadvantage as 20 percetn of the British spirits market is made up of own label vodka produced from molasses or sugar beet.

Diageo, the world's largest spirit's producer, would also be among those hit as its premium Ciroc brand, which has been on the market since 2003, is labelled as vodka distilled exclusively from French grape skins. That, and the British brands, will - if the commission has its way - have to be called "white spirit" or "pure alcohol". Affected manufacturers are calling the proposal "protectionist" and "utter nonsense" in a matter where there is no consumer concern at all.

But they have all missed a trick. Just supposing they did get used to the name "white spirit", how would they then distinguish the drinkable product and the similar-looking product derived from petrol which is used as a solvent and in paints and varnishes.

And, with both products bearing the same name and looking the same (i.e. a colourless liquid) who is it that gets sued when some poor unfortunate drinks the wrong stuff, especially if the label is in Russian (see above)? Some manufacturers are even selling the solvent variety as "smell-free", for household use.

I suspect the commission have not fully thought this through.

COMMENT THREAD

Boy, when things go wrong ....

As the BBC website puts it: Dominic de Villepin can do nothing right at the moment. If it is not carbecues in the banlieux, it is students demonstrating in favour of continuing high unemployment (not for them, one assumes); if it is not anybody demonstrating then he is getting flak for trying to smear his rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, a scandal that we intend to cover separately.

So what is wrong with organizing an exhibition of modern French art? Plenty, it seems.

“Some artists have decided to boycott the event, angry that the government should interfere in the arts and that it is attempting to declare an "official" French style.”

Which is, of course, rubbish as the state has always interfered in French art, as, indeed, some people acknowledged by angrily comparing de Villepin with Louis XIV. But, of course, they could just as easily compare him with Louis XV, the Revolutionary leaders, de Villepin’s beloved Napoleon, the latter’s relative Napoleon III or, for that matter, Georges Pompidou.

The trouble is, de Villepin does not seem to be able to carry it off.

The art appears to be as good or as bad as any exhibition of that kind but it is possible that the French public and media are more discerning than those of other countries.

“One of the exhibition's curators from the ministry of culture, Bernard Blistene, describes the six-week display as "a showcase for all that is best in modern France".

Despite the fact that some of the installations are uncomfortable - a video film of someone undergoing plastic surgery, super-sized skeletons towering over pretend wind farms, series of photographs of immigrant street protests - Mr Blistene denies the exhibition gives an impression of a country in pain and turmoil and refutes the idea that the show is a political comment on the state of France.

"This show is about reality and shows France as a diverse society. It's an exciting exhibition. Art is always about politics of course - you can never find art that isn't political."”

How very true, about art being political, that is. It is, however, often a mistake to let artists of any kind make political statements (unless they happen to be poets like John Milton, Andrew Marvell or Shelley). For what do we get if we let artists opine? A lot of trite nonsense, that’s what.

“Gerard Fromanger, an established painter, withdrew his work from the exhibition this month. He declined to give an interview to the BBC about his decision.

But he has been quoted before in French newspapers saying that while he has admired Mr de Villepin in the past, especially when the minister stood up to the US over going to war in Iraq, he does not believe the show has been well thought-out or that enough artists were consulted.”

One can almost feel sorry for M de Villepin.

COMMENT THREAD

March of the jobsworths

Perhaps it is only this blog that could immediately see the connection between this headline (left) in our local paper, The Telegraph and Argus, and our membership of the European Union.

The story recounts how staff at the local tips have been subject to a rising toll of threats and abuse, to the extent that police have had to be called in, while extra staff and security personnel have been recruited.

The trouble has arisen because massive charges have been imposed on tradesmen wishing to dispose of waste at the sites, on top of a complex new system of licenses and permits. Traders have been turned away if their paperwork is not correct, while others have objected to the charges. In all, staff have suffered 90 incidents of violence in just 18 months.

The reason, of course, why this draconian regime is now in force is because of the EU’s landfill directive, which is making it progressively more expensive and difficult to dispose of waste – and incidentally is leading to a massive rise in fly-tipping - hence the upsurge in frustration and violence.

But do the powers-that-be learn any lessons from their experience? Of course not. As with their response to the fly-tipping problem, they simply ratchet up the controls. This is truly the march of the jobsworths, all courtesy of the EU.

Multiply this a thousand times, however, as the grip of rules and regulations tighten, and we could be looking at our future. Who in their right mind, even a decade ago, would have ever thought it necessary to post security guards at waste tips?

COMMENT THREAD

The emasculation of common sense

It may seem a million miles from the issue of Afghan asylum-seekers hijacking an airliner to escape from a totalitarian regime, but it isn't.

A long time ago – everything seems to be a long time ago now – back in the days when I was a lowly sanitary inspector, I was called to a house by its elderly tenant, complaining of dampness.

The house was more than damp – it was dreadful. In the shadow of a huge factory, one you could easily describe as a "dark satanic mill" – which had since been taken over by an engineering firm making parts for oil rigs, and working 24 hours, with constant noise – the house never saw sunlight. It was dark, depressing and, in my view a Victorian throwback, entirely unfit for human habitation.

Our council housing policy at the time allowed for rehousing under such circumstances, and I was convinced the lady was not long for this world if she was forced to endure such conditions. She had a doctor's certificate to that effect, so I advised her to apply for a council house, and helped her fill in the forms, adding my recommendation.

That should have been it but months passed and there was still no movement, with the lady's health deteriorating rapidly. On making enquiries, I discovered the housing department had lost the forms, so we filled in another set. Again months passed, only for us to discover the same thing had happened.

Losing patience, I did something which was definitely in breach of my contract of employment – I tipped off a local journalist who next day spread the story all over the front page of his rag. There was hell to pay, with local councillors jumping up and down in anger. The lady was rehoused in a week, in delightful sheltered accommodation, where she lived a happy life for several decades more.

There were no court cases, no inquiries, no breast-beating about procedures and "human rights". Simply, the combination of media activism and local politics worked, in a common-sense way. A wrong was put right.

As the risk of trying our reader's patience, let me offer another example. This one was a single mother, in council accommodation, with what we call now a "special needs" child – actually a young adult. We used to describe them as "mentally retarded".

Anyhow, the "child" was hyperactive and some well-meaning official had recommended he was given a pet to keep him occupied. The mother bought him a large rabbit but the child had immediately slaughtered the poor creature and, from the attic, had stuffed the carcase down the cavity in the walls of the house. There, it had rotted, filling the house with an unbelievable stench, accompanied by a huge infestation of blue-bottles.

Distraught, the mother sought temporary rehousing, but there was no provision for this in the rules. I found, however, that she was entitled to a transfer and could have the keys of an alternative house for ten days, in order to make up her mind whether she wanted it.

The lady did not want a transfer but, with a nod as good as I wink, I collected the keys, borrowed a van from the works depot and moved the family into the new accommodation. Ten days later, when the stench and flies had dissipated, I moved her back and returned the keys of her "transfer" to the housing department, telling them that she did not want the house. Every rule in the book had been broken, but common sense had prevailed.

And that, as indeed our revered prime minister notes, is what is missing in respect of the Afghan asylum seekers. It is all very well listening to the sonorous words of the learned judges who, having applied their fine legal minds to the letter of the law, decided that these people had been wronged. But, whatever the legal detail, it flies in the face of common sense to suggest that hijackers, armed with explosives and guns, can benefit hugely from their actions and escape without any adverse repercussions.

Looking at it pragmatically – bearing in mind, or so we are told, that they were fleeing for their lives – one wonders whether or not a deal could not have been done with these people. Had it been discussed with them, would they have been amenable to a "token" sentence in a British jail, to show official disapproval, followed by relocation to an agreed site in, say, on the Pakistan border, with the lubrication of a small grant to the Pakistani authorities? After all, from what we are told, the court cases to date have cost over £10 million, and such a settlement would have been cheap at the price.

This, of course, is wholly speculation but one knows, intuitively and from experience, that once the lawyers get hold of a case, it is going to rack up zillions in costs and lead to an absurd outcome. Somewhere, somehow, my gut feeling tells me a sensible deal could have been brokered.

That it was not, it seems to me, encapsulates much of what is wrong with our society and goes to the heart of our objections to the European Union. The basic flaw is that groups of people, at local, national and international level, have fallen into the trap of believing that the whole gamut of human activity, and every set of circumstances, can be defined, circumscribed and regulated by a tightly-crafted set of rules, administered and interpreted by dispassionate officials and learned judges.

This, these misguided fools often claim to be the "rule of law". They pride themselves in their "rule-based" organisations and their adherence to their laws and procedures, wholly unconscious that in their blinkered obsession lies madness. The richness and diversity of human behaviour defies something so simplistic as a single set of rules. For harmonious living, and justice, it requires constant flexibility and adaptation, something which no rigid code can ever achieve.

Alright, it's Saturday, it's raining and you've nothing better else to do, so one more example. On my patch, I had a delightful – if you can use that word – traditional village butcher, with a slaughterhouse at the back. The "slaughterman" was in fact an eighty-year-old lady and, once a week, she would buy a beast from the market and keep it in her paddock. On the Monday, she would lead it to the slaughterhouse, kill it and butcher it, and then sell the meat in her shop.

Then, along came the officials. The slaughterhouse did not have the lairage required by EU regulations, or all the equipment that went with it, so it could not be licensed. The costs of such an unnecessary provision would have been many thousands – clearly an uneconomic proposition, so the slaughterhouse was closed down. And with it went the butcher.

This is why I have no time for the mantra, "the law is the law and must be obeyed". The law is for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. When the law gets in the way of common sense and wisdom – to say nothing of humanity and justice - the law should be ignored.

Then, in the final analysis, when something is clearly and egregiously wrong and requires formal adjustment, the remedy should be in the hands of politicians rather than the lawyers. They are the ultimate (in theory) guardians of our democracy and only they can be held to account, however imperfectly.

Thus, in its leader today, the Telegraph has got the right. "Freedom's best guarantor is a sovereign parliament", it says. I don't agree with all the argument but the essence is there. Laws – the rules of our conduct – are too important to be left to lawyers.

Finally, though, scrapping the Human Rights Act is not the answer – or not the complete answer. We need to reinvent that increasingly rare commodity – common sense.

COMMENT THREAD

Bi-regional strategic interests (whatever they may be)

Sometimes the EU sees itself as a burgeoning state and sometimes as a regional bloc that negotiates with other regional blocs. Both are fraught with difficulties. The world regionalization agenda was to the fore in summit meeting of 58 EU member states and Latin American countries in Vienna that has just ended.

Actually, it came to no conclusion at all, because as President Barroso sadly explained, the Latin American countries did not seem to present a united front.

“If we want to fully develop the potential of our partnership we also need to know what is your strategic vision.”

The trouble is that his strategic vision is something called bi-regional agreements and the truth is that the Latin American countries cannot agree among themselves. Come to think of it, the EU member states do not necessarily sing from the same hymn sheet.

The summit was dominated or overshadowed by energy problems or, to be quite precise, by the political problems created by the Venezuelan and Bolivian governments through their forcibel nationalization, confiscation and high taxation.

In fact, these problems are being felt in Latin America itself.

“Brazil and Bolivia are barely on speaking terms since Bolivian President Evo Morales accused the Brazilian energy company of operating illegally in his country.

…

Bolivia's president remained in combative mood, telling Brazilian TV that some foreign oil companies were no better than "smugglers".

"We said we need partners, not masters," he said.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said he had little confidence in any commitments made by Bolivia at the negotiating table.

"The Brazilian government will defend the interests of Brazilians in a firm manner, without shying away from dialogue, but we do not expect that any agreements reached through that dialogue will actually be respected, or that they will not be undone by a statement the following day," he said.”

Some of the countries, in particular the Central American ones, have expressed a desire to negotiate various free trade agreements with the European Union, while the others merely signed the statement about the need for bi-regional strategic partnership.

Meanwhile the negotiations between Mercosur and the EU are dragging on in the usual fashion:

“The South American group believes Europe is dragging its feet on market opening on both farming products and industrial goods.

Europe, on the other hand, is seeking its own concessions.

"We need major movement and flexibility," one EU official told Reuters. "If they have changed their minds, we are ready to talk, but it won't be easy."”

Still, as long as there is bi-regional strategic partnership, the need for further meetings and summits is guaranteed.

COMMENT THREAD

Gesture politics

The Sun newspaper yesterday was all a twitter this morning about a "pledge" by the Boy King to "reform, replace or scrap" the Human Rights Act if he is elected.

This also appeared in The Telegraph and was later picked up by the BBC website.

Cameron's comments follow the court decision to allow nine Afghans who hijacked a plane to Britain to claim asylum in the UK, and had the Conservative Home website purring with approval.

Reading the small print, however, the Boy's pledge is very narrowly drawn. His first recourse is to seek "memorandums of understanding" with Middle Eastern and North African countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Algeria containing assurances that deported people will not be subjected to torture or execution on their return.

That is all very well but it does not address the issue of returning people to war zones, like certain Somali thugs whose country has now degenerated into chaos.

Nor does it address the vexed problem of asylum-seekers who destroy their papers before presenting themselves to the immigration officials, making it impossible to determine their countries of origin and allowing their home countries to disown them.

These "minor" issues aside though, we have been here before. Responding to concerns about asylum seekers, the Conservatives floated the idea in autumn 2001 of leaving the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This was repeated by Blair on the Frost Programme on 26 January 2003, and then again by shadow home secretary, following the prime minister's comments.

This would be a technical device, enabling the government to circumvent Article 3 – which prohibits a State from returning a person to a place where they might face ill-treatment – following which the convention would be ratified but with a reservation which would exclude Art. 3.

That option has been authoritatively debunked, but Cameron is not even going that far - he is only pledging to tackle the Human Rights Act. But its main effect is to make the ECHR judicable in the UK.

Without the Act, the ECHR still applies and aggrieved persons would still have the right to appeal to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and, unless the UK withdrew also from the convention it would still be bound by the court's judgements. In other words, at several different levels, the Boy's pledge is simply gesture politics.

Former Europe minister, Denis MacShane, is certainly of that mind. In today's Independent, he says, "Cameron seems to have said this for the sake of a headline without thinking it through. You can tear up the British legislation, but that only means that cases will go to the European Court of Human Rights, so it doesn't actually do anything. But if Cameron is saying that Britain is going to withdraw from an international treaty, we will be out of line with every other civilised country."

More to the point, countries that withdraw from the ECHR automatically leave the Council of Europe, which means this is a move the Boy is unlikely to make.

And he will get no support from the prime minister. According to the Independent, his official spokesman indicated yesterday that it was the way the Human Rights Act is applied by the courts, rather than the legislation itself, which was causing public concern. "There is a need to reassure the public that common sense logic should be right through the legal system, so there is the need, if necessary, to rebalance the system so that happens," he said.

COMMENT THREAD

Conspiracy redoubled

It was only on Sunday that we reported, through the good offices of the Booker column that there had been – and continues to be – a "conspiracy of silence" amongst UK politicos on the vexed subject of the European Union.

Little did we think that, only a few days later, on the Wednesday, when the commission effectively sought to re-launch the European project, that we would see such an egregious confirmation. For, while the press conference and the publication (slightly delayed) of two key commission documents on the "Future of Europe" were major events in Brussels terms, hardly a comment reached these shores via the media. As to a domestic political response, there was none. Even UKIP, which might be thought to have a passing interest in these matters, failed to offer a party line.

To an extent, this is hardly surprising. The domestic political agenda is crowded out by the ongoing soap-opera of the Blair/Brown show, which has been given added impetus by the reshuffle, the fall-out from last week's local election results and the continuing chaos of the dying days of the Blair administration. Thus, apart from a piece on the The World Tonight, the BBC's radio news slot at ten each night, on the Wednesday evening, there was little to inform the British of the momentous events.

I am, however, haunted by the brief excerpt from an interview with Barroso on the programme, who prefaced his remarks on the future of the project with the words, addressed to the leaders of the member states: "If you want it to keep it alive…". That brief phrase at once illuminated the realisation in Brussels that the project is on the rocks, and hinted at the desperation of the president who, by all accounts, is bereft of ideas on how to salvage anything from the wreckage.

That much is evident from the two documents produced, headed respectively A citizens’ agenda and The Period of reflection and Plan D, the former to which we referred in our previous post on roaming calls.

But, if the documents are a crie de coeur, they also display how deeply inadequate is the thinking of the commission. So enmeshed in their leaden, bureaucratic prose are they (and their scribes) that they are unable to break free from their own jargon, and the constraints of their own thinking. Thus do they deliver tomes of such unmitigated tedium that it would have been a miracle if any passing hack had been able to glean anything newsworthy from them.

If there was any single theme, however, it is a plaintive plea to the "citizens of Europe", to the effect that "we are nice people and we want to be loved… or even just noticed… please… pretty please…". Citizens, they bemoan, echoing the special Eurobarometer, "have a fairly low knowledge and interest in how the EU institutions work. On the same time (sic) they have high expectations on delivery and policy content." You wish.

At least Frau Dr. Merkel knows what is going on. It was no coincidence that yesterday she made her first major address to her parliament on “Europe”. These things never are. And, at least the Guardian - on of the few British newspapers to report the event – got it right with its headline, declaring: "Merkel calls for fundamental review of European mission".

Merkel, the Guardian tells us, is saying that the EU's "historic rationale of preserving peace after the second world war was no longer sufficient". The EU had to do more than just keep the peace. It needed to reconnect with its citizens, she said, adding: "We must, and I am deeply convinced of this, critically review the state of the European project."

You can see why, therefore, the commission is so keen to have a debate. But, as long as the "little Englanders" of the domestic political establishment and the media are besotted with their own local affairs, that debate ain't going to happen in Britain. "Europe" still remains "boring" and we have much more important things to blather about.

The conspiracy of silence redoubles.

COMMENT THREAD

One hell of a climbdown

The EU's plan to extract maximum propaganda value from its proposal to cut the price of using a mobile phone from abroad – the so-called "roaming charges" – suffered something of a setback yesterday.

According to Reuters, the European Regulators Group, which represents all national telecoms watchdogs in the EU, told the commission that it had "significant reservations" about the regulatory mechanisms proposed. It believes that retail regulation "often has unexpected consequences and is inconsistent with the general approach taken to regulation within the EU."

This is against the background of major operators already reducing their charges, Vodafone and Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile have slashed them by 40 percent and Spain's Telefonica is following suit. Yet information society and media commissioner, Viviane Reding, was unmoved, sticking to her timetable of 2007 for the charges to end. "It's good they react as it brings prices down. It shows that the regulation is a very legitimate action," her spokesman Martin Selmayr said, adding: "The regulation is still going ahead."

One can see why there is such determination. When this issue first came up, just two months ago, we suggested that the EU was indulging in a little populism, picking a highly visible course of action to demonstrate its value to EU "citizens".

That much is now confirmed by the EU's launch of its citizens’ aegenda, and the now released communication.

This reflects the commission's great fear that its original claim to fame – keeping the peace in Europe – no longer resonates with the younger generation. It is thus looking for issues which will re-engage people, and especially the young, with the project.

To achieve this, the new catch-phrase has become the "Europe of Results", which has had the commission desperately pulling consumer-friendly initiatives out of the bag to support its claim of being the peoples' friend. Cutting roaming charges fits the bill. This, the commission believes, will convince doubters that "Europe" is delivering "concrete benefits" in what it has decided must be a "policy driven agenda" which "addresses the expectations of EU citizens".

Maybe that might be enough to "invigorate their support for the European project", but one cannot help feeling that this is one hell of a climbdown from the aspirations of the founding fathers. That the EU has been "keeping the peace in Europe" for fifty years may be demonstrably untrue, but it certainly sounds a deal more noble than "cutting roaming charges".

COMMENT THREAD

You have to smile

Same event – different reports… wholly different "take". The Financial Times, often dismissed as Europhile, but nonetheless a reliable source of news, headlines Merkel's "first major speech on Europe to the German parliament" with: "Germany proposes cutting EU laws by 25 percent".

On the other hand, the BBC website, while covering the same event, headlines its story, "Merkel says EU needs constitution", with a cut-away panel which has her declaring, "We need to think about how we make the constitution a success".

The substantive part of the FT report has Merkel calling on Brussels "to abolish a quarter of European legislation to free business from bureaucracy", saying that "promoting the fight against bureaucracy, encouraging growth and employment, was the best way for the EU to reclaim support from overwhelmingly sceptical citizens."

Nevertheless, albeit downpage, the FT does report Merkel strongly endorsing the constitutional treaty, saying: "Europe needs it... I want it, Germany wants it, and, I am sure, the vast majority of this house does too." Yet, although she said her government would push the project forward "at the latest" during the German EU presidency, she warned against acting precipitously.

"It is a difficult issue; there are antagonistic interests; [undue haste] could lead to a blockade. We must therefore think hard about how to proceed," she added, with the FT noting that Berlin "shares the Commission's scepticism" about the likelihood of achieving a breakthrough on the constitution before next year’s presidential elections in France.

What we get from the BBC, though, is Merkel saying, "We absolutely need the constitution to ensure the European Union is effective," and, after a token nod to scrapping "a quarter of the EU's rules and regulations", it has Merkel concentrating on the constitution. Through the prism of the BBC, she declares: "If it's not tackled before, you can be sure that the German presidency will focus on this," only then being allowed to say: "However, I am against moving too quickly and putting us back in a situation where we can't move forward."

The BBC's emphasis is doubly interesting as it was only on Tuesday that Merkel said that Germany would continue to look for ways to revive the dormant EU constitution, but would "give priority to research when its assumes presidency of the European Union". Then as now, she warned against taking "hasty action" that could result in setbacks, clearly signalling that she was not going out on a limb for the constitution.

I suppose, though, we can't be too critical of the BBC in its desperation to advance the cause of the EU it loves so much, especially as Reuters also offers a piece entitled, "Merkel vows to press for European constitution".

But, at the very least, you have to smile.

COMMENT THREAD

How not to learn from elections

As an history undergraduate I used to wonder how the ruling classes of the French and Russian anciens régimes managed not to see the telling signs of what was in store. I no longer wonder, as I watch our own ruling class, in this case, the political establishment rather than an aristocracy, do their own world-famous imitation of an ostrich.

Over at the One London blog there is a list of three ostriches with a description of their behaviour. Enjoy!

COMMENT THREAD

Spy in the (Euro) sky

Bursting onto the front page of the Daily Express today is the banner headline (illustrated), "Spy in the sky on motorists" – the paper's "take" on the announcement by the newly appointed transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, that he intends to make satellite-based road pricing his "personal priority".

The government's "big idea" for reducing road congestion is to impose a system of variable charging which could force motorists to pay up to £1.34 per mile at peak times, with lower charges – down to 2p per mile – on less frequented roads.

Predictably – and understandably – the paper picks up on the "big brother" aspect of the system, noting that the technology could be used to "snoop on the private lives of citizens" – a highly justified fear as the system itself relies on being able to record, very accurately, every journey you make in a car.

And, as the Express's strap warns, the same technology could be used for monitoring vehicle speeds, with the spectre of a speeding ticket winging its way to your door every time you go over the posted limit. Further down the line – although not noted by the paper – is the possibility of installing "intelligent" speed limiters, which actually prevent a driver exceeding the posted limits in any area.

Hillariously, the report author, "transport editor" John Ingham, seems not to have the faintest idea of how the system works, hence a lurid graphic (illustrated) which portrays an anonymous satellite actively tracking a vehicle, "beaming back" the information to a "transport HQ".

For the record, this is not at all how the system works. In fact, it utilises the GPS satellite navigation system and – of very great interest, to which we will refer shortly – this will almost certainly be the EU's Galileo system. This system, in common with the US "Navstar" GPS system, is entirely passive, each satellite in the constellation simply transmitting a time signal. With three or more such signals, a vehicle-mounted receiver can translate these data into positional information and tell drivers where they are.

For a road pricing system, this information is processed by what is called an "on board unit" (OBU) which holds personal and vehicle details in its microchip memory. It continually processes satellite signals to work out positioning, integrates those data with the personal details and then transmits that information via an in-built GMS mobile phone to a receiving station. There, the trip details are recorded and charges are calculated. Generally, the user then receives a monthly invoice, or cash can be withdrawn directly from users' bank accounts.

To prevent "free riders", there is also a separate, but linked enforcement system. This involves, typically, road gantries with highly sophisticated cameras linked to number plate recognition software. The German system is also able to take 3-D infra-red images, which can identify the type of vehicle going through.

Every vehicle going under a gantry (or past a free-mounted and sometimes vehicle-borne camera) is recorded and the details are checked with the charging database. It the vehicle is not registered, details are automatically beamed to mobile enforcement units which intercept the vehicle and take the necessary action.

Such a system has been applied very successfully in Germany, through a private company set up to run the scheme, called Toll Collect. Detailed information on the scheme can be found here (64 pages, PDF).

Crucially, though, what makes the system politically acceptable – and feasible – is that it only applies to trucks, and then only to the motorway system. This ensures that the high proportion of foreign trucks transiting the system bear their share of the running costs, the surplus income being used wholly for road maintenance.

Furthermore, the sensitive "big brother" issue does not apply, as there is no problem about truck journeys being recorded. Also, charges are set at a relatively modest level, between 9-13 cents per Km for a three-axle truck, depending on emission levels. That emission "discount" has been highly welcomed as it creates an incentive to operate "green" trucks. Additionally, there is a surcharge for empty trucks, which has seen the number of empty runs reduce by 17 percent, keeping trucks off the road.

However, what Alexander is proposing is in a wholly different league. Given the huge number of private vehicles on British roads – approximately 25 million, as against less than 500,000 goods vehicles – and the extent of the road network, he is setting out to try something, the scale of which has never been attempted before – all in the context where over 30 percent of the DVLA database contains errors.

The government track-record on major computer systems is lamentable and the sheer practicalities of getting the scheme up and running are daunting. Most likely, this would be another spectacular failure.


Nevertheless, in order to get public agreement, Alexander might attempt to sugar the pill by promising to lower petrol tax. But, according to the Express, fewer than one percent of drivers actually believe the government would do this. The charges would be yet another tax on motorists. Combine that with the "civil liberties" issue of all journey data being recorded and public hostility is almost guaranteed.

But there is also a strong EU dimension. Although the German system currently uses the US GPS signal, the EU commission is determined that any European system should be based exclusively on Galileo (illustrated above), for which use it will be charging national operators. Therein lies the prospect of a lucrative "Euro-tax", with motorists contributing to the EU coffers every time they take to the roads.

Needless to say, the former Europe minister is silent on this aspect and it is not mentioned by the Express. But Alexander is determined to move the debate from "why" to "how". He will have a battle on his hands, not least from the Eurosceptic community.

COMMENT THREAD

Human rights are safe in their hands

The new Human Rights Council of the new reformed United Nations has been elected and very entertaining it was to watch the webcast of the announcement. My colleagues wondered whether I was listening to the listing of the World Cup teams.

So here they are, the countries that will defend human rights in the world.

13 from Africa: Ghana, Zambia, Senegal, South Africa, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Gabon, Djibouti, Cameroon, Tunisia, Nigeria, Algeria;

13 from Asia: India, Indonesia, Bangla Desh, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, South Korea, China, Jordan, Philippines, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka;

6 from Eastern Europe: Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Ukraine, Azerbaijan;

8 from Latin America and the Caribbean: Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Guatemala, Uruguay, Cuba, Ecuador;

7 from Western Europe and others: Germany, France, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Finland, Canada;

Well, OK, Sudan is not on it but Sudan was not encouraged to be a candidate. Iran was a candidate and was not elected so, I suppose, we must be thankful for small mercies. Libya is not on the new Council.

But look who is: Morocco, Senegal, Bangla Desh, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Azerbaijan.

John Bolton has been triumphantly right. As he said, the new council has taken over the weaknesses” of the human rights commission.

While his opinion was shared by various commentators on all sides of the political divide, Louise Arbour, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, has welcomed the new body, at least, according to the People’s Daily:

“"The signs from the election of the 47 members of the council are very encouraging for the future of this new body," said the high commissioner in a statement.

The polls were not "business as usual", as there were genuinely contested candidacies and all those elected made specific pledges and commitments expressing their concrete engagement to promote and protect human rights, she said.”

Reassuring or what? Some of our readers might ask (after they managed to stop laughing) what happened to the great UN reform that was going to do away with the unfortunate rules of the discredited Human Rights Commission under which countries were elected regionally, thus putting known violators of human rights on it.

Well, it is quite simple, really. The members are no longer elected regionally but by the entire General Assembly of 191 members. However, (please pay attention at the back) candidates are still divided into regions with a set number to be elected from each one.

Thus, regions with few countries (if any) that have even remotely acceptable human rights records, like Africa have 13 representatives while Western Europe and others have 8. On the whole, the World Cup draw seems to me to be a little more fairly arranged.

Another complication is the number of years each country will serve on the Council.

“Elected for one year are Algeria, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Bahrain, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Poland, Czech Republic, Argentina, Ecuador, Finland and the Netherlands.

Nations serving for two years are Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Zambia, Pakistan, Japan, Sri Lanka, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, Brazil, Guatemala, Peru, the United Kingdom and France.

Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritius, Nigeria, Senegal, Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Cuba, Mexico, Uruguay, Canada, Germany and Switzerland will serve for three years.

In the future, nations will be elected to three-year terms of office.”

Confused? You are meant to be. But worry not.

“Candidates submitted pledges and commitments to promote and protect human rights. According to the regulations establishing the new council, its members will be the first to have their human rights records reviewed.”

Can’t wait to see how the various members will vote on each other’s record. What will Azerbaijan say about Cuba, for instance, or Morocco about Algeria or Tunis?

Just as you thought that the UN could not descend any further, having reached absolute rock bottom, a new chasm opens up. As one of the participants of our forum reminded us, the Weekly Standard has found another interesting development in that august body:

“Switzerland’s nomination of its national, Jean Ziegler, to membership on the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights illustrates in a nutshell (and a nut) why there is so little hope for meaningful reform of the world body.

The subcommission should not be confused with the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which has just held its last meeting. The commission has been abolished at the initiative of Secretary General Kofi Annan, who lamented that it had become a stain on the U.N.'s reputation.

However, the subcommission, which is a body of "experts" rather than diplomats, does not go out of existence with the commission. It presumably will now be linked with the new Human Rights Council, which is slated to replace the commission as part of the overall reform plan.”

It is hard to see what the role of this subcommission might be but, I have no doubt, it is an expensive proposition in both political and financial terms. And who is Jean Ziegler?

“Until now, he has served as the old commission's "special rapporteur on the right to food." A sociologist by training and a politician, Ziegler did not bring to his post any particular expertise on food or agriculture. His credentials were all in the realm of ideology. Ziegler's main idea was anti-Americanism. He was a founding editor of the journal L'Empire, and you don't need many guesses to know which "empire" was the subject. The United States, according to Ziegler, is an "imperialist dictatorship" that is guilty, among other atrocities, of "genocide" against the people of Cuba by means of its trade embargo.”

Wonderful. Just what one needs in a spokesman on human rights on whichever commission or subcommission he might be sitting. I take it no mention was ever made by M Ziegler of the large number of people being imprisoned in Cuba for opposing Fidel Castro’s one-party rule? No, I thought not.

Mind you M Ziegler’s career gets better and better:

“In 1989, Ziegler was one of a group of self-described "intellectuals and progressive militants" who gathered in Tripoli to announce the launching of the annual "Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize," awarded by the government of Libya. Ziegler explained that the purpose of the Qaddafi prize was to counterbalance the Nobel prize, which, he said, constituted a "perpetual humiliation to the Third World."

Winners of the Qaddafi prize have included Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, and recently Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. When no individual of such luminous human rights credentials has presented himself, the award has gone to collectivities. In 1996, it went to a female member of the Cuban Communist party's central committee, a leader of a Ba'ath party women's organization in Saddam's Iraq, and a couple of other "symbols of women's struggle for freedom."

In 1990, it went to the "Stone Throwing Children of Occupied Palestine" and in 1991 to the "Red Indians." In 2002, the awardees were "13 intellectual and literature personalities," of whom the most notable were the French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and (you guessed it) Jean Ziegler.”

As they say, you couldn’t make this up. And if you did, no publisher or TV director would accept such a plot-line. For goodness’s sake, they would say, go away and write something a little more realistic.

COMMENT THREAD

A question of priorities

Well, it looks like we are required to give asylum to Afghan hijackers, a decision by Mr Justice Sullivan so absurd that, for once, we find ourselves in agreement with Tony Blair, who declared his judgement "an abuse of common sense".

Nor were we able to deport Mustaf Jama, the Somali criminal and one-time asylum-seeker, now being hunted by police in connection with the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky – who is now believed to have fled to Somalia, the very country that the authorities decided was so "unsafe" that he could not be returned there.

Nor indeed can be exclude, except on very limited grounds, any citizen of an EU member state, Directive 3004/38/EC guaranteeing "the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States", and the EU treaties declaring that the "free movement of persons" constitutes one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market. And should any of those people residing in our country commit criminal offences, even then our rights to get rid of them are severely restricted.

So strong, in fact, are the rights of criminals of all nations (including our own) that we have effectively lost our own rights to freedom from their depredations. We must suffer whatever they chose to impose on us – and pay for the privilege.

Thus, I wonder if I can be the only one to question the priorities of justice commissioner Franco Frattini who, according to Reuters has decided that football hooliganism is such a great threat that there should be a "Europe-wide ban" to keep offenders from travelling and entering stadiums.

It is not that one particularly wants to give such hooligans right of free passage, or that we would particularly disagree with Frattini – especially when he admits that this can only be done through member states' own laws – but we do question his rather distorted priorities.

When murders, rapists, child molesters, robbers, fraudsters and even hijackers, are given free passage as of right, why should he be getting so worked up about football hooligans?

COMMENT THREAD

That famous European diplomacy

Jonathan Clarke is a former British diplomat, not a position to be terribly proud of these days, and a scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington DC. I have a reasonably high opinion of Cato, which does a lot of extremely interesting work but I do think they should be a little more careful of whom they appoint as scholars.

Clarke is, in fact, a Research Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies and, as befits a former British diplomat, with an impressively if somewhat improbably wide area of expertise: his speaking topics are Africa, Balkans, East Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Foreign Policy and General Strategy and US Foreign Policy. The first five of those are, presumably, places where he has been stationed at various times in his career, thus becoming an expert.

Anyway, he writes syndicated columns and books on various problems to do with American foreign policy (one wonders whether he was responsible for any of the supreme achievements of British foreign policy, like farming it out to the European Union).

Today’s Financial Times carries an article by him [subscription only], entitled “Europe undersells diplomatic expertise to US”.

Well, to start with, what is this Europe that has a diplomatic expertise? A couple of days ago I had a meeting with one of Mr Clarke’s colleagues from Cato as he was passing through London. I spent a little time explaining to him that I did not mind people in Washington not being interested in European affairs (who could be?) but I did mind them getting it so horribly wrong. For instance, why do they keep talking about European this or European that when they mean either the EU or, more likely, individual European countries?

My acquaintance agreed with me but pointed out that there are not many people in the Washington think-tanks who really know about European politics. Presumably, that is why they hire people like Jonathan Clarke, a former British diplomat. What precisely is he going to be able to tell them?

If today’s article is anything to go by, what he tells them is that diplomacy is rightly the preserve of Europeans (well, some Europeans, one assumes) and the latter should be bolder in advising the American government or diplomats or just about anybody as to how to deal properly with all those difficult foreigners.

His first two paragraphs really sum it all up and if our readers could just refrain from sniggering, here those paragraphs are:

“In spite of the rewards of more lucrative careers in business, the foreign services of Europe continue to attract the cream of each generation’s youth. With this sure supply of talent at her disposal, Margaret Beckett, the new British foreign secretary, might ask herself why European diplomacy seems to lurch from crisis to unresolved crisis. This is nowhere more marked than in relations with the US, where European policy swings between docile subservience and opportunistic pouting from the sidelines, forever falling short of the happy mean of assured self-confidence.

Docility and name-calling are soft options that fail to bring to bear Europe’s vast experience of the most pressing security problems: religiously fuelled separatism and terrorism, insurgency, post-conflict civil society building and regional integration. Just think how the looming catastrophe in Iraq might have been mitigated had these skills, which the Europeans possess in abundance, been available to the US.”

Setting aside the obvious question as to which particular European diplomatic corps Mr Clarke may be referring to, one wonders why somebody who has seen fit to go and be a scholar at the ultra-libertarian, anti-statist Cato Institute should think it to be a matter of rejoicing that top graduates prefer to be a burden on the taxpayer in order to promote inane policies to going into the wealth-creating sector.

Well, OK, clearly a former diplomat would think that. But really, European skills would have prevented whatever he deems to be the present catastrophe in Iraq? Who, in his opinion, helped to create that catastrophe in the first place?

It was British diplomacy at its finest that set up the modern Iraqi state and then gave power to the Sunnis. It was further British diplomacy that recognized the Ba’athist regime long before it was absolutely necessary.

It was French diplomacy at its finest that gave the Iraqis the chance to build nuclear reactors (not for nothing was Osirac referred to as Ochirac) and German diplomacy at its finest that supplied Saddam with various other state-of-the-art weaponry. Not that the Americans are in the clear either, but let us not forget who Saddam’s closest supporters have been in the West.

I need not even mention the money that flowed into the various diplomatic chancelleries from Iraq under the food-for-oil scam. A couple of the Quai d’Orsay’s finest are being investigated even as we speak and many more should be.

And, of course, there was the marvellous display of European diplomacy in dragging the whole saga through the UN (Britain), thus giving Saddam the chance to hide whatever he wanted to hide and undermining all attempts (France and Russia) to solve the problem peacefully.

Never mind, it was all a wasted opportunity, as far as Mr Clarke can see it. (His knowledge of the Balkans no doubt tells him about the wondrous way European diplomacy encouraged Slobodan Milosevic and his thugs to wage a ten-year-long war, in the process bankrupting his own Serbia as well as destroying large areas and thousands of people in the other former Yugoslav states.)

It seems, however, that Europeans should really tell the Americans what should be done about Iran.

“So, let the Europeans strip away the US illusions over Iran. The US has not had an embassy there for 25 years. The upper levels of the State department are devoid of Farsi speakers. Much of the information available to the US comes from technical surveillance or shadowy exile sources, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, officially a terrorist group. By contrast, the Europeans have official relations with Iran and embassies in Tehran. On-the-ground knowledge abounds. A recent German ambassador in Washington spoke Farsi. The Europeans should be interpreting the recent Iranian letter to the Americans, not the other way around.

This information “edge” should allow the Europeans to demand something in return from the US supporting their negotiations with Iran. This could include a guarantee from the US that should Iran abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, the US would move quickly to normalise relations. The Europeans seem not to have sought anything of this sort, so it is not surprising that their negotiations failed.”

No doubt, it was that information edge that allowed the EU3, Germany, France and the UK to be diddled by the Iranian mullahs. Anyone who does not live in a parallel universe knows that those incredibly subtle negotiations that the 3 carried on and on for years on end actually gave the Iranians time to build up their nuclear facilities. As diplomacy goes I have heard of more successful efforts.

Besides, the famous letter was not addressed to any European politician but to President Bush. I expect he can find the odd farsi speaker who will translate and interpret it for him.

Then there is Hamas. Mr Clarke is quite clear - and I think we should all be in the light of the recent news that even the US has relented and will give money to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority but only if it is well spent- that European pressure should be directed to that end.

“On Hamas, for example, if it turns out that some form of re-established EU funding is the factor that prevents the Palestinian territories from collapsing into a terrorist-ridden failed state and allows Hamas to mature, the Europeans should expect a substantial reciprocal policy move from Washington.”

At present the funding is likely to be resumed, Hamas is showing no signs of maturing but will, undoubtedly view the weakening as a justification for continuing with their policy of trying to destroy Israel and Gaza has already turned into a permanent anarchy and civil war. The Palestinian territories are well on their way to becoming a failed state because of the organizations the Europeans support in their diplomacy.

All this is a great success story for Europe’s finest brains. Perhaps, it is best they do not go into the private sector.

COMMENT THREAD

A citizen's agenda?

The commission today – or so it tells us - has adopted "an ambitious policy agenda for Europe's citizens", proclaimed under the heading: "Delivering results for Europe: Commission calls for a citizens' agenda".

There is one slight problem with this though. The "agenda" is set out in the document, "Communication on Plan D and the period of reflection", COM (2006) 212, 10 May 2006, which so far has not been published on the web. Thus, while this may be a "citizen's agenda", at the moment, neither mere citizens nor even journalists are allowed to see it.

Thus do we rely on the commission's own press release (link above), from which we learn that this is its contribution to the June European Council, "picking up the messages the Commission has received from Plan D and the national debates during the period of reflection called by Europe's leaders last year."

"It is time to match dialogue with delivery," proclaims the commission, with el Presidente telling us, "Today is a milestone for my Commission." Without identifying the planet from which he is speaking (which does not seem to be Earth), he then goes on: "Over the last eighteen months we have successfully addressed many of the issues that were deadlocked when I took office. Today, we are adopting an ambitious, policy driven agenda for citizens."

So, in fact, this is not a "citizen's agenda" after all – in the sense that it is determined by said citizens… it is an agenda for citizens, an altogether different thing.

Never mind though, the fragrant Margot tells us that, "with this agenda, we demonstrate that we have listened to citizens." So, even if we are not allowed to see it, we know it's alright. Margot has said so. "Citizens want to have their say. They look for European leadership…" she says, also without declaring from which planet she is speaking. She does, however, acknowledge that "they have mixed feelings about membership in the EU or the way the Union works."

I suppose that's one way of putting it, as is her assertion, "they trust the European Union on policy delivery". We do, of course, have no option... having not seen the document. We have, therefore, to take it entirely on trust that the commission's agenda (which we haven't seen) is "rooted in the strategic objectives of prosperity, solidarity and security," and that it has a "continued focus on jobs and growth". But what price this little gem? "As the debate on Europe shows…", says the commission,

…there is a gap between the action Europe takes and the public's perception of Europe’s role. To regain the confidence of the public, the commission will harness all its resources, both internally and externally, to deliver solutions to the issues raised by citizens. This is a policy response centred around a citizens' agenda (which we haven't seen).

Then we get to the "meat": the commission has set out twelve policy initiatives to deliver "a Europe of results". However, as yet, we are not allowed to know what they are – only some of the "concrete" proposals:

A forward looking single market review,

A agenda for access and solidarity, in parallel to the single market review.

Delivering better access for EU citizens to their existing rights, and greater awareness of those rights, by proposing an "entitlement card" for all EU citizens.

Improving decision taking and accountability in justice, liberty and security policies, through the use of existing Treaty possibilities.

For the glorious finalé, though, the commission proposes that the June European Council should endorse "a step by step approach" on "institutional issues", with as a first step Europe's leaders adopting a new political declaration, and commitment in 2007, 50 years after the signature of the Treaty of Rome.

It proposes to draft a new solemn declaration, inspired by the Messina Declaration, "setting out Europe's values and ambitions, with a shared undertaking to deliver them". This will then "serve as the basis for decisions by the European Council to launch a process designed to lead to a future institutional settlement." That, of course, is code for disinterring the moribund constitution, with a further "rendezvous" step in 2008/2009 when the commission reports on the future financing of the Union.

This is the sort of garbage that daily emanates from this organisation and you can quite see why it is it has so much difficulty "reconnecting" with the public - if it ever "connected" in the first place.

Reuters picks up on all this with its own report, featuring Barroso as the star performer.

According to its report, el Presidente accused Europe's "national leaders" of undermining the EU by breaking pledges to work together and using Brussels as a scapegoat for their own failures. As well as urging them to sign the Messina Declaration "clone", he challenged the national leaders, asking them, "Are you committed or not to this project of living together in Europe?"

Glad he asked that… any answers?

COMMENT THREAD

Whither regionalisation?

One of the unanswered questions following Blair's recent reshuffle is whether Prescott's successor, Ruth Kelly, will display the same enthusiasm for the regionalisation of England, to whether the project will mark-time or even wither on the vine.

As we have pointed out earlier, the regional agenda was very much Prescott's personal "baby" and without him controlling the Department responsible for local government, it is possible that the drive has gone out of the project.

This notwithstanding, there remains a strong conviction within a faction of the Eurosceptic community that the regional project is – and always has been – a dark "plot" by the EU, aimed at furthering political integration. But, while there is unquestionably a current EU agenda, there has never been any documentary evidence produced which shows that Britain has been forced down the regional route, to the extent that we are currently seeing.

This much I argued in my report on regionalisation, published in 2002 but still remarkably relevant after the passage of four years.

In that document, I referred to the Treaty of Rome, remarking that regional policy was not one of its mainstream concerns of the then EEC. In fact, the only mention in the Treaty was a general objective of “reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions”. There was no specific policy devoted to that objective and the newly formed Commission was charged only in general terms with keeping under review all systems of aid existing in member states.

I then added that regionalisation was so low on the Community's agenda that the Commission did not even present its first memorandum on regional policy until 1965.

At the time of writing, however, I was having to rely on secondary reference to that document, as I had not been able to obtain a copy which, in any event, was written in French.

Fortunately, though, it has now turned up – an unofficial translation of the original report, dated 11 May 1965, together with an additional report, published in 1975, after the UK had joined the EEC. Of some considerable historical interest, it shows the original regional maps, a fragment of which – showing the UK – is reproduced above. Readers will see that there were originally 11 regions (excluding London), including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with borders only slightly different to those of today.

But what is fascinating about both reports is that they absolutely confirm that – at the time – there was no political agenda. The policy was dedicated to reducing the regional disparities in employment and standards of living, but the whole thing was subject to the caveat that the methods employed should be "appropriate to the political and constitutional systems of each country".

By no measure can it be taken that there was – at this time, at least – any declared, or implicit intention to create semi-autonomous regional governments.

Another fascinating insight into the thinking of the time comes in the 1965 report, which argues that "mobility of manpower between economic sectors and regions is a prerequisite for dynamic activity", but the report then goes on to say:

…beyond certain limits, interregional migration produces not only social and human problems, but also economic drawbacks. The less-favoured peripheral regions lose the younger and more vigorous elements of the population, impairing their chances of future expansion, while expanding areas have to bear the costs of excessive industrial concentration.

It seems to me that those words, written more than forty years ago, are highly appropriate to today's situation.

COMMENT THREAD

Grist to the mill

One of the real evils of the European Union is the tawdry way it manages to debase everything it touches by converting apparently benign, well-meaning initiatives into yet another excuse for more integration.

Even in the generally dispassionate reporting by Reuters, this now shines through, witness their latest story on a call for the European Union to create a "special reaction corps" to deal with disasters such as the Asian tsunami of 2004.

This was actually suggested last year by EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who actually wanted it set up by 2007. But now aid commissioner Michel Barnier has got in on the act, and is also suggesting pooling national consular services to help "EU citizens" caught in disasters.

With Barnier on the case, though, the timetable has slipped from 2007 to 2010, with the details yet to be decided but, as Reuters observes, the proposal "is the latest effort by the EU to plough ahead with integration" despite the uncertain future of the EU constitution.

Readers will recall that the constitution included a "solidarity clause", obliging member states to come to each others' aid in natural disasters, and the "special reaction corps" would give effect to that clause, despite there being no treaty base to give it legal effect.

No doubt, with the proposal on the table, the commission is hoping that the "feel good" factor engendered will pave the way for a wider popular approval of the stalled constitution. Once again, though, all this proves is that, when it comes to pursuing the integration agenda, everything and anything is grist to the mill – nothing is sacred.

COMMENT THREAD

Whoopee!

European citizens can hardly contain their joy at the news that Estonia has ratified the EU constitution on this of all days.

It has become the 15th member state do the deed, putting the text to its parliament rather than troublesome people, gaining 73 votes in favour, with one vote against in the 101-seat parliament.

The idea of choosing Europe day was to send out a message of support for the project and I am sure that the Dutch and French will now realise the error of their ways and follow the example set by the brave Estonian MPs - not.

Certainly, Finland is planning to ratify the constitution soon, although it too is not going to do anything so rash as consult its people. There is a possibility they might say "no".

That clears the way for tomorrow when the commission is to adopt a paper containing its own suggestions which it hopes will end the impasse on the ratification process.

However, although some think that the German presidency in the first part of next year might be the opportunity to kick-start the process, no one who is actually sane expects anything to happen until after the French presidential elections.

Even then, there are plenty of people ready to remind the "colleagues" of the meaning of the word "no", even if, as is possible, the commission tries to introduce a "constitution-lite" and slide it past the French and Dutch without referendums.

Did I hear riots, anyone?

COMMENT THREAD

Europe Day

Although the EU is quick to denounce "Euromyths", what very few people realise is that the European Union itself is based on a foundation of its own myths, assiduously cultivated to project an entirely false image of modernity.

No greater myth can be found that in the commission's carefully crafted account of Europe Day, which it "celebrates" today, coincidentally alongside the Russians who celebrate "Victory Day", the anniversary of the end of what it calls "The Great Patriotic War".

Claims the commission, "probably very few people in Europe know that on 9 May 1950 the first move was made towards the creation of what is now known as the European Union," thus perpetuating the myth that this indeed was the first (and successful) attempt at creating a construct, the intellectual genesis of which actually lies in the 1920s, as a reaction to the problems arising out of the First World War.

But, claims the commission, in Paris that day, against the background of the threat of a Third World War engulfing the whole of Europe, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman read to the international press a declaration calling France, Germany and other European countries to pool together their coal and steel production as "the first concrete foundation of a European federation". The narrative continues:

What he proposed was the creation of a supranational European Institution, charged with the management of the coal and steel industry, the very sector which was, at that time, the basis of all military power. The countries which he called upon had almost destroyed each other in a dreadful conflict which had left after it a sense of material and moral desolation.

Thus, concludes the commission, "Everything... began that day".

Needless to say, the reality is very different. Far from the heroic Schuman standing at the centre of the "project", he turns out to be little more than an unwitting stooge, manipulated by one man who had made its his life's work to set up a "government for Europe".

That man, of course, was Jean Monnet. At the time, he was nearing the end of implementing his four-year plan for the "modernisation" of France. Already, he had seen two post-war attempts at creating his "government" fail, the OEEC, created on the back of the Marshall Plan, and the Council of Europe. With a sense of resigned detachment, he had decided that neither of them could

…ever give concrete expression to European unity. Amid these vast groupings of countries, the common interest was too indistinct, and common disciplines were too lax. A start would have to be made by doing something more practical and more ambitious. National sovereignty would have to be tackled more boldly and on a narrower front.

However, if Monnet was sure that something much "more practical and ambitious" was needed to achieve the desired goal, then events in the late spring of 1950 conspired to create precisely the opportunity he was looking for.

During 1949, West Germany had finally emerged to self-government under the Chancellorship of Konrad Adenauer. Under its Basic Law, passed on 8 May 1949, the new Federal Democratic Republic, or FDR, was based on a federation of the eleven highly decentralised Land governments which, on British insistence, retained considerable power, guaranteed by a constitutional court. In crucial respects the federal government, centred in Bonn, could not act without the consent of the Länder. In particular, all international treaties had to be ratified by the Länder through their legislative assembly, the Bundesrat.

At the time, the new Germany, under the guidance of Ludwig Erhard, was already showing signs of a remarkable economic recovery. This raised the question of how the new nation should be assimilated into the western European community. At the Council of Europe in August 1949 Churchill had shocked many delegates by proposing that she should be given the warmest of welcomes. Two of the western occupying powers, the USA and Britain, wanted to see her continue on the road towards full economic recovery and nationhood as soon as possible. But this had provoked a deep rift with France, which wanted to continue exercising control over the German economy, for fear that she might once again become too strong a political and economic rival.

The argument centred on that old bone of contention, the coal and steel industries of the Ruhr, heartland of Germany's economy and formerly the arsenal of her war machine. In 1948, France had demanded the setting up of an International Ruhr Authority, which would enable French officials to control Germany's coal and steel production and ensure that a substantial part of that production was diverted to aid French reconstruction. It was a curious echo of France's disastrous policy after the First World War. Naturally the new West Germany was bitterly opposed to such an authority. Equally so were the other two occupying powers, America and Britain.

For over two years this dispute had festered, without resolution. But in the spring of 1950 the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson finally lost patience. He issued France with what amounted to an ultimatum. On 11 May there would be a foreign ministers' meeting in London; and unless the French could offer a satisfactory compromise proposal, the USA would impose a solution on all parties.

This gave Monnet the opportunity for which he had been waiting. For years he had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe", beginning by integrating the coal and steel industries, and setting up a supranational authority to run them. This was the idea first put forward in the 1920s, by Coudenhove and Louis Loucheur, and partly implemented by Luxembourg steel magnate, Emil Mayrisch in 1926. It was the idea Monnet himself had outlined to Paul-Henri Spaak in 1941 and in a memorandum he had written in Algiers in 1943.

What Monnet had in mind was that the coal and steel industries, not just of France and Germany but of other western European countries, should be placed under the direction of a supranational authority: just as over dinner in Paris in 1917 he and Arthur Salter had come up with a similar plan for the control of allied shipping.

When Monnet came to commit his plan to paper, he was obviously troubled by how much he dare reveal of its real underlying purpose. Before getting to its final stage, it went through nine separate drafts. In the first, the pooling of coal and steel was regarded as "the first step of a Franco-German Union".

The second opened it up to the "first step of a Franco-German Union and a European federation". By the fifth draft, this had been changed to "Europe must be organised on a federal basis. A Franco-German Union is an essential element is this". The seventh demanded that "Europe must be organised on a Federal basis". But, by the final draft, almost all this was missing. All he would allow himself was a reference to the pool being "the first step of a European federation", a vague term which could mean different things to different people.

Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, the anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.

Once his memorandum was complete, Monnet's next problem was how to get it adopted. He could not act as the champion of his own plan. As a natural behind-the-scenes operator, his style was always to act indirectly. He needed to win over very senior support in the French government. In this, he had few problems as he had constant contact with senior members of the French government. His obvious choice was foreign minister, Robert Schuman. It would be he that would have to face US Secretary of State Dean Acheson in a few days time. Monnet knew that his officials had few ideas to offer. He would most likely, therefore, be receptive to some new ideas.

Furthermore, as a potential advocate, Schuman had other advantages. Born in 1886 in Luxembourg to a German mother, he was fluent in both German and French, having read law at the universities of Berlin, Munich and Bonn. He had then moved to Alsace Lorraine when it was under German rule, which meant that in 1914 he had been recruited into the German army. Yet in the Second World War, when Alsace Lorraine was again part of Germany, he had, as a French citizen, been arrested by the Gestapo. He was thus a perfect witness to the need to resolve the Franco-German conflict.

To get to Schuman, Monnet approached his chef de cabinet Bernard Clappier, telling him to advise his boss that he had some ideas for the London conference. He had expected Clappier to call him back but, by Friday 28 April, Monnet had heard nothing. Fearing that Schuman was not interested, Monnet sent a copy of his memorandum to prime minister Georges Bidault, via his closest aide, again asking for it to passed on. In the memorandum, Monnet wrote of the "German situation" becoming a cancer that would be dangerous to peace. For future peace, he wrote, the creation of a dynamic Europe is indispensable:

We must therefore abandon the forms of the past and enter the path of transformation, both by creating common basic economic conditions and by setting up new authorities accepted by the sovereign nations. Europe has never existed. It is not the addition of sovereign nations met together in councils that makes an entity of them. We must genuinely create Europe; it must become manifest to itself…

Alas for Bidault, who thereby missed his chance of immortality, the memorandum did not reach him. Meanwhile, Clappier had re-appeared full of apologies. Monnet gave him a copy of the memorandum and immediately decided that Schuman should see it. He caught him at Gare de l'Est, as he was sitting in a train, waiting to go to Metz for the weekend. When Schuman returned to Paris, after studying the document, he had adopted the plan wholeheartedly. It had now become the "Schuman Plan", although in reality it was not his at all. In the final analysis, he was not even committed to it, except as a device to get him off a hook.

Once Schuman had agreed, the contents of the Plan were passed by his office in great secrecy to the German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, in the hope of securing his provisional agreement. Other governments, especially the British, were not told. According to Professor Bernard Lavergne, a prominent political commentator of the time, who was to publish a highly critical study of the plan:

The curious thing was that M. Bidault, the Premier, was – at least, at first – not at all favourable to the Plan which, in early May, was suddenly sprung on him by his Foreign Minister, M. Schuman. And oddly enough – though this was typical of M. Schuman's furtive statesmanship and diplomacy – neither was M. François-Poncet, the French High Commissioner, nor the Quay d’Orsay, or even the French Government, properly informed of what was going on during the days that preceded the "Schuman bombshell" of 9 May.

However, "as a result of a curious coincidence", Dean Acheson was already on his way to the summit in London, and had decided to go via Paris to confer informally with Schuman. By another "coincidence", Monnet was present at their meeting. As Monnet disingenuously put it, "courtesy and honesty obliged us to take Acheson into our confidence". The Plan was also presented to the French Cabinet, but only in a most perfunctory way:

Only three or four ministers were informed about it (the Plan), and when, finally, on 8 May, the Council of Ministers met, no serious discussion took place at all. Schuman gave them a rough sketch of the Plan, and, without really knowing what it was all about, they gave it their blessing.

Schuman then took an audacious step. He would announce "his" plan by appealing directly to the peoples of Europe, through the media. In a radio broadcast on 9 May 1950 – today officially commemorated as "Europe Day" – he revealed Monnet's plan to the world. "World peace", he began,

…cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it. The contribution which an organised and living Europe can bring to civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war. Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany…

With this aim in view the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point…it proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organisation open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe.

After describing how "the solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible", he went on to say that this would help simply and speedily to achieve "that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system".

This was the "Schuman Declaration" which now occupies pride of place on the EU's Europa website as the document "which led to the creation of what is now the European Union". Yet, according to one historian, although the plan was immediately greeted with great excitement by the press, the curious thing was that literally nobody knew exactly what it was about, not even Schuman.

The whole thing was an elaborate charade, a meticulous coup by the puppet-master extraordinaire, Jean Monnet, to a plan he and his colleague Arthur Salter had devised all those years ago, to deal with a different war and an entirely different geopolitical situations.

But, with the backing of the commission, the myth endures. Hilariously, though, when I addressed a group of 150 sixth-formers recently, on the history of the European Union, not one of them knew that 9 May was "Europe Day". For all the effort the EU has expended on cultivating its core myth, it has failed to have any decisive impact. It is truly an idea whose time has gone.

The core of this narrative is drawn from The Great Deception by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

COMMENT THREAD

Another try-on?

The Financial Times and others are telling us that the commission is calling for a greater EU role in judicial matters. This is Barroso, speaking in his home city of Lisbon, who claims greater EU involvement is needed to bolster cross-border efforts against terrorism and organised crime.

But what is particularly wicked is that the commission president is calling in a the special Eurobarometer, declaring that "People are asking for more Europe in order to combat terrorism and organised crime. It is our duty to respond to this appeal."

In that Eurobarometer, however – as readers will recall – the qualitative study revealed that, "the institutional workings of the Union and how decisions are made is a matter of nearly complete ignorance!. Thus, if people are calling for !more Europe", it is from a position of ignorance of what that might entail, and the consequences.

Nevertheless, the lack of what might be called "informed consent" does not worry Barroso. But, as the FT reports, such a move "could face resistance from some countries," prompted by concerns that the commission is making yet another power grab.

Yet again, though, the same old arguments are being wheeled out, that action is often delayed as police and judicial co-operation falls within the "intergovernmental" Pillar III provisions of the Treaty of the European Union, with decisions reached by unanimity.

Barroso wants member states to give up national vetoes, moving to qualified majority voting (QMV), which would "make decision-making easier". And the UK, as always (remember Blair's "red lines"?) is not opposed in principle to such an idea.

The crucial issue, however, is that the provision for QMV was in the EU constitution, so this is seen by some as yet anther attempt to smuggle the constitution in through the back door. Conservative MEP Syed Kamall says, "This latest attempt by the European Commission to take away yet more national sovereignty will just go to exacerbate Britain's impression of the EU as out of touch."

According to Bloomberg though, details are very vague, and no formal proposals have yet been tabled.

Possibly, the Finnish government, which takes the EU presidency in July this year, may firm up on proposals, although the growing Euroscepticism in that country may make that difficult. Equally possible, this is just another try-on by Barroso, desperately anxious to launch a high-profile initiative to bolster his own lacklustre presidency.

Only time will tell.

COMMENT THREAD

Our favourite Latin American dictators

Some time ago the writer and journalist John Derbyshire restated Orwell’s famous dictum:

“Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face, does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy.”

We have heard a good deal of this about Cuba, a country from which people seem to be very anxious to escape. It cannot be, surely, that they dislike free health care and 100 percent literacy?

It seems that some of that free health care is now spreading to Venezuela, another country suddenly beloved by the Left and not so Left commentariat of Europe. We have it on no less an authority than Hizonner the Mayor of LondON that millions of Venezuelans, who have never seen a doctor in the past, are now treated by the Cuban medicos flown in for the purpose.

How many Cuban doctors we are not told and how is it that they could just simply leave their own country en masse remains a mystery.

It is, of course, obvious what Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro have in common and it is not, strangely enough, ideology, the former being more of a nationalist than an internationalist despite the meddling in other countries. They are both challenging the United States and that seems terribly chic.

Naturally, it was not so amusing when Chávez turned on the Europeans, forcing new contracts on them, which involved greater ownership by the Venezuelan government, sometimes to the point of outright confiscation or, as has been announced, deciding to tax companies working the Orinoco.

“The tax and royalty increases will affect ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil of the US, as well as Total of France and Statoil of Norway. About $17bn has been invested in the four Orinoco projects since their inception in the late 1990s, and the projects are today estimated to be worth about $33bn.

On Sunday, Mr Chávez said that Venezuela would tap extra revenue from the world oil price boom through what he termed an "extraction tax" on the Orinoco Belt operations, which are known as "strategic association" projects.

"For next year the extra revenue looks like it will come to more than a billion dollars," he said. Venezuela's move to boost rates on the heavy-oil projects follows measures taken last month to convert 32 separate operating contracts, which accounted for about 500,000 b/d, into joint ventures in which the state holds majority stakes.

That move upset some oil multinationals. Total and Italy's Eni, which objected to the conversions, saw their oilfields unilaterally taken over by the government, so far without compensation.

Humberto Calderón Berti, a former energy minister, warned that Venezuela might also seek conversion of the Orinoco projects into state-majority joint ventures.”

Chávez has also supported the forcible nationalization of oil fields in Bolivia, which may not be such a good idea for the industry. Bolivia is not a major oil-producing power yet and does not have customers all over the world, merely in Brazil. It is not in a position to play too many games with the market.

Unfortunately, Hugo Chávez is already going the way most dictators do. He has just announced that if the opposition continues to boycott elections, citing various irregularities and El Presidente’s growing authoritarianism, he will have a referendum that will change the constitution to give him power for 25 years.

“Speaking Saturday at a stadium packed with supporters in central Lara state, Chavez rejected allegations he was a power-hungry tyrant but said he might seek to extend his rule beyond current term limits if the opposition pulls out of the presidential vote, as it did last year's congressional election. ...

The Venezuelan Constitution allows a president to be re-elected only once in immediate succession. Chavez is eligible for re-election to another six-year term in December, but if he wins he wouldn't be able to run again in 2012.

It wasn't clear if Chavez, 51, was talking about holding a legally binding vote to eliminate limits on re-election or proposing a plebiscite. Before Chavez took the stage, thousands of his supporters chanted: "Oh, no! Chavez won't go!"

Opposition leaders accuse Chavez, a former paratroop commander first elected in 1998, of becoming increasingly authoritarian and opening dangerous divisions along class lines in Venezuela — the world's fifth largest oil exporter.”

Things are, in fact, going from bad to worse in Venezuela.

Fearing that he might lose support in the barrios, Chávez has decreed that nobody can sell petrol for more than 3 cents a litre. Sounds great, except that the petrol stations, burdened as all businesses in that country with rising taxes, minimum wages and so on, cannot make a living.

About half of them have told the ministry that they would like to close. At that point the joy of having petrol at a fraction of the cost that Americans pay for it will disappear. If nobody is selling the stuff, the cars will have to stop and that will cause some hardship in the country.

But the biggest shock seems to have been barely noticed. On April 28 the Financial Times reported [subscription only] that

“Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a $2bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year.

Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal. Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply contracts.”

The reason is not hard to seek for anyone familiar with the way socialized industries work and countries run by power-mad demagogues function:

“Under President Hugo Chávez, PDVSA's oil output has declined by about 60 per cent, a trend analysts say has accelerated in the past year because of poor technical management.

Mr Chávez's push to extend his influence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean with promises of cheap oil for friends and allies may be overstretching PDVSA's finances, however.”

The story has now been reported by Mosnews.com, which quoted the Financial Times. It is, however, curious that it was not picked up by anyone else, least of all by those who would like to see something heroic in the plucky little challenger of the American giant.

Venezuela is denying that the purchase of Russian crude oil has anything to do with declining production.

COMMENT THREAD

Is it any wonder?

Reports on the economic health of the EU are out today and, depending on which source you prefer, the member state economies are doing well or very badly.

If you prefer Associated Press, what it quaintly describes as the "European Union head office" is forecasting that the economy is "to rebound", expanding by 2.3 percent this year - compared with 1.6 percent last year - boosted by increased investment and sustained world growth.

The only cloud in the sky in this assessment is the volatility of the oil markets, which remains "the biggest near-term risk" because "very low spare capacities" leave the EU vulnerable to supply disruptions.

However, even this glowing account does not seem to hold together. Down-page, AP reports that, a against last year's growth of 1.6 percent, this year's 2.3 percent forecast level is not expected to be sustained. Next year, growth is expected to slightly slacken to 2.2 percent and, in the eurozone, growth is expected to be 2.1 percent this year before declining to 1.8 percent next year.

Furthermore, this must be set against world growth, which is expected to reach 4.6 percent this year and only slightly less, 4.3 percent next year.

Thus it is that Bloomberg reports that "risks to 2007 Euro-region growth" is "tilted to downside", citing the commission as saying that growth in the eurozone will slow next year as oil prices surge and rising interest rates around the world cool global growth.

However, The Business yesterday puts a wholly different and much more negative spin on the data, picking up on the Spanish economy, suggesting that its overheating threatens the entire eurozone.

The "one-size-fits-none" interest rate in the eurozone means that Spain is undergoing an unsustainable consumer boom, which will be followed by a savage bust, against the background of the eurozone once again drastically underperforming against the world's fastest-growing economies.

The whole process may take two or three years to unfold, says The Business, with the Spanish economy will becoming even less competitive against its euro area peers, leading to a loss of business confidence, a rise in unemployment, a sharp downturn in the housing market and a rise in bad debts.

Whatever your take on these data, the one thing that does shine out is that the European Union economies – and especially the eurozone – are sliding backwards compared with the rest of the world. Beyond that, one is reminded of the saying that, if all the world's economists were laid end-to-end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

Is it any wonder?

COMMENT THREAD

One of our excuses is missing

As correctly forecast by this blog, it seems like the second engine for the new "stealth" Joint Strike Fighter (not pictured, left) is to go ahead, thus removing what we thought could be an excuse for the British government to cancel its order for the aircraft.

The deal in not quite in the bag yet but, according to the Financial Times, two congressional committees have recommended restoring money in the 2007 defence budget for an alternative engine.

Discussed here, this was very much expected. Although the Pentagon earlier this year recommended cancelling the engine, which was being developed by General Electric and Rolls Royce, the final decision on the defence budget - and thus any cancellation - is made by Congress.

The decision to restore the programme has been made by the House armed services committee and, last Thursday, by the Senate armed services committee. While this does not guarantee funding, it sends a strong signal to the appropriations committees, which must approve the measure in the final budget.

However, the situation looks hopeful, but perhaps not to the MoD. Conspiratorial or not, we felt that the lobbying by Blair personally, and leakage of Bush's rebuff, could have been set up to give him to excuse to cancel the JSF, clearing the way for the UK government to buy the French Rafale.

As it stands, a decision by the British government on whether to participate in the production phase of the JSF is still expected in November, whence we will know where we stand on a "litmus test" project that will either reinforce the Anglo-American "special relationship", or spell its demise.

COMMENT THREAD

Death of a sage

Not the death of Bernard Lewis, I am glad to say, as he is flourishing at the age of 90 and will, no doubt, be producing more books. Nor do I propose to write much about J. K. Galbraith, whose death was announced a few days ago.

The best thing I can do is quote from Mark Anthony’s funeral oration in “Julius Caesar”:

“The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones.”

Galbraith was wrong in all his analyses and predictions. He thought that the Soviet economic system was superior to the American because it utilized the work force more fully. Well, those camps were pretty labour intensive.

Worse, his advice, particularly to the Indian government about the need for state control and direction of the economy, lost that and other developing countries many possible years of growth.

“So let it be with Caesar.”

The sage I wish to write about is one whose death at the age of 82 was also announced a few days ago: Jean François Revel.

Revel was one of the true French intellectuals, a writer, a journalist (he was for many years the conservative and pro-American editor-in-chief of the weekly L’Express. Subsequently he became a commentator on another weekly, Le Point, and on the radio.

He was also one of the so-called 40 immortels, in other words, a member of the Academy. and, apparently, a bon vivant with gourmet tastes, as is appropriate to a French political philosopher.

It is very unfortunate that when someone like that dies, the establishment, in this case the soi-disant poet, admirer of Napoleon and Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, find it necessary to heap praise on him.

For Revel was truly a great man and a wonderful writer. Apart from Raymond Aron he was probably intellectually the most courageous French political philosopher and commentator.

As so many on the Continent he started on the left of the spectrum and moved progressively towards liberal economic and political views. But even on the left he was not afraid to defend the United States as early as 1972 in his book “Without Marx or Jesus” or to attack the Western intellectual propensity to worship totalitarianism.

His seminal book “The Totalitarian Temptation” was published in 1976 in French and 1977 in English. In it he still argued in favour of true socialism but proclaimed that the two enemies of it were the nation state and communism, the latter being far worse and oppressive than the former.

Indeed, he drew an interesting parallel:

“What difference in practice is there between those irresponsible “socialists” who, as soon as they come to power, impose their untested ideological principles on the management of the nation, with the result that production drops by one half – and, on the other hand, those irresponsible capitalists who permit an economic cisis in which a fall in production is accopanied by inflation and unemployment?

There is in fact no difference, except that the damage done by the capitalists is often less extensive and less permanent, and that they spare us the sanctimonious sermons of the 'socialists’. At least capitalism is not satisfied with itself except in good times when it is performing sucessfully, whereas socialist boasting need not be based on any performance at all.

Failure raises the socialist morale – luckily, since if its self-esteem had to be based on success, socialism would live in a state of constant humilation.”

These were shocking things to say in the mid-seventies and not only in France. Indeed, I suspect many people would still be shocked by them.

Revel went further, though. He mused whether there was a desire for totalitarianism actually present in some people, particularly intellectuals. His analysis of the way Western commentators, politicians, authors criticize ferociously the much more free system under which they live but refuse to see anything wrong with the then seemingly triumphant communist countries, could be applied to the same commentators or their successors.

While Revel’s analysis of the way democracy was retreating and communist totalitarianism advancing may seem far too pessimistic after Reagan, Thatcher and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, his comment about anti-Americanism is, alas, all too realistic 30 years on:

“Why does the President of the United States have to be heavily protected in Rome, Tokyo, Paris, or Stockholm against hostile demonstrators while in some Western cities any Eastern statesman walks or drives peacefully through friendly or indifferent crowds? Abroad, the only violent demonstrators that a Communist head of state fears are usually refugees from his own country.”

Well, why, indeed? Has anything much changed in that respect?

In 2002 as French opinion apparently hardened against the United States and in favour of numerous tyrants and terrorists, Revel published another book, another bombshell: “The Anti-American Obsession – Its Functioning, Its Causes, Its Inconsequentialness”. It was published in English in the United States but ignored in Britain, though some of its analyses ought to be of interest to us.

Interestingly, it became a best-seller in France, which would argue that the united opinion presented by the French political class and media is a myth in that country as well.

Revel, without pretending that America is perfect (what country is?) argued that the daily criticism and obloquy that Europeans heap on their ally and, for many years, protector, has long ago exceeded the bounds of decency.

Instead of getting hysterical about the 2000 presidential elections, Europeans should have been examining their own “abysmally run” European Union. We cannot but agree with his view that the Europeans are desperate “to project [their] faults onto America so as to absolve ourselves”.

Let us face it, much of the hysterical anti-Americanism, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum grows out of frustration. We are no longer in control of our politics and democracy in Europe is slowly evaporating. Mutatis mutandis this is similar to the rage and frustration that many in the Arab world feel. Instead of facing up to our problems and trying to sort them out we prefer to blame outsiders and who better than the United States?

COMMENT THREAD

A conspiracy of silence

I am allergic to conspiracy theories and tend to prefer "cock-up" as the ruling power behind most adverse events in this universe.

But Booker today in The Sunday Telegraph casts a conspiratorial glow on the strange silence of the politicos on the vexed subject of the European Union.

The illumination comes from none other than Lord Butler of Brockwell, formerly Robin Butler, cabinet secretary under five prime ministers. He recently gave a talk to his old school, Shrewsbury, where he not only entertained his audience with some caustic comments on Tony Blair's handling of the Iraq war but startled them by observing that the biggest issue at the 2005 election should have been "Europe", because it is in Brussels that most of our important legislation now originates.

It was contemptible, Lord Butler said, that the parties had conspired not to discuss this with the electorate, then noting: "Of course to readers of Booker this was not news!"

Neither, of course, is it news to our readers, but it does confirm from a very high source with intimate knowledge of the Blair government that the absence of discussion on European Union issues is very far from accidental.

Given its performance on this issue, one nevertheless expects the government to be reluctant to promote a debate, but it can only succeed in avoiding discussion if the opposition parties do conspire to keep it off the agenda.

This in part explains our loathing of the Boy King, who was highly influential in setting the tone for Howard's general election campaign. His determination to keep the issue out of the headlines – which continues to this day – is a continued testament to his unsuitability to become prime minister.

Worst still, it encourages those moronic commentators who pop up every time European Union affairs are raised, those who seek to marginalise people who are concerned for the future of this nation and who declare that "no one is interested in 'Europe'", demanding that we concentrate on "mainstream" issues.

But the only reason "Europe" is not mainstream is that very conspiracy of silence to which our former senior civil servant referred. We are pleased to have the importance of the issue reaffirmed from so senior a source and will, of course, keep "banging on", despite the silence of those conspirators who would seek to ignore it.

COMMENT THREAD

A personal tale

Reading and listening to exchanges on migrant labour, I am going to depart from our normal practice of providing a commentary on the days events and offer some observations, based on personal experience, which might help fuel and inform the debate.

By way of background, one starting point is my earlier experience as a consultant environmental health officer, specialising in food safety, when I used to inspect dozens of "big name" hotels and restaurants in London's West End, on behalf of their owners.

The main part of my job then was inspecting the kitchens and writing reports on the conditions found. And, as you would expect, most of the problems related to cleanliness, which I would laboriously record, time and time again.

Over the years, what I found were two things – that the same problems constantly recurred, and that the root of those problems was the employment of low-paid, most often migrant labour, who were simply not up to the job.

But, when I pointed this out, I was told that the economics of the catering business did not allow better wages and, in any case, British workers (except the very dregs) would never be prepared to do such low-grade jobs as kitchen cleaning.

And, believe you me, the job – most often described as "kitchen porter" – could hardly get any lower in the social pecking order. In my researches, I actually took on the job, working as a cleaner in the hothouse of a number of kitchens, and you very quickly learn that you are the lowest of the low.

Frankly, I was bored with writing the same old reports about the muck I had found so, with one particularly enlightened employer, I set about changing the nature of the job.

To do this, I researched means of mechanising many of the more arduous tasks, and making them more interesting. For the most deadly and time-consuming job of them all – pot washing – I found a device used in the automotive industry, used for degreasing components, called an ultrasonic tank. With some modifications and the right chemicals, we found that heavily soiled kitchen utensils could be immersed in the tank – sometimes for only a few minutes – and come out factory new.

So efficient was the machine that, in one kitchen - for the modest expenditure of £5,000 – we replaced two low-paid men with one man, who also did other duties.

For the general cleaning, I found specialist floor scrubbing machines, even wall scrubbing machines, and bought high-pressure cleaners to do things like ovens, together with air-powered tools to replace the ubiquitous scrapers.

In a group of six restaurants, I then took out one low grade porter from each, and created a team of four, specialist, peripatetic "technicians". We gave them uniforms, special training and – a higher grade of pay but, with being able to dispense also with periodic deep cleaning, the overall costs were less and the standards immeasurably better.

To my great delight, such was the status of my new "team", and so high was it held in the esteem of the company, that when vacancies came up, we actually had chefs applying for the job – chefs applying for jobs as cleaners!

After than experience, I was employed as a consultant to a major multi-national contract cleaning company, to set up a kitchen "deep cleaning" operation. I applied the same magic, this time recruiting, quite deliberately, ex-prisoners for my workforce. I found them hard-working, loyal and incredibly effective. The first job I took on was an inherited contract, cleaning a hospital kitchen. Normally taking three weeks, with twenty (low-paid) staff, I put in eight of my technicians and we cracked it in five days.

To my amazement, however, my ideas were not welcome in the group. Then, one of the senior directors took me aside and explained what the job was really about.

Contract cleaning, he told me, was not about cleaning – it was about making money. And the industry base was "cost-plus", adding a percentage to the wages of every cleaner employed. Thus, the more cleaners on the contract, the higher the charge and the greater the profit. However, the greater profit came from keeping wages low, so that cheap, migrant labourers were at a premium.

There was simply no mileage in better trained, more efficient workforces. The individual profit margins might be higher, but the net yield was lower, so there was more money in having a large, unskilled workforce.

In building terms, there is a similar equation. Recently, we had our own kitchen refurbished. Two local workmen turned up on the appointed day. The equipment was delivered and, four days later, we had a brand, spanking new kitchen, finished on-time, to budget, at a very reasonable cost, with a superb standard of workmanship.

In Yorkshire, we have no shortage of good craftsmen and building workers, and it used to be common practice for teams to take vans down to the "smoke" for the working week, enjoying the cheaper living standards here while taking advantage of the higher wages in the capital. But their employers got greedy, lifting charges (but not wages) to exploit the local labour shortages and then, as the limit was reached, employing cheaper migrant labour to keep up profit margins. Man for man, though, the highly-skilled Yorkshire tradesman, is better value, but there is no premium in efficiency.

Many of the notional gains from employing migrant labour, therefore, are illusory, based on the economics of the madhouse. Better skilled, indigenous labour can often do the job more economically, if the charging framework allowed it.

But there is another aspect to this. On the broader national scale, what is the economic value is getting migrants in to do the job if that means your British workforce is sitting idle at home, on the dole or on benefits – or out thieving, to make a little bit on the side.

The same also goes for manufacturing goods, especially in terms of public procurement. If a public authority buys "offshore", then – since this is paid for by the taxpayer - a simple calculation should apply. Take the "offshore" price and then compare it with the price from a domestic manufacturer. But, in respect of the domestic price, deduct the amount of tax that will be paid by the supplier and his employees. Then, to the "offshore" price, add the total cost of the dole and benefits that will be paid to British workers sitting idle because the work went to foreign workers. In many instances, the "cheapest" price turns out to be very expensive.

The trouble is, that in assessing the individual costs of project, the supplier of services or the purchaser of cheap foreign goods does not bear the social cost of their actions. They may get the benefits of the cheap labour, or the cut-price imports, but the taxpayer pays the real price.

As for the bullshit that the migrants are "only doing jobs we would not do", no more is this used than in agriculture, where – it is claimed – that British people simply would not do the job.

Yet, in my youth, I spent a year on an Israeli kibbutz, working for nothing as a farm labourer, doing precisely the jobs which our industry tells us the British won't do. And the "tourist camp" – as the Israelis called it – was one of hundreds, housing thousands of young foreigners who kept Israeli agriculture going while their sons and daughters went off to war.

Now, the situation is not analogous but, with a little imagination, I have no doubt that "farming camps", set up for British students and youngsters – with basic entertainment and other diversions – could be highly popular. We don't know that, and will not know it, because it has not been tried and will never be tried.

Yet, during the war, when hundreds of thousands of middle-class women were conscripted into farming, as part of the Land Army, many counted the time spent as the happiest in their lives. My own mother was one such.

In short, there are many different facets to the use of migrant workers and while – or so they tell us – there are economic benefits, these may be overstated, while the downsides are all too apparent. For sure, any one of us can gain short-term, from the Polish plumber – especially when getting a local seems impossible – but there is more to this than saving a quick buck. There are other ways round local labour shortages and difficulties, without having to resort to migrant labour in what amounts to a "race for the bottom".

Opening our borders to the unrestricted flow of migrant workers, from the EU or anywhere else, has never been a good idea and, in many respects, British society is suffering the trauma from earlier phases of such a policy, when huge numbers of Jamaican workers were imported to solve post-war labour shortages.

It is this, in its diffident, and ill-expressed way, that UKIP has been pointing out. It is one of the few parties that have attempted to raise this issue – apart from the BNP, which loses out because of the racist overtones – and this issue is certainly one that should be discussed widely. Knapman, with his little antics, has betrayed his own party, and made rational discussion that much more difficult. But, as I suggested on my earlier post on the BNP, simply not talking about it won't make it go away.

COMMENT THREAD

Oh, whoops!

"Anti-migrant party leader hires Poles" says The Sunday Times this morning, fingering Roger Knapman, MEP and leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

He has imported cheap east European labourers to renovate his West Country mansion, operating though his son, who runs a company that specialises in bringing foreign labour to Britain.

Over the past 11 months, says The Times, the Poles have been working 10 hours a day, six days a week, while living dormitory-style in Knapman’s attic. His son’s company claims east Europeans are up to 50 percent cheaper than their British counterparts.

Knapman, whose party was the only British group in the European parliament to vote against allowing east European states, including Poland, into the EU, boasted to an undercover reporter he could help supply Polish labourers to do similar work for British customers. He said using cheap foreigners is much better since “they work so much harder”.

The disclosure will surprise supporters of UKIP, which has warned that enlarging the EU to incorporate east European states would lead to a "flood of migrants" that would be "bad for Britain".

Its 2005 manifesto said the rate of immigration had to be stemmed because "the numbers of those permitted to enter legally has been rising sharply as a result of both the eastern expansion of the EU and deliberate government policy. The Labour government's untenable excuse is that we need large numbers of immigrant workers".

In public, Knapman, a former Tory MP, claims to take pride in supporting British business and boasts of owning two Rover cars. However, last week he told an undercover reporter that for the past 11 months he had been using a team of Polish workers to restore his grade II listed home in the west Devon village of Coryton. For much of that time he has had three or four workers, who have been provided with an old television, sleeping in his attic.

"They have a very good work ethic and work so much harder than anyone over here," he said. "You know they are not going to go off to another job as they are there specifically for you... Many workers here just aren’t skilled enough to do the work involved in renovating an old property. These men work 10 hours a day, six days a week and then we give them Sunday off. It's a 60-hour week, but they want to do it."

Knapman said he could help arrange teams of east Europeans to carry out building work through the firm run by his son William. "He will bring over some Polish workers according to what you need and they won't let you down," he said.

William Knapman runs Billdar, a Polish-registered company that sources east Europeans for jobs in Britain. The workers, whom he described as "like an army of ants", are paid about £50 a day — about half of the cost of a British builder.

William Knapman told an undercover reporter he used mostly Polish workers but also some Slovaks, Latvians and Swedes and quoted £4,000 for two men working for six weeks, from which the company takes an unspecified fee. "I think it's anywhere between 20 and 50 percent cheaper (than using British workers) doing it this way," he said. "The important thing is we’re not talking Monday to Friday, nine to five, with a tea break. They work 8am-6pm six days a week."

Roger Knapman said he would be employing the men, who have refurbished much of his property, for a further three months. When challenged yesterday, Knapman said there was "no contradiction! between what he was doing and the objectives of his party. On UKIP’s opposition to letting Poland join the EU, he said: “That is talking about political union, that is not talking about people working.”

When it was pointed out to him that they could freely work here because of the political union, he said: "I don't see that is relevant at all. We have three people who come here, they are very nice people and when they finish they go home."

Perhaps Knapman had better have a word with his fellow MEP, Godfrey Bloom. On his website, he declares:

With EU enlargement, workers in Eastern European countries have been given the right to work in Britain. When Britain recruits skilled workers from abroad, it causes a "brain drain" effect. Poorer countries still emerging from the spectre of the old Communist bloc cannot afford to lose their key workers. But with the opportunity to work in richer European countries, we are effectively exploiting the Eastern European countries.

And who is this "we", paleface?

COMMENT THREAD

Success with the Poles?

Felicity Lawrence over at The Guardian is speculating what might happen if all the migrant workers in the UK were to find their voice and demonstrate their presence as those in the US did last week.

A few days without migrant workers here could bring life to a halt soon enough, she writes:

What if there were no eastern European au pairs to work long hours so that thousands of professional women can get to work early and come home late; no African migrants to sweep out the station concourses and their coffee shops before dawn; no cheap contract cleaners in the financial centres of the City; no Kosovan car washers for the executive cars; no Filipino carers in the old people's homes; no Polish plumbers to fix the leaks; no Ukrainian builders on the construction sites; no Brazilians in the sandwich factories. No South Africans to pack the supermarket fruit and veg. You'll be able to add your own list of debts to newly arrived workers.

Low paid migrants, she adds, keep so many parts of our globalised economy going that any collective action would have a dramatic effect. Our food supply system is perhaps the most vulnerable sector. Centralised supermarket distribution and "just in time" ordering means nothing is kept in stock anymore. It would only take a shutdown of a few key points for a few days to paralyse the country. In the last fuel strike we very nearly did run out of food.

"But will migrants here ever rebel and exert their power?" she asks, then telling us that there are signs that they are organising. For instance, one group was brought into the country last summer, with false promises to work in a meat factory in Wales and had extortionate housing and visa fixing charges deducted from their wages.

"With the confidence of new EU citizens," chirps, Lawrence, "they became union activists, got new jobs, sleeping under the bushes while they struggled to find new accommodation and waited for their first pay packets." From such small beginnings and individual determination, movements grow.

Of course, if they are really in trouble, they could always go to one particular UKIP MEP, who – we are informed – would be happy to put them up in his attic.

COMMENT THREAD

A hidden victory

This was the face of victory in Bradford, yesterday, with Imran Hussain bucking the national trend. He won one of the six seats for Labour, making his party the largest in the borough, wresting the crown from the ruling Conservative group.

Yet, behind this anomalous result, on a night that brought the Tories 316 seats nationally and control of 11 councils, is a story which the mainstream media have missed, but which the national politicos would be unwise to ignore.

Part of that story is the resurgence of the Muslim Labour vote, which had deserted the party in droves over the Iraqi invasion. Three of the Labour victories occurred in wards heavily populated by Muslim communities and, elsewhere in Muslim areas, the Labour vote held firm.

But the second part of the story is BNP. Although the headline news had the party losing two seats and gaining one, representing a mediocre result, the detail tells a different story.

In all, BNP stood contested 16 of the 30 wards up for grabs and, in addition to winning one of them, came second in nine, third in four seats and fourth in only two. Moreover, in the seats contested by BNP candidates, their share of the vote was 27.5 percent, beating marginally the national share of the Lib-Dems, and beating Labour by a margin of nearly two points.

Contrasting the projected national share of the vote for the Tories – at 40 percent - in the wards contested locally by BNP, their overall share struggled to reach 29 percent, less than two points ahead of their right-wing challenger. Labour fared even less well in those wards, taking 27.4 percent of the vote overall – actually less than the BNP, while the Lib-Dims made a mere 20 percent.

That, effectively put the party rankings in these wards as Conservatives first, with BNP a strong second, Labour third and the Lib-Dims fourth. Such is the perversity of the first past the post system, though, that the Conservatives gained only five seats, Labour seven, the Lib-Dims three and the BNP only one.

It is difficult to estimate the effect the BNP had on the results, but is certainly not the case that, in Bradford, the party was drawing exclusively from Labour. In at least two wards – but probably more – without BNP intervention, seats that went to Labour or Lib-Dim could have gone to the Tories.

To that extent, the election result represents a "hidden" victory for the BNP and, from some accounts, it is not the only council in which they had an effect. Not least, their leaflet (illustrated) was the best-produced and persuasive of all the parties. Thus, despite being largely ignored by the local media, the party is buoyant and well-prepared for the next electoral contest.

The danger for the Boy King and the London-centric media is that the phenomenon seen "oop here" in the North – and the lessons – may escape their attention. For too many of them they get nose-bleeds if they come this far from London. But, like it or not, the BNP are here, and they do not intend to go away.

COMMENT THREAD

A matter of nearly complete ignorance

The EU commission yesterday released a special Eurobarometer on the "Future of Europe", subtitled, "EU listens to citizens".

There are, in fact, two reports, one a detailed opinion poll and the other outlining the results of qualitative research (focus groups).

Predictably, the commission emphasises the favourable (to it) elements of the research, pointing out that "comparable living standards, followed by the introduction of the Euro in all Member States, and a common Constitution are elements which are of most importance for the future of Europe." It thus claims that, "expectations for more Europe remain solid, in relation to key issues: fight against unemployment, protection of social rights and economic growth."

The fragrant Margot seizes on these findings, to declare:

Citizens want Europe strong. There is a feeling of solidarity and a need for common solutions. The EU is associated with security: from social security, security against terrorism and crime, security in health, living and environmental conditions to job security. The EU is expected to harness globalisation, bring solutions in terms of peace, democracy, living standards as well as research, innovation and economic performance. This should be the foundation of the EU policy agenda, which will help reinvent and renew the EU ahead of its 50th anniversary.

However, not all is what it seems (is it ever?). Although the copious detail tells the commissioners and Margot Wallström what they want to hear about "citizens" views of the European Union, there is a bloated worm at the core of their apple.

There is, says Eurobarometer, "near-zero knowledge and understanding of the functioning of the Union, its institutions and their role." The only institution (more or less) clearly identified is the European Parliament: not that much is known about it in actual fact, but its name suggests an identity and a role comparable to those of a national parliamentary assembly. It goes on:

The Commission is sometimes (not always) known by name, but what it is and does remains nebulous – both as regards how Commissioners are nominated, its institutional role, its relations with the other institutions and how it works. Mentions are even made of "commissions" (in the plural) without any notion of what they may stand for.

As if that is not enough, it adds: "The Council is practically completely unknown as an institution. The institutional workings of the Union and how decisions are taken is a matter of nearly complete ignorance."

Our own experience over many years demonstrates that where ordinary people are fully informed of the nature of the EU and how it works – particularly the decision-making processes – invariably, they become hostile to it. By that measure, it can be said that any enthusiasm shown for the "project" is a function of the "complete ignorance" about it.

Expressions of enthusiasm, therefore, must therefore be tempered by these findings – to the extent that they are, effectively invalid. Certainly, no one can infer that they give any mandate for action, as we are not dealing with informed consent. The "citizens" may want "Europe strong", but only because they know nothing about it.

COMMENT THREAD

Meanwhile back in the big bad world

It is hard to imagine but the rest of the world continues to function despite not participating in the British local elections.

One who is doing rather well is the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has brushed off any problems that the War of the Cartoons might have created for his country. Police in Pakistan might be registering cases of blasphemy against the editor and publisher of Jyllands-Posten and anyone else who may have published those cartoons but that bothers Mr Rasmussen not at all.

A lawyer who bears the unlikely but suggestive name Iqbal Haider, who runs Awami Himayat Tehrik or People’s Support Movement, even wants Interpol to find the guilty parties and for the Pakistani government to extradite them. Something makes me think he doesn’t really understand how extradition laws work. Maybe he should petition for Pakistan to sign up to the European Arrest Warrant.

Michelle Malking transmits a report (based on a single source) that a dozen young jihadists are supposedly travelling to Denmark to kill the cartoonists. (Keeps them off the streets, I suppose, and gives them some employment.)

Meanwhile, Mr Rasmussen has told the Washington Times that there was no intention to pull Danish troops out of Iraq.

“It is clearly our intention to stay in Iraq as long as we are requested by the Iraqi government, as long as our presence is based on a U.N. mandate, and as long as we believe we can make a positive difference on the ground.”

Mr Rasmussen is about to visit Washington for talks about Iraq and other matters and has been invited, together with his wife, to Camp David.

The American ambassador to Denmark, James P. Cain said quite reasonably:

“I think if some of our other allies -- France, Germany and Italy for example -- could do on a pro rata basis what the Danes have done, let's just say the world might be a safer place than it is now.”

Opinion polls in Denmark have shown that the government has not suffered at all for its defiant attitude in support of freedom of speech.

“Peter Viggo Jakobsen, a senior researcher at the Copenhagen-based Danish Institute for International Studies, said the remarkable thing about the cartoon incident was how little impact it has had on Danish foreign policy, despite images of burning Danish flags and violent anti-Denmark riots in Muslim capitals around the globe.

"There was a high consensus before the cartoons to be active and carry a high profile in the world, and there is still a high consensus on that point," Mr. Jakobsen said.”

So small countries have no influence in the modern world?

COMMENT THREAD

Results and commentary

FINAL

With all the results now in, Conservatives have gained 316 seats, now holding 1830, Labour are down 319 to 1439 and the Lib-Dims have gained two bringing them to 909. Labour lost control of 19 councils including some key boroughs in London and the Tories gained 11, including Hammersmith and Fulham, which they have not held since 1968. The Lib-Dims gained one.

The weakness in the Tory result is that there is no "breakthrough" in northern cities. They failed to win any seats in Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle. In Bradford, Labour actually increased its number of seats from 30 to 36, at the expense of the Tories who went down from 35 to 33, making Labour the largest party.

If the polls had been held nationwide, the Tories would have gained 40 percent of the vote, Lib-Dims 27 and Labour 26 percent. Turnout is estimated at 36 percent - down three points from 2004.

Despite this, we have had Francis Maude leering from the TV, crowing that people had made a "positive statement" about "modern compassionate Conservatism". From a man who is just about as compassionate as a snake looking at its next meal. The Boy King, himself, is feeling "very positive", saying his party had now broadened its appeal and was "on its way back".

The Lib-Dims have done poorly, gaining hardly any seats. Ming has invented a new word for failure: "consolidation" - although his Party has knocked the Tories off their perch in Harrogate. They are, however, making much of having moved to second position in their share of the vote - by one percent.

BNP have got 11 seats (out of a possible 13) in Barking. They say it's a revolt against the entire liberal political establishment. They're probably right. Dewsbury in Kirklees looks interesting. BNP gain two, bringing their local representation to three. After some losses, and total gains of 27, they now hold 53 seats in England.

Respect gained 11 seats in Tower Hamlets bringing their overall total as a party to to 13. UKIP gained only one councillor, at Hartlepool, despite predicting nationwide gains of 20. The Greens did get 20 seats, bringing their total to 29.

Chris Davies, leader of the Lib-Dim MEP group has been forced to resign over offensive remarks in an e-mail to a Jewish constituent. And they have the nerve to condemn the BNP for being "extreme"?

Meanwhile, the election results have been somewhat eclipsed by Blair's "biggest ever" reshuffle. Clarke is toast! Despite being offered other jobs, he has been sacked and has left the government to return to the back benches. He is replaced by John Reid - one to watch as a possible heir to the Blair throne. Des Browne takes over Defence.

Jack Straw goes, demoted to Leader of the House. He is replaced by Margaret Beckett - promoted after her catastrophic failure on single farm payments. Hoon is moved back into Cabinet to take the post of Secretary of State for Europe.

The "Europe Minister" is now Cabinet rank (although there is some confusion about this). If this is the case, the post of foreign secretary has effectively been split into two - Europe and the rest of the world. One wonders whether the Conservatives will reciprocate with a shadow. David Milliband, incidentally, takes over DEFRA.

Prescott has kept his title of DPM (the initials also stand for Disruptive Pattern Material, the army camouflage material), with his Cabinet salary and grace-and-favour residences - and his government Jag. He is, however, stripped of departmental responsibilities. These are taken over by Ruth Kelly - at least she will not have any "problems" with her diary secretary. Alan Johnson takes over education.

Alistair Darling moves from the joint post of transport and Scotland secretary to take trade secretary, while Douglas Alexander takes his post as transport secretary and takes on the additional role of secretary of state for Scotland.

The election results were a "warning shot" for the government, says Gordon Brown. On the other hand, Hazel Blears, who becomes "chair" of the Labour Party, believes the message from the elections is that "people want us to press on ... do more, go further".

Right.

COMMENT THREAD

Pity the commission

There they are trying to foster their "cuddly", consumer-friendly image, telling us that sunscreen manufacturers are misleading consumers with confusing labels and products.

Not only that, the commission is rushing to the rescue, saying it will table new rules on the marketing of the products. It will require makers to use better labels and get rid of words such as "sunblocker", which, it says, give a false impression of total protection from the sun's harmful rays.

And nobody – in Britain, at least - is taking a blind bit of notice. You'll have to take my word for this, but I'm pretty sure the newspapers are not holding their front pages – even if the subject offers some tremendous picture opportunities (see above).

The main story in the "heavies" is speculation on a snap reshuffle if the election goes badly, although they cannot provide any results yet. Nor, at the time of writing, had enough results had come through over the wires to make an intelligent guess of the overall situation.

However, the impression is that NuLab has not done quite as badly as might have been predicted and the Conservatives have done well but have not achieved a "breakthrough", achieving a five percent swing. Not have they done especially well outside their heartlands. The Lib-Dims, have also made gains but, overall, they are unspectacular. As expected, though, the emerging story of the night is the BNP, which has done well, if not better than it expected.

The "big picture" is not going to be evident until the London seats are declared, but the early results show that the BNP is storming in which a substantial number of seats in Barking.

For the nerds and masochists, Tory Diary is staying up all night to follow the action. This blogger is going to bed.

COMMENT THREAD

A mother is allowed - just

Associated Press gives an account of the ending of the Moussaoui trial, with the judge deflating his self-aggrandizing statements by informing him:

“You will spend the rest of your life in a supermaximum security prison. ... It's quite clear who won ... and who lost. You came here to be a martyr in a great big bang of glory but to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper.”

I do not suppose Zacarias Moussaoui knows who T. S. Eliot is or what he did but even he must have understood the gist of what he was being told.

One reason why I approve of the jury’s decision to sentence him to life imprisonment (interesting that it is the jury that decides in these cases, not the judge) rather than having him executed is that there will be less chance of dumb Europeans and moonbat Americans holding candle-lit vigils, awarding the monstrous creature prizes and generally making complete fools of themselves.

It may happen anyway but not so much.

According to the same report:

“In France, Moussaoui's mother, Aicha El Wafi, said, "Now he is going to die in little doses. He is going to live like a rat in a hole. What for? They are so cruel."

French authorities said Thursday they may eventually press the United States to have Moussaoui serve his life sentence in France under agreements providing for transfer of convicts. They were awaiting formal word of his sentencing conditions.”

The likelihood of the man being handed over to the French authorities are remote. It will be interesting to see how hard they will try for that transfer.

One appreciates that a mother feels differently from the rest of the world, but it might be a good idea if Aicha El Wafi made up her mind what line she was going to take.

Part of the defence was that little Zacarias was badly treated by his father, who also beat his mother; that he had spent time in children’s homes; that his sisters, who appeared on a video talking about their little “sweetheart” brother were suffering from mental problems; that he had been badly treated by his French girlfriend’s parents.

Indeed, that is still the line the BBC is taking. But the report also mentions the supposed fact, also advanced by Moussaoui’s mother and discussed in the Daily Telegraph today, that the lad was perfectly OK until he came to London and was taken in hand by various extremist preachers.

“Young men like Moussaoui were fed into the machine and emerged as hardline religious terrorists, primed for slaughter. His mother, Aicha al-Wafi, who along with her husband was born in Morocco, has echoed the complaints of the French counter-intelligence service, the DST, accusing the British authorities of being far too permissive in the years before 2001.

"I would say that England is responsible for many things because it allowed this fever to spread around the country," she told the Canadian television channel CBC. "These young people go to England, and then they scream hatred and vengeance in front of mosques. They let the fever spread." His brother, Abd-Samad, agreed: "I believe that Britain has fed a snake at its bosom, and has been bitten by the snake.''”

The detailed description of Moussaoui's radicalization in Britain, his travels to military training camps and subsequent return to this country (needless to say) in the nineties, disposes of his own screaming outbursts about his particular hatred for America. Britain certainly did feed a snake at its bosom.

While it is undoubtedly true that Britain, much to the disgust of other countries in the West and the Middle East, allowed extremist preachers to run riot for years and extremist organizations to multiply for as long (hence the name Londonistan, much used by security services in other countries), I do feel that, perhaps, the media should stop quoting all these various contradictory excuses for Moussaoui’s criminal behaviour produced by his family.

COMMENT THREAD

A letter to the Finchley Conservative Party

We have been given permission by the author of this letter, Charlie Wolf of TalkSPORT Radio, to publish it on the blog. Charlie is a good friend of ours, a great radio talk show host and a very angry man.

He is a staunch conservative both in British and American terms and has always voted for that party. He is also immensely proud to be living in Margaret Thatcher’s old constituency.

In the local elections today he took the unusual step of voting Labour, explaining his thinking to the local Conservative Party:

May 4, 2006

Cllr John Marshall, President
Mr Jonathan Herbst, Chairman
Finchley & Golders Green Conservative Association
212, Ballards Lane,
Finchley, London, N3 2LX

Dear Cllr. Marshall & Mr. Herbst,

Re: May 2006 Local Elections

I am a conservative voter though not a Conservative Party member in the Woodhouse Ward. I am generally quite happy with the job that has been done here by the Tories –the level of public services such as clean streets, well maintained roads and a modest rise in Council Tax (bar Mayor Livingstone’s portion)—it is with regret that I must inform you that my votes this morning went to the Labour party. This was a protest vote so it is important that I write and tell you why.

My vote, as small as it may seem, counts, and it is one of the most precious and powerful things I have in a democracy. I am a conservative commentator and talk-show host on a national radio; as strong a position as that is, it does not count as much as my individual vote.

I am sending you a message through my vote. As long as David Cameron is party leader I will not be voting Conservative. This hurts me to do this – there are many good friends who are honourble, hard working MPs and workers at all levels of the party. Lady Thatcher, along with President Reagan, are two heroes of mine and now I live in her old constituency.

In some respects my vote at the council elections will have little consequence for the following reasons;

· The Conservatives will probably continue to control Barnet and I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor.
· The local councils have little bearing on events in England or in their locals. Unlike, for instance, the United States, they have very little tax raising powers or control over essential local services such as schools or the police. Ultimately you are at the control of central government and in this case, John Prescott.
· Mr. Prescott, or for that matter, whatever party is in power has little control with most local issues decided by EU Directive.

This affords me the ability to send you a message that at this stage should have little effect on your party’s fortunes at present, but is more powerful than if I either did not vote or just spoiled my vote.

Where my vote will have more consequence –and the reason you should heed the warnings of this act of conscience in the local elections—is what actions I will take at the next general election.

As long as David Cameron is the party leader I will not vote for Conservative candidates.

At the last election Labour held this “true blue” constituency by a margin of just 741 votes. I voted for the Conservative candidate. In the next election there is ‘all to play for’ but I am afraid to say that as long as David Cameron is the leader of the party you will be able to count on neither my vote nor my support. I cannot say at this juncture who I will vote for but I can promise you whom I will not.

(There is only one standing exception to this pledge not to vote for the Conservative Party, that is the London Mayoral election. Ken Livingstone is an anti-Semite and a loud mouth thug. In that instance you have my assurance of doing whatever possible to see him removed from politics.)

I expect the Conservatives to mount a proper opposition to the current government, not for the leader to faff about with visits to glaciers. I can appreciate the leader’s own personally held beliefs on ‘the environment’ but all he has produced so far is stunt politics that are very little thought out. The trip to Norway was a gaff of monumental proportion that has made the party a laughing stock. It represented empty symbolism and nothing more and has held him up to ridicule and, from myself, contempt.

On what issues Mr. Cameron has pronounced (and I don’t expect a full policy manifesto at this stage), I have found these generally disturbing. His Shadow Chancellor mentions ‘wealth redistribution’, the reform of the NHS is off the table; he has stifled any talk on the EU by telling Eurosceptics there is no place for them on his front bench.

Mr. Cameron needs to drop the spin of Mr. Blair and stop trying to play an outreach programme to the Liberal Democrats. He doesn’t need spin when he has the principles of the Conservative Party and can stand on the shoulders of giants like Thatcher, Churchill and Disraeli. Instead of trying to appease LibDems who will not vote Tory he should be appealing to Middle England, the backbone of this nation that works hard, gets little reward, and is being squeezed until the pips squeak by the Chancellor. President Reagan proved –and now George W. Bush has confirmed—that a low tax economy works and stimulates an economy yet we have heard no firm promises from Mr. Cameron (or Mr. Howard during the last election) to cut taxes.

I expect Conservatives to talk about conservative issues such as better management of the economy the lowering of the tax burden and the overall improvement of services such as the police; the cutting of red tape and interference by government (UK and European) in our lives, the dictum that “the government that governs best governs least” – not to what level my kettle should be filled or the need to hug my neighbour or the other ridiculous suggestions from your spring conference. I find the Conservative Party at present an insult to my intelligence. This is not the party of Thatcher.

Please take this message to your party, Cllr. Marshall & Mr. Herbst. We should not have to worry about electorates voting for the BNP or other fascist parties; there is no need to insult UKIP (who many in you party feel better speak for them), if you would only speak for the people yourselves with a message of positivism and hope. Save the shallow environmental shenanigans –which even on their own don’t intellectually address the issue properly—to others.

Yours truly,

CHARLIE WOLF, Radio Talk Show Host
TalkSPORT Radio
(Writing as an individual)

COMMENT THREAD

Toothless tigers

One should always be a little cautious about gloating over the failures of military equipment, purely on the basis of people living in glass houses…, and all that. British industry has come up with some spectacular failures – the Nimrod Airborne Early Warning system comes to mind.

However, it is a while since we had a good picture of a "toy" on the blog and, since the story is about "Eurocopter", the temptation to go ahead and gloat anyway is irresistable – so here goes.

According to the Australian Courier Mail, Eurocopter "Tiger" attack helicopters, newly supplied to the Australian Army cannot fire their weapons, meet load or crash resistance requirements, fly over water or hit engine reliability targets.

The first four aircraft are being manufactured in, and delivered from France; the remaining 18 aircraft are being manufactured in France, and assembled in Brisbane.

The press story itself is based on a recently released report from the Australian National Audit Office, amongst which delights are included:

An Australian Military Type Certificate was awarded on 26 October 2005, which limited operations of in-service aircraft to flights where: there are no icing conditions; the maximum all-up weight is limited to 6100 kilograms; there are no shipborne operations; and the weather permits operations under visual meteorological flight conditions. In addition, the Service Release, which was also issued on 26 October 2005, limited the aircraft to test activities, instructor training, and demonstration and ferry flights. The Service Release limits operations involved in these activities to: no prolonged flights over water; no flights with sand filters fitted; no night flights using night vision devices; no flights where the radar altimeter is to be relied upon, and; no take-off, landing or operations close to the ground above 5000 foot pressure altitude.

The newspaper source states that the $1.9 billion contract to the armed reconnaissance helicopters is in disarray, with the supplier, Australian Aerospace Limited (a subsidiary of Eurocopter), asking for an extra $625 million to fix the problems. This has been rejected as "unjustified" and the supplier has been told to come up with a new proposal.

The Tiger was supposed to be an "off-the-shelf" solution, but has developed into what auditors describe as a "developmental program" with huge increases in schedule, cost and capability risk. The original contract signed in 2001 was valued $1.5 billion. A year after the first two helicopters had been delivered in December 2004, the army still could not use them.

All the same, one really cannot gloat too much. Did I hear anyone mention the Apache and the MoD? Nevertheless, the idea of a European attack helicopter that cannot fire weapons is vastly appealing - a bit like my Single European Tank really. It sort of sums up the whole EU "project".

COMMENT THREAD

A fundamental objective of the Union…

Recent events relating to deportations and the lamentable performance of the Home Office have focused on the deportation of "third country" criminals, the amount of unrestricted immigration from EU member states has not escaped attention, particularly as only recently we saw the second anniversary of the accession of ten new member states.

However, while the debate on this aspect of immigration has centred around its economic and social effects (some good, some bad), very little attention has been paid to the underlying political agenda in promoting the free movement of "EU citizens" across member state borders.

It is as well to remember, therefore, that there is a strong political agenda at the European Union level, which is expressed in Directive 2004/38/EC, which came into force last week.

This is the directive "on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States", replacing the earlier directive 64/211/EC, and it is in the recital to this new directive (point 17) that the agenda is explicitly stated:

Enjoyment of permanent residence by Union citizens who have chosen to settle long term in the host Member State would strengthen the feeling of Union citizenship and is a key element in promoting social cohesion, which is one of the fundamental objectives of the Union. A right of permanent residence should therefore be laid down for all Union citizens and their family members who have resided in the host Member State…

What comes over from this is the hope that the movement of "union citizens" from one country to another, and the conferral of rights of residence on them, will, on the one hand, dilute the homogeneity of national populations and, on the other, create bodies of people within member states which owe their allegiance more to the European Union than they do the national governments.

Hence, we see, that promoting cross-border movement is "one of the fundamental objectives of the Union", in a move which, it is hoped, will eventually create a "European" demos.

The problem with this theory, of course, is that long-term residents – and certainly their children – tend to absorb the values and customs of their host nation and thus become attached to their new nation, rather than amorphous notion of "Europe". To that extent, one can thus see why there is also the attachment to "multiculturalism", which seeks to prevent immigrant populations becoming fully integrated.

The trouble is that this has spectacularly backfired with the Muslim communities who have taken up residence in European countries, but the fact is that the policy stems from the desire of the European Union to break down national identity and rebuild it at a European level.

The oft-used phrase "chickens come home to roost" comes to mind – but, as always, it is the PBI who suffer the consequences.

COMMENT THREAD

We support freedom and democracy, we do

Well, some of the time we do, though not when it comes to shelling out money on projects in the Third World. This, incidentally, applies to the British government as much as the EU. It’s just the EU does more shelling out.

There is a road from Blantyre to Mozambique, which was built largely out of EU funds, being a vital highway for Malawi to trade and to receive foreign aid (mostly the latter, one suspects).

Despite protests from various human rights organizations, many of the courageously based in Malawi itself, the road has been renamed Robert Mugabe Road to honour the great freedom fighter, as he is described by various people in Malawi.

“Opposition Malawi Democratic Party leader Kamlepo Kalua also said it would be inappropriate to honour the Zimbabwean leader personally.

"It would be a serious oversight to decorate and honour a leader who is classified as an outright dictator," he told the Malawian Sunday Times.

"We can't have a leader who is demolishing people's houses without giving alternatives, using the intelligence and the army to arrest political opponents, honoured here."

He has since been arrested for his role in an alleged plot by Vice-President Cassim Chilumpha to topple President Mutahrika.”

The EU is a tad embarrassed (as it was when it transpired that EU money was being used to finance the publishing of anti-Semitic textbooks in Egypt) but there is little it can do.

It is hardly in a position to lecture Africans, after all. Despite the much trumpeted sanctions against Mugabe, his cronies, friends and relations, there is always some reason why one of them is allowed to come to a meeting in a European country.

According to the independent newspaper The Zimbabwean:

“In defiance of the EU travel ban on senior Zanu (PF) officials, the Belgian Embassy has granted a visa to enable Finance minister Herbert Murerwa to attend a meeting of ministers from Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific in Brussels this week.

In January the EU extended for another 12 months a series of sanctions including an arms embargo and travel ban against various officials in protest against the Zanu (PF) regime's continued violation of human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

An embassy spokesman said the other EU countries had agreed that the visa be granted and that Murerwa would not meet Belgian officials.”

I doubt if that will bother Mr Murerwa very much.

COMMENT THREAD

Assault on batteries

There was a time, once, when the UK was the world leader in recycling lead acid batteries – the type you have in your cars – recovering over ninety percent of discards. The system worked without any costs to the taxpayer or consumer and with minimal regulation, providing a good living to the small number of scrap merchants who specialised in the trade.

Then, along came the EU with its battery directive – building a web of regulation, red-tape, inspectors and controls. Scrap merchants went out of business and, to cover the regulatory costs, battery sellers had to impose a charge on consumers. Almost immediately, the percentage of batteries recovered fell to around sixty percent and batteries started appearing in hedge-backs and other fly-tipping sites.

Having failed totally to learn the lesson of this disaster – or even understand that there was a lesson to learn, the EU is back in business with a new battery directive, extended to cover a wider range of products. The directive will, according to the IHT, cost battery producers some €200 million and €400 million a year, placing an obligation on them to collect and arrange the cycling of their products.

By this means, the EU hopes it will encourage the recovery of the annual 158,000 tons of batteries sold to the domestic market, starting in 2012, when a quarter of all batteries sold must be collected, leading to 2016, when the target will rise to 45 percent.

Like all EU recycling initiatives, this one is producer rather than market-led, and will prove a disaster, leading to the sort of problems like this in the US – where the greenies have over-regulated their system in the interest of "saving the planet".

Needless to say, the mindless loons in the Toy Parliament are expected to approve the measure within a couple of weeks and, soon thereafter, it will come into law. They will never learn.

COMMENT THREAD

Give me money...

"I cannot print money, I cannot paint money, I can only propose how best to use it," says EU budget commissioner Dalia Grybauskaite, so give me some.

For "use", read spend, and that is exactly what the commissioner is proposing, with her budget for 2007 just out. She wants €126.8 billion for the year from the member states - compared with €112.0 billion this year - in a package she calls "minimalist".

This is the first tranche of the 2007-2013 settlement over which there has been so much grief, and includes money for Romania and Bulgaria, which are expected to join the EU in 2007.

"It's not enough, it's not sufficient and we are not able to pay for all our agreed priorities," laments Grybauskaite, noting that the overall sum is limited to 1.0 percent of the collective GDPs of the member states. Sadly, it means the commission is not able to commit as much money as it would have liked to its "priority areas" such as education, enterprise and innovation.

As before, though, a large part of this EU budget will be spent on agriculture subsidies, although it remains to be seen whether British farmers will actually get any of it.

COMMENT THREAD

Not of this world

Having today watched the Prime Minister's Questions, the subsequent statement by Charles Clarke and the debate following, I am assailed by that familiar feeling attendant on such occasions of not being on the same planet.

More to the point on this occasion, watching the interplay between Blair and the Boy King, you got the impression that the pair were actually in parallel universes, the Boy asking questions, Blair answering and then the Boy responding with pre-prepared clutch of sound-bites that bore no relation to the answers he had been given.

The details with have to wait for Hansard but my impression is that, to one of the questions posed, Blair actually responded with what sounded like a reasoned and plausible answer, packed with statistics and information, only to have the Boy bounce up and declare –from his script – "that doesn’t even begin to answer my question…".

Thus did Blair escape any mortal damage from the attack of the Boy King, as did indeed Clarke, under more a more focused but non-the-less "soundbitish" attack from his shadow, David Davis. Despite the dismal performance of his department, therefore, Clarke looks set to live another day.

However, had the attack been properly directed, it could have been mortally damaging, because the centre-piece of Clarke’s counter-attack was a proposal for legislation that created a "presumption for deportation" in the event of any foreigner committing and imprisonable offence. This, he maintained, would replace the current rules which had no provision for automatic detention, with foreign criminals being merely "considered" for deportation.

But, as we pointed out in our earlier, this is not possible. The UK is bound by both the EU Treaties and law, and by the European Convention on Human Rights, which seriously limit his ability to act.

So complex are these rules that, have spent the best part of several days researching them, I am still not fully au fait with the provisions and, therefore, will have to save the details for a later post.

Suffice to say, at this stage, that these details also seemed to elude the MPs present, so that none thought to mention that the Home Secretary simply could not do what he claimed he would do. In all, this was a classic example of the "elephant in the room" which gave the debate a surreal texture, making it definitely not of this world.

Not least, although the murder of policewoman Sharon Beshenivsky was raised by a number of MPs – including David Davis, none of them got the point. The Home Office had been claiming that Mustaf Jama had been considered for deportation in 2005, but could not be sent back to Somalia because of the political situation then. Because of this, he was not included in the 1000 plus offenders that had been released.

However, this was a gigantic smokescreen, trying to conceal that Mustaf was released without deportation being considered – in January 2003, after he had served 18 months of his three-year prison sentence. Under the normal rules for third-country nationals, anyone having been handed down a sentence of a year or more should have been considered for deportation and, had this been the case with Mustaf in 2003, he could have then been deported as the situation in Somalia was relatively stable.

The trouble was, though, that Mustaf was not an ordinary immigrant. He had been awarded "refugee status". Under the European Convention of Human Rights, amplified by the case of Moustaquim v. Belgium, he could only be expelled after having been convicted and received a prison sentence of five years or more – unless he was a "persistent offender".

That latter status is effectively determined by an immigrant being convicted three times and thus, it was only after his third prison sentence, in the Spring of 2005, that Mustaf was considered for deportation. By that time, the political situation in Somalia had deteriorated and he remained free in this country.

Clarke, was in fact asked whether, had his provision for "automatic deportation" been in force, people like Mustaf would have been deported. The home secretary blustered, but the answer was, effectively "no". This was not picked up though, and the unreal world continues, with none of us any further forward - or better protected.

COMMENT THREAD

In their tender care

WITH UPDATES

Last November, residents of Bradford were shocked to hear of the murder of policewoman Sharon Beshenivsky and the attempted murder of her female colleague. They had been called to an Asian travel agents and, as they arrived at the scene, were gunned down by armed raiders.

Not long afterwards, police were able to name three men in connection with the shooting, Somali-born Yusuf Jama, 19, his brother Mustaf (aka Mustafa) Jama, 25, and 24-year-old Asian, Muzzaker Imtiaz Shah (British-born in Burnley).

Yusuf Jama and Shah are in custody, have appeared in court and have been remanded in custody until their trial. Mustaf Jama, however, is still at large and police are unsure even that he is in the country.

However, it now turns out that Mustaf has something of a history. He entered Britain in 2000 as an asylum seeker and was given “leave to remain”, for seven years.

Showing a true sense of gratitude for the generosity of his adoptive country, Mustaf then embarked on an unrestrained criminal career, being described by the authorities as a "serial offender", finally to have been caught and convicted in July 2001 for an armed robbery in Sheffield. The Count handed down a sentence of three years and, having served half of it, Mustaf was released in January 2003.

Apparently, then living now with his brother and mother in North Kensington, who had also come to England, from Holland, he remained "known to the police”, then becoming involved in the Bradford shootings.

On the basis of his criminal career and sentence, he should have been marked down for deportation on completion of his sentence. Thus, it appeared, that he was one of the 1000-plus criminals who had been released into the community by the Home Office without checks.

At first sight, this could have finished the embattled home secretary's career, having let loose a cop-killer. But never fear - with one bound, Charles Clarke was free. We are now told by the Home Office (whom we believe completely) that Mustaf was considered for deportation. So that's alright then.

On review of his case, though, it was decided that he could not be sent back to Somalia because of the political instability there and, in any case, there were no direct flights to the country, by which he could be sent.

Thus, a known and dangerous criminal was let loose on society, with the tragic consequences of which we are now only too aware. And they wonder why people are considering voting for the BNP?

UPDATE 1

According to The Times, Home Office say Mustaf's deportation case was considered in spring last year. Since he completed his prison sentence in January 2003, that means it must have been considered more than two years after he had been released. Er...?

UPDATE 2

The Daily Telegraph tells us that, in May 2001, Mustaf was sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court to 15 months in prison for aggravated vehicle taking and road traffic offences. It was two months later, the paper adds, that he was jailed for three years at Sheffield Crown Court for two offences of robbery.

Thus, when he was released from jail in 2003, he was not considered for deportation. It was only after he had been given another three months at Harrow magistrates' court for burglary in February last year, that he was finally considered for deportation. As we now know, that was rejected. And, in the November, he struck again.

The Telegraph adds that all four Bradford area Labour MPs, including Gerry Sutcliffe, the consumer affairs minister, confronted Mr Clarke at the Commons yesterday and warned him that they would demand his resignation today unless he came up with a full explanation of the Jama case.

Terry Rooney, the MP for Bradford North, is reported as saying: "We told him that, unless we are satisfied with his answers, the people of Bradford will demand his resignation."

It has also emerged that detailed rules about deporting foreign prisoners were issued to prison governors 13 months ago. But the Home Office was mistakenly freeing foreign criminals for a year while the rules should have been in force.

COMMENT THREAD

This is entertainment?

Normally the BBC devotes acres of news-time to its own doings and the comings and goings of its staff. This little item, though stayed in the Entertainment section for some reason.

Apparently an independent committee, chaired by British Board of Film Classification president Sir Quentin Thomas found that well, how shall I put it? That the BBC, which is, naturally

“committed to being fair, accurate and impartial and UK viewers regarded it as unbiased”

is, apparently, less than so when it reports on the Middle East. There’s a surprise. Most of us have been saying that for years.

But then we had been saying for years that the BBC was considerably less than fair, accurate or impartial on the subject of the EU and Britain’s membership of it until there was a report that confirmed all that and promised to improve matters. Nothing ever came of that and, I expect, nothing much will come of this.

The report did suggest that next time the BBC reports about someone detonating a bomb on a bus full of civilians, the act be called terrorism. I presume that applies to bombs being detonated outside falafel stalls as well. We shall see whether the BBC complies with that. At least, the young lady reporter who wept tears over Arafat dying is no longer reporting from there.

COMMENT THREAD

Changing the brand

Now we know it is really in trouble. The EU commission has recruited Simon Anholt, a British brand consultant who - the Financial Times tells us - who has worked with Microsoft, Unilever and Coca Cola.

His job is to chair a panel of branding experts on European identity, in an effort to help the European Union recover its image after the rejection of the constitution by the French and Dutch last year.

Anholt is certainly after grabbing the headlines, likening the structure of the EU to al-Qaeda, with separate cells inspiring each other but no overall control. It differs, he says, from the centralising approach of Joseph Stalin.

That, Anholt continues, highlights the difficulty of changing a multinational brand rather than one based on a single country or company where the command structure is clearer. “It is the biggest branding challenge in the world after Nigeria and the USA,” he adds.

Clearly, also, Anholt has lost no time in picking up the Community jargon, advising that said changing one's brand required “concrete actions”. Perhaps with a puckish sense of humour, he then states: "You usually get the reputation you deserve."

Rolf Annerberg, chief of staff to the fragrant Margot then adds to the discourse, complaining that, "The EU has a brand but it is competing with 25 national brands. It is very seldom you use them as a unit. The Ryder Cup golf that plays against the US is about the only case."

He believes the EU has lost its central narrative: that it brought peace to a war-torn continent. "That means nothing to young people today," he says.

However, there are those – like this Blog - who doubt whether Brussels can do much. John Wyles, of consultants G-Plus Europe, who worked on the campaign to promote the euro currency, agrees: "You cannot reach the citizen from Brussels. You are dependent on national politicians."

And, as we know, national politicians – like our very own Boy King – are not into product placement. They have their own brands to market.

Nil desperandum, though. As our illustration shows, we have a suggestion for the commissioners.

COMMENT THREAD

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

The events over the last few days, variously described as the "meltdown" of Blair's NuLab experiment, go to prove yet again that all politics are local. No matter how much the EU tries to get itself noticed, the activities of a sexual predator in the Cabinet or the serial incompetence of a Home Secretary will always seem to take precedence over what the media still insist on calling "foreign news".

It is slightly odd, therefore, that when domestic politics are to the fore – and not even the inventiveness of this Blog can actually make the EU look interesting at the moment – the Telegraph should choose in its main leader to feature immigration demonstration in the USA.

However, the Telegraph turns even this into domestic politics, with the headline, "We can no longer dodge the immigration issue". It starts by noting the contrast between the attitude of immigrants to the United States and France, stating that Hispanic illegals do not swim the Rio Grande or slither under barbed wire simply in search of work, but because, by and large, they wish to become Americans.

By contrast, across the Channel, many of the younger so-called sans papiers actively despise France; some of them have embraced a mixture of criminality and extremist Islam - apparently disparate world views that, as bemused European liberals are discovering, can be slotted together with surprising ease.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister has thus coined the slogan: "Love France or leave it," raising the question as to whether Britain should embrace the same solution.

The answer, suggests the Telegraph is that the Labour government might have left us no choice. During the course of 2004 alone, around one per cent of our existing population took up residence here - and this does not include illegal immigrants. The government, it says, would be incapable of managing immigration even if the European Union allowed it to: it cannot even deport released foreign murderers and rapists.

Thus, domestic politics suddenly become EU politics. What is not generally realised is that, under Article 39 of the consolidated treaty we have no powers to exclude nationals of EU member states from these shores, except "on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health". And, by a succession of EU court of justice rulings, "public security" has been so tightly drawn that such a national criminal has to serve a five year sentence before being considered for deportation – as opposed to one year in the case of those from third countries.

Even then, the exclusion cannot be permanent and we are obliged to permit re-entry after 15 years, or a lesser period if the applicant can prove that their "personal circumstances" have changed.

Thus, although, as the Telegraph reminds us, Britain benefits from a certain influx of legal immigrants, we are also confronting ever larger numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, who despise everything about this country except its welfare provisions and the criminal opportunities opened up by politically correct policing.

Yet, as long as those immigrants come from or via the EU, there is nothing we can do about them. As a result, says the Telegraph, "Love Britain or leave it" is not a refrain that any serious politician is likely to use in the near future, and we are not recommending that they do. But, it adds, that is what more and more people are thinking.

Strangely, therefore, it is the very issue that politicians of all parties have been so keen to avoid discussing that is eventually going to rise up and bite them where it hurts.

COMMENT THREAD

The Poles have a government (for the time being)

One of the fascinating aspects of the political situation in Poland (if that is not too strong an expression) has been the absence of a government since September. There has been a Prime Minister, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, and a Defence Minister, Radek Sikorski, who is given to many pronouncements, including suggestions of a “better” constitution for Europe.

This happy state of affairs (the absence of government not Mr Sikorski’s pronouncements) has come to an end temporarily with the leading party, Law and Justice, signing a coalition agreement with Andrzej Lepper’s Self-Defence Party and the Catholic League of Polish Families.

The latter two parties are usually described as being eurosceptic and anti-reform and Mr Lepper’s appointment as Deputy Prime Minister in charge of agriculture is “causing concern in Brussels”.

Much more to the point, it is causing concern in Poland. For one thing, the new government is still 13 seats short of a parliamentary majority, which means that it is likely to collapse within a few months. For another, something like 70 per cent of the country’s population oppose the formation of the coalition.

The boorish, thuggish, backward looking, anti-semitic Mr Lepper is one of the reasons why Poland reluctantly voted for membership of the European Union.

Politics in Eastern Europe divides along faultlines that are different from those in Western Europe. The question that faces the electorate, whether overtly or covertly, is whether the country is to become part of the modern world, look outwards, take its rightful position as a European nation. The other side of the debate is obscurantism, nasty, often anti-semitic nationalism, economic backwardness and a feared exclusion from the developed world.

It is unfortunate from the point of view of the eurosceptic cause that in most of the post-Communist countries the opposition to EU membership was propounded either by unreconstructed communists or virulent nationalists, both members of the latter political group.

In the end, the referendums were all won but the turn-out was low in most countries, the sort of result you would expect in the circumstances.

Now, terrifyingly for the Poles, one of those politicians has acquired a high position in the government, though probably not for long. The most likely outcome of that will be that the Poles who have had growing doubts about the EU will cling to it for dear life as they perceive rule by the likes of Andrzej Lepper to be the alternative.

In the meantime, Radek Sikorski, who, one assumes, will remain Defence Minister, has been complaining with some justification that once again Poland is being disregarded by Russia and Germany in their agreements.

Speaking at a conference in Brussels Mr Sikorski attacked the planned gas pipeline between Russia and Poland that will allow Russia to cut off energy supplies to Belarus and, by implication, Poland without hurting Western Europe.

“The $5bn (£2.7bn) pipeline, agreed in September 2005, will connect Babayevo in Russia to Greifswald in Germany.

The 1,200km (744 mile) pipeline is now under construction and will deliver Russian gas to Germany - and eventually to other Western European nations - by 2010.”

Naturally enough, in that case, the West European countries would not go to the assistance of the East Europeans who might be losing out.

The threat to Belarus must be there in case there is a change in government. As Aleksander Lukashenka is President Putin’s closest ally and supporter, there seems no particular reason for cutting off their gas.

Poland is another matter, of course. Defence Minister Sikorski became quite heated in his analysis and compared the building of the pipeline to the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, whose secret clauses gave Stalin the Baltic States and divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.

This sort of behaviour, said Mr Sikorski (no relation to the general), called into question the whole concept of a common foreign policy. Well, yes, one could put it that way. One assumes the Defence Minister was ironic but with politicians you can never tell.

COMMENT THREAD

Fox's glacier hints

David Cameron's emphasis on environmental issues risks eclipsing traditional Conservative messages on crime and discipline. So says Liam Fox, via the Guardian, which has picked up on Sunday’s GMTV interview with the shadow defence secretary – further analysed on the Tory Diary site.

Fox is warning that the party risks being "tilted too much in one direction", hinting that the Boy King has perhaps gone a little too far with his "Vote blue, go green" campaign. The Tories needed to show they were a broad coalition by combining traditional Conservative policies - such as wealth creation and being tough on crime - with a social agenda that dealt with domestic violence, mental health and green issues.

The Boy King, however, may feel he is on a roll, with a recent survey carried out for Friends of the Earth which suggests that “most Brits” want the government to go green.

In fact the claim is that over three-quarters of 1,233 adults aged between 16 and 64, interviewed online by TNS - from 25 to 27 April 2006 - would support the mandatory (but unspecified) measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by three per cent each year – something which the Boy King favours.

One wonders, though, whether the public support would be quite so strong if the precise measures had been specified, and their economic consequences, or were aware of the latest “green” scam, reported by the BBC.

Power firms, it seems, are set to make a £1bn windfall profit from the EU Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme, benefiting from increases in electricity prices brought about by the scheme without needing to make any extra investment in return.

The problem is that firms have been given, free-of-charge, the carbon emissions permits on which the scheme is based, which they can then sell on at a handsome profit when – if as is likely, they manage to come under the limits set.

This rather demonstrates the fatuity of directly involving state organs in such complex matters by, since the scheme is a mainstay of the EU's policy for meeting its Kyoto obligations, nothing us likely to change and a lot of people are going to be laughing all the way to the bank.

Not laughing though is Ruth Lea who, in yesterday's Telegraph business section, succinctly debunks the idea that everyone agrees on climate change. It is a fallacy, she writes.

She is supported by a group of leading climate scientists who have announced the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about man-made global warming.

They are particularly critical of the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its "effective monopoly on public announcements", and are aiming at fostering a new "sceptical consensus" to act as "auditors" of the IPCC.

Needless to say, Rees-Mogg, in The Times believes that "Lucky Dave" has got his strategy right. Given that Mogg almost invariably gets it wrong, the Boy King seems doomed.

The Independent certainly points the way if the Boy sticks to his "environment" line, having already run a story on how his "image as green leader" has "gone up in smoke" since it emerged that he is followed by his official car when he cycles to work. It and the Guardian now take every opportunity they can to remind their readers of this little faux pas.

With that, and Fox's glacier hints, it seems the Boy may have to learn how to be a real opposition leader, on substantive issues – especially as there may now be a sensational development in the offing on the foreign criminals that Clarke let loose on society.

COMMENT THREAD

Accession plus two

Today, two years ago, the EU fifteen became twenty-five – adding ten more states to the evil empire, eight of them former satellites of the USSR.

In the spirit of friendship and solidarity, the bulk of the existing member states had already decided to refuse to open their jobs markets to the new entrants, the exception being Britain, Ireland and Sweden.

Now, to celebrate the anniversary of "Accession Day", the Independent reports on a survey which tells us that employers prefer workers from new EU states to "lazy" Britons.

As if we didn't already know, the paper informs us that migrant workers from the new states are filling jobs that indigenous UK workers are not prepared to do, but for much lower wages.

This is according to "new research" by the Europhile Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which claims that three quarters of the employers it interviewed said they believed enlargement had been good for business.

Its full survey, of 1,000 migrants and employers, found that employers used highly qualified migrant workers for low-skilled and low-waged work, especially in the building, hospitality and agricultural sectors. The employers found migrant workers “reliable” compared with UK workers, some of whom were described as "lazy".

The reason given is that migrant workers were prepared to tolerate low-skilled work and poor conditions because the pay was significantly better than the wages in their own countries. "Sometimes they put up with negative aspects of their jobs in order to learn English or because conditions were only temporary," the Foundation said, while some employers admitted to “bending the rules” on employment law.

Needless to say, the TUC is unhappy. Its spokesman said: "This survey confirms that migrants workers are exploited in a number of sectors. Unions need to step up their recruitment and government must do more to enforce legal standards."

Furthermore, not a few British workers are unhappy. My colleague in Somerset reports that two of the largest factories in his district are now employing exclusively Polish workforces, while a third factory – newly built only five years ago – is being demolished after the operation moved to Poland.

Although Finland, Spain and Portugal, and also Greece are now to lift restrictions, with the British experience in mind, France, Germany and Austria are among countries keeping them in place.

COMMENT THREAD

A present for Mrs Prescott

If the lady does not do the deed, with this handy kitchen accessory, let us hope that the MPs and the media combined can put up enough of a case to put the deputy prime minister out of his misery.

However, rather than his recently reported activities, there is a much more powerful reason why John Prescott should be removed from office as soon as possible. For, although he is widely regarded as a buffoon, it is largely this man who, almost single-handedly, has put the EU-related regionalisation programme on the Labour Party’s agenda, and kept it there.

The story of contemporary developments starts, in fact, in 1994, with the creation of creating ten Regional Government Offices (RGOs) by John Major – under pressure from the EU commission which virtually made their establishment conditional on the continued flow of EU funds.

But, while the Labour Party had endorsed the concept, in 1995 it backed off from its own proposals to established fully-fledged regions with their own elected assemblies. Instead, it settled for indirectly elected regional chambers, which would not compete with local government.

A similar approach was adopted in a 1996 Labour policy document entitled: "A New Voice for England's Regions", and in the 1997 manifesto. Both documents made it clear that, where there were calls for the creation of regional assemblies, popular approval would first have to be demonstrated in regional referendums.

This, however, was not acceptable to John Prescott. As an entirely private initiative, he established a "Regional Policy Commission", chaired by Bruce Millan, the former Secretary of State for Scotland and European Commissioner for Regional Policy. This recommended that each region should have a Regional Development Agency (RDA) "to promote economic development in the region with an accountable and strategic regional framework".

Such was the power of Prescott that he managed to put on the Party’s manifesto a reference to RDAs and, in the Queen's Speech of 14 May 1997, the newly elected Labour government, under Tony Blair, announced its intention to create them. The RDAs themselves, were to be Prescott's "Trojan horse" – embryonic organisations which would, in the fullness of time blossom out into full-blown regional governments.

However, the Labour Party remained lukewarm on further regionalisation, and there were indications of tension between Blair and Prescott on the issue. For instance, in July 1999, the EU commission was proposing to cut the assisted areas in the UK, from covering 34 percent of Britain's population to 29 percent. Prescott was reported as seeing that the "obvious answer" to the cuts was to press on with "the next stage of devolution" - setting up elected assemblies in the eight English regions outside London.

The same report observed that this was "far from obvious" to Blair, who was held to believe firmly that central government should only move in this direction when there was a clear demand coming from the regions.

As a further indication of where Prescott stood, the report continued:

Nevertheless, some regional politicians want to move a bit faster. Last week, the North-West Regional Assembly, which is the unelected supervisory body for the regional development agency, agreed to set up a "constitutional convention" chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool, to work out a plan for an elected assembly. A similar body has already been set up in the north-east. All of this activity is being enthusiastically egged on by Mr Prescott.

By January 2001, however – with talk of election in the air – "insiders" were noting the emergence of a Prescott-Brown axis in support of regionalisation. The chancellor had promised that a second-term Labour government would strive to create a "Britain of nations and regions" as part of its bid to secure an economic renaissance outside the prosperous south of England.

Brown then suggested a new package of regional policies could be unveiled in the manifesto, or shortly after the election, hinting that this might include a commitment to directly elected regional government. "As we develop regional policies that are locally generated and managed, there has to be local and regional accountability too", he told a conference at the University of Manchester Science and Technology Institute.

Members of the pro-devolution Campaign for the English Regions had welcomed the Chancellor's comments, suggesting they were the result of an alliance between Brown and Prescott, "who is strongly in favour of regional government".

Prescott's aides had also been "raising the stakes in the internal battle to commit the party to a strong regional dimension in its forthcoming manifesto". Late the previous year Richard Caborn, the trade minister and a close friend of Mr Prescott, had told a Fabian Society meeting in York: "I believe the radical programme of constitutional change we embarked on in 1997 is incomplete without an answer to the so-called English question. Regions need a clear voice to promote economic development and that in my view is best achieved through (elected) regional assemblies".

Prescott seemed to have got his way in March 2001. Blair, "known to be cool on further devolution in the wake of the creation of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments" told business leaders in Cardiff that the government was ready to go further. But only with the consent of people living in the regions. This was regarded as a "massive boost" to regional campaigners. Two weeks earlier, Prescott had promised delegates at Labour's spring conference a green paper on regional government.

Despite this, when the Labour Party issued its manifesto just before the June election, it was content merely to "strengthen regional economies with venture capital funds and new powers for reformed Regional Development Agencies". And its promise to make provision for directly elected government in the regions was vague, hedged with the referendum caveat and the condition that "predominantly unitary local government" had to be established.

The tension between Blair and Prescott continued when there was no reference to English regions in the Queen's speech announcing the newly elected Labour government's legislative programme. This brought an intervention from Europhile Peter Mandelson, former Northern Ireland secretary and then "self-appointed champion of the regions". He warned that unless Westminster shed more power to the regions it would risk a two-tier England that was "dangerously unbalanced".

The pressure succeeded. At the earliest possible opportunity after the election, with the manifesto condition for "unitary authorities" far from satisfied, Prescott pushed out not a green but a white paper. Never mind that, with his co-author, Stephen Byers, he was besieged by the problems of Railtrack and an almost complete breakdown in the rail system. Clearly, for Mr Prescott, elected regions were more important – even to the extent of confronting his own prime minister.

But then, Mr Prescott, born in 1938, is no ordinary politician. Best known for his garbled syntax, behind the façade of an amiable – and sometimes not so amiable – blunderer, lies a man with an iron will. As a 17-year-old merchant seaman, he fought a bitter battle for the National Union of Seamen in a lengthy strike which led to its leadership – including Mr Prescott – being described by Harold Wilson as a "tightly knit group of politically motivated men". He joined the Labour Party in 1956, was parliamentary election agent for Chester in 1964 and stood as a Labour candidate for Southport in 1966. Four years later, he was elected to his present constituency, Kingston upon Hull East.

There is also a considerable "European" dimension to Mr Prescott’s career. In 1973, he became a delegate to the Council of Europe, where he spent two years, emerging as leader of the British Labour group. He then joined the European Parliament in 1975. That was at the height of Labour's referendum campaign for continued membership of the "Common Market" and just as the nascent regional policy was emerging in the EEC, with the launch of the ERDF. And so strong were his "European" credentials that he was offered, but declined, the position of EU commissioner.

Thus, Prescott's introduction to European politics came some thirty years ago. And, from his own mouth, he dates his enthusiasm for regional policy "…back more than 30 years". Therefore, either shortly before or, given some latitude for an "approximate" 30 years, during his tenure as a UK delegate to the Council of Europe, Mr Prescott became a convert to regionalism. It seems hard to believe that his thinking was not influenced by ideas then current in the Council, or subsequently while he was in the European Parliament.

Not long after his return from "Europe" in 1981, undoubtedly still imbued with enthusiasm for regional policy, Prescott became Labour's regional affairs and devolution spokesman, under Michael Foot, who asked him to draw up a new policy framework to secure agreement for devolution for Scotland, Wales and the English regions. The result was a publication: "Alternative Regional Strategy: a framework for discussion", which set out plans for devolving power to Scotland and Wales and, predictably, the creation of English regions. To these objectives, Prescott, with his background in European politics, would remain constant.

Then, crucially, in 1989, Prescott was elected to the Labour Party's ruling body, the National Executive Council (NEC). Also on the NEC was another ardent regionalist, Sir Jeremy Beecham, then Labour leader of Newcastle upon Tyne City Council.

Having served on the NEC's Local and Regional Government sub-committee, Beecham was also Vice Chairman of the Northern Regional Councils Association. He was Chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA), was leader of its Labour Group, and was to become Chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He was made President of the British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA) in 1995 and served as a member of the President of the Board of Trade's Working Party on Competitiveness. From 1987 to 1996, he worked with the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust, an organisation that generously funds the Campaign for English Regions and which financed much of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that pressured for Scottish devolution.

Apart from their positions on the NEC, Prescott and Beecham would have had ample reason for meeting frequently and indeed they did, not least when Prescott in July 1997 – shortly after Labour came to power - invited Beecham to work in a joint venture called the "The Central-Local Partnership". This had been set up by the government and the LGA as "a forum for central and local government to work together to tackle the multiple causes of social and economic decline, and to improve local services".

Together, the Prescott-Beecham partnership has worked quietly and steadily to pave the way for regionalisation – often on arcane initiatives such as the “reform” of local government finance which would allow local authorities to take out capital loans without first having to seek central government approval. This would enable regional authorities to approach the EIB for loans without needing to refer to the government.

But the vital element of the relationship was the route into the LGA through Beecham's chairmanship. This was important because the LGA's sister organisation, with which it shares an office in Brussels, is the Local Government International Bureau (LGIB). It serves as its European and international arm and, in particular, acts as the UK member of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions - one of the main driving forces behind regionalisation in Europe.

In England, the LGA – with Beecham at is head – is the driver of regionalisation, co-ordinating a plethora of allied associations, including the ERN, all moving towards the same end. The role of these "allied associations" was noted by a University of Wales researcher who concluded that bottom up "local authority regionalism" had emerged in the 1990s through them. Funded by constituent authorities and composed of nominated members and seconded officers, these associations, he asserted, were working to create agreed policy on economic development, transport and land use questions and EU structural funds policy.

Small wonder that when Prescott published his White Paper, his co-enthusiast, Sir Jeremy, responded positively: "The LGA is keen to ensure that regional assemblies have the backing of local people and that the process for establishing them does not divert councils from improving their services to local people. Regional assemblies should embody a genuine devolution of power from Whitehall". Unlike thousands of councillors, a hostile media and an unenthusiastic public, he had no qualms whatsoever about the idea. It was a matter of how, not whether.

And, despite the rejection of the ideal by the overwhelming "no" vote in the North-East region, the agenda continues to this day, pushed by Prescott, imbued with his thirty-year-old enthusiasm, engendered by his work in the Council of Europe.

No one else on the Labour benches seems to show as much enthusiasm for regionalisation and, should the man depart, there is some hope that the project will be quietly dropped. Whether they be from Mrs Prescott or his fellow MPs, therefore, we do hope that the knives are out for the deputy prime minister.

COMMENT THREAD

You have to feel sorry for them

There are times when even I feel sorry for the UN. Here they are doing their best, giving Iran a top job on the Disarmament Commission, giving an Iranian hostage taker, known not so affectionately as Screaming Mary, a “Champion of the Earth” award and what happens? The President of Iran turns round and tells the UN where it can get off on the subject of nuclear enrichment and other suchlike matters.

Well, at least there are those reforms. They are going ahead. Aren’t they? Well, errm, no. Or not so that you would notice.

The developing nations are undercutting efforts to reform the budget. According to UPI:

“The so-called G77 group of developing nations led by South Africa rejected efforts by the richer members of the body and Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resolve their complaints and moved ahead with its resolution.

The G77's resolution broadly rejects efforts to reform the way budgetary decisions are taken and undercuts calls by Annan for more flexibility.”

The Sunday Telegraph gives a succinct summary of the proposal:

“Supported by America, the European Union and Japan, which provide 80 per cent of the UN budget, Mr Annan wanted to transfer key spending and management decisions from the unwieldy 191-member General Assembly to a strengthened professional secretariat.”

Of course giving more financial power to SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) may not be a particularly top-notch idea and shifting money management from the unaccountable General Assembly to an equally unaccountable but possibly more sensible professional secretariat is not going to change the culture of the UN one iota.

However, the countries that provide 80 per cent of the funding do have a weapon they can use in the future if they manage to stiffen their resolve. The developing countries are furious at what they see as blackmail and are shrilly demanding that the richer countries continue to pay in their dues and not claim any special privileges for that.

Separately, Japan has been campaigning for a rearrangement of funding that would make Russia and China, at present minimal contributors, pay more. The latter two countries are, needless to say, resisting the suggestions. China is also resisting any notion of Japan becoming a permanent member of the Security Council.

All round, one can see that the UN is the epitome of peaceful global co-operation.

COMMENT THREAD