L'escroc lives

It seems almost another age when we were railing about the crookery of the French president, Chirac, who had been dubbed even by his own citizens as L'escroc. And indeed it has been some time since we last looked at him.

But all good things have to come to an end. Today we see confirmation from the city of Paris that Chirac and France's ruling UMP party will pay the city € 2.2 million euros to drop its fraud charges against the former president. €550,000 euros of the fine is to be paid by Chirac while the remaining €1.65 is to be paid by party of current President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The "reimbursement" relates to the thievery on a grand scale by Chirac and party, not least creating contracts for ghost jobs between 1977 and 1995 when he was the mayor of Paris, rewarding his political allies with the contracts. Rather than be up front about it, the current deal is a hole-in-the-corner affair, only recently uncovered by journalists. And the response from Chirac is entirely typical. He denies any wrongdoing.

"President Jacques Chirac has always denied having committed any crime whatsoever and maintains that the jobs at issue were legitimate and useful to the city of Paris and to Parisians," says Chirac's lawyer, Jean Veil.
"In order to remove a source of controversy harmful to the citizens of Paris… [ Chirac] hoped for an end to the civil litigation and that the city of Paris would simply be reimbursed for the money it sought to recoup through legal means."

It cannot be possible that even Chirac believes this level of bullshit, but the fact that his spokesman could bring himself to utter it tells you so very much about the ruling elites and their total contempt for the public.

Interestingly, there has been very little interest in the affair from the British media. There rarely is, despite the fact that the French government, quite evidently floating on a sea of corruption, is part of our own government through the mechanism of the European Union.

Despite this, one would like to think that our own government is free from taint but, given the machinations of president Blair. But this is extremely unlikely. We just do our corruption a different way over here, while our etiolated media concentrates on the fluff and trivia.

However, it is not yet over for Chirac. There is another corruption case scheduled to go to court for this autumn. The only real issue, though, is how this crook is once again going to evade justice.

Not once, though, is any thought given to the corrosive effect on public morality. If our leaders are "bent", and they are able to get away with the most henious crimes (and sharp practice), there is no premium in playing it straight.

More so than ever, it becomes a society where the elites simply grab what they can get, and a weary cynicism takes hold of the population. That is where we're at on this blog. For so many years, we have charted corruption, stupidity, incompetence and the rest, charting only a tiny fraction of what is going on.

The one constant, though, is that real crooks get away with it. The bigger the crooks, the more likely that is. And if there is one thing different from the past - as it was ever thuis - it is that occasionally the population used to rise up and slaughter their oppressors.

This is why this rich vein of historical allusion runs through this blog. I don't believe human nature has changed all that much. The elites can piss-take for so long, and then nature takes its course. It would be nice to see the French population take a lead, but I suspect they won't. Someone will though - you can bank on it.

COMMENT THREAD

The shadow of Auschwitz

The BBC is informing us that Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski "has urged EU governments to contribute to a special fund to maintain the Auschwitz death camp memorial site."

The camp, where Nazi Germany murdered more than one million people - most of them Jews - now consists of decaying buildings, mostly in need of repair. Poland wants international support for a €120m foundation to preserve Auschwitz.

Sikorski is saying that it was "the last moment to act" to save the site. "If the foundation receives €120m it could use six or seven million euros each year for the conservation of the camp." He adds: "This is really the time to ensure that the last death camp still conserved is maintained for future generations."

With such huge historical overtones and the burden of guilt carried by this symbol of death, it is almost impossible to discuss this rationally. But there has to come a point when questions have to be asked about the historical drag of the Holocaust and how it still dominates modern politics.

The problem is not the retention of Auschwitz as a memorial to the dead. The problem is the European Union which is, in effect, a living memorial to those horrors.

What very few people fully understand is the extent to which the doctrine of "preventing another war in Europe" drives the ideology of the EU. We are all used to the oft repeated mantra that the EU kept the peace in Europe for (insert number of years here) but what does not come over is how deeply and seriously this is meant, and what an enormous influence it has on EU politics.

Anyone who questions this is immediately reminded of the Holocaust, to the extent that the real, if unspoken, symbol of the EU is not the ring of stars but Auschwitz itself. In such terms, to question the EU is to question the Holocaust – so intimately bound up are the two.

It is that understanding – my understanding – of how deep this vein of history goes – that provoked my earlier reference to Arbeit macht frei in relation to the British purchase of Austrian-built trucks. The reference, for all its emotive overtones, is apposite. The award of the contract was not made on operational or commercial grounds but for ideological reasons.

At the heart of this contract was the deal agreed by Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac in St. Malo in 1998, to build a European Army, the then euphemism being the European Rapid Reaction Force. Anyone who thinks this was anything other than a stepping stone toward the final objective is deluding themselves.

The "colleagues", as with Karl von Wogau, have made their ambitions crystal-clear on this. There is no pretence here, no deception, no cloaking of intentions. They want a European Army. It is their Holy Grail, the final step which must be achieved before the grand experiment of European political integration can be called complete.

If there is any deception it is with our own politicians, who continually and wilfully delude themselves that the "colleagues", who are so clear in stating their ambitions, somehow do not mean what they say. Thus, we have an all-pervading self-deception, where the march towards the European Army is dressed up as "co-operation" and the underlying political agenda is airbrushed away as if it did not exist.

Thus, when it came to awarding the British contract to MAN, our politicians may have deluded themselves that this just a fine gesture, to demonstrate British good faith and our willingness to support European "co-operation". But the "colleagues" see it very differently.

The principle of "synchronisation", about which von Wogau is so enthusiastic, runs deep into the heart and soul of the European "project". This is the fundamental principle whereby, if we are all so heavily synchronised - "interdependent" is another word - we will no longer have the wherewithal to go to war with each other. That is the purpose of European integration, the final cover being to achieve a perfect state of "interdependence".

Thus, more than sixty years after the end of the Second World War, the fear of starting another one is still the main driving ideology behind contemporary European politics. The shadow of Auschwitz looms large in the corridors of Brussels. It is still the dominant force, and drives the project forward during every waking moment.

Thus, when Radek Sikorski evoked the symbolism of Auschwitz, he is appealing to the very heart of the European ideology. But, what he does not realise, perhaps, is that the memorial he seeks to preserve is not in Poland but in Brussels. It should belong in Poland.

Thus, Sikorski should get his €120m to maintain the memorial, so that we never forget. But the corresponding deal is that we should dismantle the shrine in Brussels that is the EU, turn away from its sterile, backwards-looking ideology and get on with our lives. We should look to the future instead of being trapped, perpetually in our past.

COMMENT THREAD

The joke's on us

It's a while back since we had a look at the European vanity project, aka Galileo, but like everything the euroweenies do, it doesn't go away just because you're not looking at it.

What brings us back is a highly entertaining reversal of fortunes, where the vainglorious ambitions of the Euros seem to be colliding with the inscrutability of their former strategic partners, the Chinese.

To appreciate what turns out to be a huge irony, we have to go back to 2001 when the Galileo system was in its early stages of going nowhere, and the US started raising the alarm about possible interference with the established US GPS system.

This was more or less resolved in 2004 and eventually, by June 2007 a deal was cemented whereby the two systems would be compatible and could therefore share the sky in some sort of harmony.

Meanwhile, also to the consternation of the Americans, the euroweenies were doing a separate deal with the Chinese, bringing them on board as "development partners" for Galileo, with the very real risk that they would exploit the technology for military purposes.

The concern had its effect because, despite – or so they thought – the euroweenies milking them for €200 million for their stake in the project, the Chinese were frozen out of the management team which was to run the system.

In what now becomes a deliciously convoluted story, the Chinese meanwhile decided to develop their own Beidou navigation network from a regional system to a fully functional global network, comparable with GPS, Galileo and the Russian Glonas. That, as Taylor Dinerman pointed out in 2006, would raise exactly the same compatibility problems that had confronted Galileo and GPS, with potential interference between systems.

Now, as Asia Times and, more recently, Dinerman report, the Beidou system – now known as Compass - is steaming ahead, with the Chinese aiming to make it fully functional by 2015.

In setting up their system, Chinese representatives have informally resolved with the US potential problems with co-ordination of frequencies. Recognising the status of GPS as a "legacy" system with a prior claim to its frequencies, China is prepared to respect the status quo and not interfere.

Not so with the euroweenies, however, where compatibility issues between Compass and Galileo most definitely have not been resolved. With China's schedule now edging ahead on the launch stakes, the inscrutable ones are taking the view that it has equal rights to pick its operating frequencies as do the Euros.

The result is that Compass could end up interfering with Galileo's high accuracy Public Regulated Service (PRS) signals. This is the part of the system which will be available on subscription and will also be used for military purposes - not that it's a military system, of course. But, with the Chinese system up and running, PRS will be pretty much useless for military purposes unless China allows access to the frequencies.

Not content with this, the Chinese are also seeking to build into their system some "product differentiators" - enhanced capabilities and unique signals and/or services – which will give them a competitive advantage over Galileo and GPS. With their eyes on the lucrative Asian applications market, that will leave the poor old Euros decidedly in the cold.

To add to this jolly tale, the Chinese have also acquired sophisticated UHF-band satellite communications jammers and have probably developed indigenous systems, which today give them capacity to jam common satellite communications bands and GPS receivers. Galileo's card has also been marked.

The combined effect of these various initiatives is set to create even more difficulties for the Euros than they have experienced already, further diluting the attraction of a system that has been struggling to get off the ground. To add insult to injury, the Chinese have also made good use of the €200 million stake with which they bought into Galileo.

Having acquired considerable technical know-how from the Euros on developing ground infrastructures for satellite systems – as part of the "partnership" deal - all but about €10 million has been spent on application development and ground infrastructure in China itself. This technology is now being seamlessly integrated into the Compass programme.

While the Euros might have been under the illusion that the Chinese would move away from the US GPS system and join with their anti-American tryst, China has never had any real intentions of joining in. It has always had ambitions for its own independent system. The Chinese have got far more out of the "co-operation" with the Euros in terms of technical know-how, system management and market access than they ever put in, and are now ahead of the game.

The ultimate joke – if your sense of humour takes you that way – is highlighted by Dinerman. The Galileo system was originally intended by Jacques Chirac to prevent Europe from becoming the "technological vassal" of the Americans. With the frequency conflict, it has now produced a situation where the EU is going to be subservient to the Chinese.

Reports, says Dinerman, have it that the Euros are "very angry". It's a tough old world out there, and it looks like it's not getting any better for their pet project. It would all be rather funny if it wasn't for the fact that the British taxpayer already has better than a £200 million stake in the damn thing and we are going to have to pick up a hefty chunk of the bill when it tanks. The Chinese may be laughing – not that they would do so in public – but it looks like the joke is on us.

As for the poor benighted Euros, Dinerman has the last word. "Decades from now," he writes, "it may be that people will see Galileo as having been a wise investment, one that gave Europe a valuable tool with which to assert itself on the world stage."

Or perhaps not.

COMMENT THREAD

Glacial speed?

Announced yesterday by László Kovács, the EU taxation commissioner, was a plan permanently to reduce VAT on a range of goods and services.

This has been picked up by The Daily Telegraph business section, which reports: "EU plans to lower VAT could help Britain's service sector".

The paper focuses on the "cost of eating out, hairdressing and elderly care", which "could fall because of European Commission plans to reduce VAT rates on labour-intensive services." These follow, we are told, "experiments started in 1999 to see whether reduced VAT rates would boost job creation and combat the black economy."

Interestingly, though, cutting back VAT on restaurants and hairdressers has a much later provenance, dating to January 2006 when then president Jacques Chirac put this on his shipping list as a way of boosting the French economy. Only now, over two years later, does it reappear, but with a commission rather than a French label on it.

Another thing that has crept in is the reduction on VAT for the "renovation and maintenance services provided to places of worship, cultural heritage and historical monuments" something for which there has been a strong campaign in this country – which Gordon Brown has resisted.

Not included, though, is the object of the Taxpayers' Alliance campaign, the reduction of VAT on ordinary building repairs and renovations, which means flood victims – amongst others – are going to have to continue shelling out to restore their homes.

But the biggest omission is Brown's headline-grabbing initiative from last month – his plan to exempt "greenie" goods like energy-saving light bulbs and home insulation material. Not a mention of it finds its way into the commission’s plan, amounting to a clear snub to the British prime minister.

The greatest joke of all, though, is that the commission initiative is supposed to be aimed at reducing the burdens on small businesses, recognising that it is small businesses which generate the employment growth in the economy. But, if it has taken since 1999 – by its own estimation – just to come up with a proposal, then this is hardly indicative of a vibrant, dynamic organisation, capable of responding to fast-changing circumstances.

By contrast with the speed of the commission, glaciers are positively fast.

COMMENT THREAD

A hidden agenda?

The last thing the global monetary system needs at the moment is a clash between the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve over strategy. Yet that, according to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is precisely what it has got.

His source is a report by Morgan Stanley's European experts who are warning of serious strains in the global financial system that "could lead to a replay of Europe's exchange rate crisis in the 1990s". "We see striking similarities between the transatlantic tensions that built up in the early 1990s and those that are accumulating again today. The outcome of the 1992 deadlock was a major currency crisis and a recession in Europe," they say.

At the heart of all this is the starkly different priorities between the ECB and the Fed, the former still taking inflation as its exclusive concern, and thus holding up interest rate, "ignoring angry protests from politicians and squeals of pain from Europe's export industry." On the other hand the Fed, is responding to the "credit crunch" by trimming rates in order to promote economic growth.

That apart, Ambrose reminds us once again that the ECB policy is also creating considerable strains within the eurozone itself, badly affecting the vulnerable countries of the Club Med region and the euro-satellite states of Eastern Europe.

The point of maximum stress, he writes, could occur in coming months if the ECB carries out the threat this month by Jean-Claude Trichet to raise rates. It will be worse yet - for Europe - if the Fed backs away from expected tightening. "This could trigger another 'catastrophic' event," warns Morgan Stanley.

And it is here that Ambrose misses a trick – although, to be fair, it is not directly relevant to his article. Behind the scenes – as indeed Ambrose has recorded – there have been strenuous efforts by Sarkozy (and Chirac before him) to rein in the ECB and bring it under political control, thus enabling a change in policy to one more favourable to the Club Med members, of which France is a "founder" member.

And, as part of that French strategy, was a plan to use the constitutional Lisbon treaty to absorb the ECB into the EU as a fully-fledged Community institution, alongside the commission, subject to the aims and objectives of the EU. This we reported last August (twice) and, while it caused a frisson of concern at the time, the late inclusion of the ECB into the treaty has been largely forgotten.

However, this could explain the desperation of the French to see the Lisbon treaty ratified and then implemented. This is not "only" political. Since their very economic survival depends upon it, that could be their hidden agenda.

COMMENT THREAD

The elephant in the floods

Much preening is going on in that esteemed and thoroughly worthy organisation, the Taxpayers Alliance, over its coup in The Daily Telegraph, now repeated on their website.

The Alliance claims that our provincial government made a profit of almost half a billion pounds from the floods that devastated parts of Britain last year, extracted from taxpayers’ wallets through VAT charged on home repairs.

The Treasury, it appears, made £ 525 million from work carried out to rebuild property damaged by the flooding in the summer while only contributing £86 million to a relief fund, giving it a "profit" of £ 439 million.

So far, so good, but the Taxpayers Alliance is now getting together with the Federation of Master Builders and other groups, has launched a coalition called "Cut the VAT" to get the tax streamlined down to five percent from its current 17.5 percent rate.

And why five percent, and not total abolition? Well, that might have something to do with the fact that VAT is an EU tax system and, under the VAT 6th Directive, that is the minimum rate that can be charged. But, of the EU, there is no mention.

Furthermore, as we might have observed before, in order to drop the current rate to five percent, Mr Brown must get the permission of the other 26 member states in the Union – something Mr Chirac found to his cost, as indeed did Mr Brown when in 1997 he promised to cut VAT on fuel.

In the EU arena, VAT cuts are extremely fraught, and to overcome resistance to cuts – even if he was minded to seek them - Brown would have to invest huge political capital, for which there would be a major price to pay.

More to the point, the 26 member states would have to be "softened up" before they would even begin to think of such a drastic change. No only do they themselves rely on tax revenue from housing repairs, many actually charge VAT on new-build, which is exempt in the UK – a source of resentment with some of the "colleagues".

So fraught is this issue that, when it came to the relatively uncontentious issue of reducing VAT on church repairs, Mr Brown – then in his role of chancellor – chose to opt for a refund scheme rather than beard the "colleagues" for a full-blown exemption.

The Taxpayers Alliance, therefore, is looking in the wrong direction, blaming the wrong government. Our provincial government, in soaking (again) the flood victims, is merely obeying the law set by our masters in Brussels.

The elephant in the floods lives!

COMMENT THREAD

Five years on

The logical and predictable thing for this site to do is to follow the crowd and write an appreciation of the Iraqi War, "commemorating" – if that is the right word – the fifth anniversary of the start of what is often called the Second Gulf War.

We are, though, nothing if not unpredictable, and most often choose to plough our own solitary furrow. To an extent, that applies here. It is too early to pass an historical judgement on the war. It is still work in progress. The final analysis will depend much on whether the venture is considered a "success" (by whatever measure success is judged).

However, it is worth noting that the two complaints most volubly heard are capable of widely varying interpretation.

The first is that the war was launched on the basis of a "lie" – that the invasion was necessary to neutralise the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was supposed to be accumulating. The second was that, having invaded, the coalition forces did not have a plan to deal with the aftermath, as a result of which the country plunged into anarchy and insurgency, the repercussions of which we are still dealing with today.

As to the first complaint, there is some evidence that President Bush always intended to invade Iraq – it was unfinished business after the first war, one after which it had been hoped that the Shiite Arabs would rise up against their bloody dictator and seize power. When they did not, it was always on the cards that the US would return. The events of 9/11 and the emergence of al Qa'eda were, to that extent, ex post facto justification for a decision that, in principle, had already been made.

Why this unravelled is simply explained. With the need to bring coalition allies on board – and particularly the British – Bush needed to frame the justification for the war in terms that would conform with the principles of the United Nations charter. To that extent, he had to "invent" an external threat, the apparent existence of weapons of mass destruction providing the veneer of "legality" to a venture which would otherwise be characterised as interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

That the US failed to secure a UN resolution which "mandated" the invasion of Iraq now gives solace to those who claim the war was illegal but, as we have remarked before, to find that this number includes a goodly number of Eurosceptics is a worrying development.

For those, in their battle with the European Union, who argue that the sovereign state is the ultimate authority, the test of a legal action lies with the state.

As long as an action is taken in accordance with the constitutional arrangements of a state, then it is legal. To argue otherwise – and thus in this instance to accept the UN as the arbiter of what is and is not legal, is to slide down that slippery slope of accepting the authority of trans-national bodies as superior to that of the sovereign state.

In that the US and the UK went to war in accordance with their own constitutional principles, their actions in invading Iraq were entirely legal – period. To argue otherwise is to accept that there is a higher authority than the sovereign state. This we cannot and will not do.

Turning to the second of the issues – the failure to work up of post war plan - this in a sense actually reinforces the argument that the US (and the UK) went in with the best of intentions. Naïve though they might have been, there is evidence that both Bush and Blair genuinely thought they were liberating the country. They laboured under the impression that, once Saddam was deposed and the Ba'athist party dismantled, new leaders would emerge to take control, installing with the support of previously oppressed peoples, a liberal and progressive regime.

Put another way, had the coalition forces gone in with a pre-prepared, fully worked-up plan to take over the running of the country, that could have exposed them to the alternative charge that they were not at all engaged in liberation but a premeditated take-over.

That much though is history – and it is for the future historians to argue the issues. Better them than the promised inquiry which both the Conservatives and Lib-Dims so desire. The recent history of such inquiries – specifically the BSE and Bloody Sunday inquiries – suggest that they become machines for gobbling up public money and enriching lawyers, without really adding any light to events.

What is perhaps more important, and therefore largely ignored, is the conduct of the post-war military operation and, in particular, why the insurgency was allowed to get out of control. From a British perspective, we need to know how it is that one of the greatest Armed Forces in the world (by their own estimation) were gradually forced to retreat to their single outpost in Basra Air Station, defeated by a motley band of ill-equipped fighters with only a fraction of the weapons and resources available to the British.

In our view – as we have so often expressed – the rot started when we allowed ourselves to be driven out of al Amarah – which sent a message to the militias that, if British bases were attacked, they would not be met with an effective counter and the forces would eventually retreat. Cutting through the rhetoric and spin, that is precisely what happened – and no amount of re-writing history will make it different.

Why this matters – more so than a retrospective inquiry on the lead-up to the war – is that both Iraq and Afghanistan are ongoing operations. The lessons learned from military and political failures, although undoubtedly embarrassing, could inform on-going operations and perhaps help avoid making the same mistakes.

In this, the perceived wisdom is that the British Army went into southern Iraq and, when confronted with an emerging insurgency, believed – on the basis of its collective experience in Northern Ireland – that it had the experience and equipment to deal with it. The militias, it was felt, were merely the IRA with suntans.

As it turned out, the Army proved entirely ill-equipped to deal with the insurgency and, without that equipment – and the forces to match - were unable to adopt battle-winning tactics and were thus forced to retreat. While the American seemed to have learned some lessons – the same is not so apparent with the British.

The military in particular, seem to be in denial, convincing themselves that they have achieved a positive outcome when, in truth, if the are is stabilised, it will probably be in spite of rather than because of the post-war actions of the British.

Behind that, though, is a more profound failure. Although the war phase started these five years ago, the die was effectively cast in 1998 when Blair met Chirac at that fateful St. Malo summit. It was then – and in the following year – that Blair effectively pledged future defence spending to the building of the European Rapid Reaction Force, an expeditionary concept which had little relevance to the counter-insurgency operations that the British Armed Forces were to encounter in Iraq and then Afghanistan.

Thus it was that when the Army went to war in 2003, it was with "legacy" equipment developed and procured for the sole purpose of arresting a Soviet armoured thrust across the plains of northern Germany.

That equipment sufficed for the conventional war phase of the Iraq venture – with gaps filled by US forces – but proved entirely inadequate for the counter-insurgency phase. To deal with that, the Army in particular effectively needed completely re-equipping and restructuring.

To have done so would have required commensurate expenditure and structural changes to the Forces, which would have wrecked the plans for the ERRF, which was something defence secretary Hoon, with his service chiefs, Charles Guthrie and Mike Jackson were never going to allow. While the Army was thus palmed off with second-hand "Snatch" Land Rovers and the equipment it already had, the bulk of the money went into the new expeditionary force, as did the focus of attention and the intellectual resource of the MoD.

Thus, for a long time, Iraq became a backwater – and expensive and irritating diversion which slowed down the transformation of the Army into a full-equipped expeditionary force, set to support the military ambitions of the European Union.

It is the shadow of St. Malo which doomed the Iraqi operation and still casts its shadow over the operations in Afghanistan. Too much money is being spent on gleaming new "toys" which have little if any relevance to the current operations and, because the focus is still on the "future war", the equipment and restructuring needed successfully to fight counter insurgencies is not being developed.

That is, to a very great extent, the real story of the Iraqi adventure and one, you can be assured, which will not be told by the media over these coming days.

COMMENT THREAD

Who are the masters now?

It was supposed to be a "green" budget. And so it was, to an extent. Out of 178 measures (and 68,000 words), Darling added fifteen under the heading "protecting the environment".

Says The Daily Mail, by 2010, the year in which they will all have been implemented, they will increase the amount we pay to the Treasury by a total of £1.7 billion.

But that is far from the end of it, says this paper. In an obscure table entitled "other measures announced since Budget 2007" - in other words ideas the Treasury has had since this time last year - there are more environmental protection plans, for example aviation duty and capital allowances for biofuel plants. These will raise taxes in 2010 by a total of £605 million.

Thus, the government will have increased our annual tax burden under the guise of greenery by nearly £2.4 billion. And nor is that all. Another £500 million of green taxes, announced in last year's Budget, are also due to bite in 2010. So the total green tax grab is nearly £3 billion.

So, as far as it goes, it is all take and no give. Now, there was a time once when chancellors gave a little back by way of incentives, to encourage particular behaviour. And rampant "greenery" should be no different – otherwise we might just get the impression that "saving the planet" is just another government tax scam.

Well, actually, it is no different. Former chancellor Brown certainly does want to reduce taxes to "help protect the environment". What he has in mind, we learn is cutting VAT on low-energy light bulbs and fridges, as well as other "green" goods.

But, as we all know, this cannot be done unilaterally. All the member states must agree – as Chirac found to his cost two years ago.

So it is that little Gordie is going toddling off to Brussels to meet his masters, dressing up his exercise in applied grovelling by "renewing" his call for the VAT cut. In his own words, he tells us: "I have submitted a proposal which I hope we will discuss on Friday, that we look at how we can give new incentives for people to use environmentally-friendly products."

How the mighty have fallen. The prime minister of a once great nation wants to reduce taxes. So, the day after the Budget he goes dashing off to Brussels, whence all he can do is "hope" that his "proposal" will be discussed.

And that is by no means limit of his indignity. There are one or two other things.

So who are the masters now?

COMMENT THREAD

A matter of understanding

Picked up by The Independent after it had been doing the rounds in the Continental press is the news that the love affair between Sarkozy and Merkel is going through (another) rocky patch.

Spiegel got to it earlier with a story headed, "Postponed Summit Exposes Franco-German Rift". This has, says the paper, "revived speculation that the German chancellor strongly opposes Sarkozy's desire to form a Mediterranean Union." This then is no mere lover's tiff, but a full-blown rift over policy, or so it seems.

The AFP agency then developed the story, when France and Germany called off a second top-level meeting, this one between finance minister Christine Lagarde and her German counterpart Peer Steinbrueck. This was the first of a planned twice-yearly meeting with the heads of both central banks.

Apparently, the German financial newspaper Handelsblatt took great umbrage, declaring: "The French government no longer finds time for its German partner," wrote. Die Welt, on the other hand, claimed the talks were called off after Merkel had refused to write a joint op-ed piece with Sarkozy about the Mediterranean Union

But, noted AFP, the Mediterranean project is not the only issue over which the two countries disagree. As we know, Paris and Berlin are also at odds on economic issues; namely the role of the European Central Bank and France's deficit.

Also, where there might be serious policy differences, there are reports that personal relations between Sarkozy and Merkel are frosty. This is no continuation of the close relations between those classic Franco-German partnerships of de Gaulle-Adenauer, Giscard-Schmidt, Mitterrand-Kohl or even Chirac-Schroeder.

Thus, by the time The Independent got the story, it was able to report, "Europe's closest friendship falls apart", noting that: "Privately, and not so privately, the talk in both capitals is of a serious rift in the single most important national partnership in Europe." At the heart of the quarrel, says this paper, "is the strained relationship between the two leaders".

In this, the paper – offering one of its ponderous leading articles - sees both "a problem and an opportunity" - for Britain. Both leaders, it says, are vying for the EU leadership and, for Britain, division between the two pillars of the EU offers greater potential sway. "Things are in the melt in a way we have not seen for years."

Concluding that, "those who think the politics of Europe is boring do not understand it properly," this newspaper is perhaps indulging in the perennial Europhile fantasy that the UK can somehow become the honest broker between France and Germany, thus holding the balance of power. That harps back to classic British foreign policy, and has beguiled successive prime ministers, right up to Tony Blair, each of whom thought they could separate France and Germany.

With Blair, it was the idea that he could offer high-level defence co-operation with France, which he did in St Malo in 1998. Nevertheless, hopes were soon when, less than a week later, Chirac and Schröder wrote a joint letter reaffirming the closeness of their alliance. The current Franco-German alliance is far more enduring than the Foreign Office has yet realised.

Nevertheless, with strong expectations of a new Anglo-French defence deal in the offing, it looks on the face of it as if history could repeat itself. According to former European Defence Agency chief, Nick Witney, writing for EU Observer, "Franco-British" defence co-operation could be at a "historic crossroads".

A substantial agenda, writes Witney, set out in a secret report prepared over the past two years, is waiting to be taken forward. Some doubt that Britain will be ready for any new defence initiative with France whilst ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is still under debate in the UK Parliament, he continues, but Sarkozy's overtures to the US and to Nato - soon to be manifested with more French troops for Afghanistan - have made the politics easier.

Ostensibly, Witney adds, both sides have the best of incentives to increase their co-operation - financial necessity:

At the outset of their present defence review, the French admitted that their forward re-equipment plans were unaffordable by over 40 percent. The cash crunch in the UK Ministry of Defence is almost as severe. Pressure of operations is also taking its toll on men and machinery on both sides of the Channel, tightening the financial bind.

Sooner rather than later, both countries will be facing major cuts in their defence capabilities - unless they can find ways to help each other by pooling their efforts and resources.

Witney is confident that a plan to do just that has now been identified. Almost two years ago, the last Blair-Chirac summit set up a small, high-level working group to work on deepening bilateral co-operation. The group, comprising the two relevant deputy defence ministers and two top industry executives, submitted their report last July. It remains under wraps. But it describes the current moment as "an historic cross-roads"; and it contains a long list of practical, concrete proposals for pooling resources and sharing the benefits.

However, 2008 is not 1998 and Gordon Brown is not Blair. Already, we have noted a considerable cooling in the Brown administration towards European defence integration.

Not least, the conflict in Afghanistan - and, to a lesser extent, in Iraq - has driven British defence forces towards closer co-operation with the US, while operational needs have dictated equipment profiles different from those envisaged at St Malo – the latter directed at equipping a rapid reaction force to fight a "future war".

Where the situation might be different this time, though, is if the split between Sarkozy and Merkel continues – even if it is more apparent than real. Then we could then see Sarkozy courting Brown, offering juicy deals in joint procurement or some such (the carrier project comes to mind) – which have the potential to ease the pressure on the UK defence budget.

Tempting these might be, but Brown would be well advised to exercise caution. Any French overtures are unlikely to be genuinely directed at closer ties with the UK. More likely, they will be aimed at invoking jealousies in the Germans, in the manner of a jilted lover flirting with a new swain (what a horrible thought) aimed at prompting a reconciliation.

Nevertheless, as long as operations in Afghanistan continue at high tempo, Brown's options are limited. Despite a French promise of greater involvement in Afghanistan, French and British strategic objectives are so very different that there can be little scope for further defence co-operation.

On that basis, Sarkozy and Merkel are going to have to make up without British intervention, which makes it all the more interesting to see how far they are prepared to let the current spat run. In that sense, The Independent is right: "those who think the politics of Europe is boring do not understand it properly." The only thing is, does that newspaper understand it?

COMMENT THREAD

One mad proposal after another

We have been seeing a run of EU-related "environment" stories recently. But we are going to see many more in the next few weeks as the EU commission gears up to produce its much-heralded strategy on "climate change" – expected on 23 January.

The core of this strategy will be the 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2020 and the 10 percent biofuel quota, the combination of which – with the other measures the commission is considering – will have a profound effect on our economy, our own personal lifestyles and global politics in general.

Another of the commission's madcap plans, mentioned briefly last Saturday, has been picked up by The Times. This is Chirac's original idea to levy import taxes on "polluters" – i.e., those countries like the US, China and India which have not bought into the emissions control scam.

Apparently though, this has triggered a "row" in Brussels, with our very own Peter Mandelson, in his role as the EU trade commissioner, leading the charge. He fears that any such scheme would fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules.

However, while unnamed officials in Mandelson's office are saying the plan is "dead", a spokesman for Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, is maintaining that several drafts of the proposal are being discussed and debated, claiming that it is "at the beginning of the process."

The problem for the commission, of course, is that even it has realised that its broader strategy for climate change will so handicap EU-based enterprises than they will be even less competitive on the global market than they are already, spelling ruin for us all.

But, instead of admitting their inherent madness in their Gaderene rush to destroy the economies of the member states, they are seeking to "level the playing field" by spreading the misery to our overseas suppliers.

Despite this, Mandelson is probably right, but that will not stop the commissioning continuing to search for mechanisms to mitigate the effects of their own madness. The one thing they cannot do, however is admit that they are mad, and abandon their megalomania.

Brace yourselves, therefore, for one mad proposal after another, which will not even stop when we are sending icebreakers up the Thames as the world hurtles into yet another period of cooling.

COMMENT THREAD

Another cost of EU membership

Consumers of electricity – i.e., all of us – who are now having to dig deeper to pay their electricity bills will mostly be unaware that, in addition to the swingeing increases announced yesterday, they are paying an increasing premium through their bills for the global warming fantasy.

The base line is the so-called Renewables Obligation, which is set to add at least £1 billion a year to our collective bills by 2010, simply to fund the scourge of industrial windmills that is blighting our countryside.

But, from the school of, "there is nothing so bad that the EU cannot make it worse", we are set to pay another £6 billion through our energy bills for the equivalent of snake oil, otherwise known as the European Trading Scheme (ETS).

The utterly bizarre aspect of this scheme, as reported by The Independent is that the UK's biggest "polluters" will reap this windfall. These include our electricity generators and they can make their money because the EU in its wisdom has given them 104 million tons of "carbon credits" and, despite having paid nothing for them, they are then allowed to charge their customers for the notional cost of these credits.

Although the term "you could not make it up" is really overused, that has to apply to this utterly mad scheme, which "gives" energy producers a free "product" and then allows them to charge their customers for it.

Furthermore, the calculations on how many "credits" should have been allocated are so wide of the mark that most generators have surplus which they can then sell on a totally artificial market to those enterprises which do not have enough carbon to cover their emissions.

In theory, this is supposed to fund the additional investments needed for clean generation technologies, but there is absolutely no obligation for the generators to spend their windfall. Thus, the EU's scheme does absolutely nothing to reduce national carbon emissions, even if that was actually worth doing.

When it comes to costing our membership of the EU, therefore, we have to add another £6 billion to the bill, all for its insane scheme that does nothing more than add totally unnecessary costs to our electricity bills.

And even then, the madness does not stop there. We are told that the EU commission is debating whether to push for a carbon tariff on imports from countries that "do not tackle their greenhouse gas emissions", such as China, India and the United States.

New rules, if passed, would be part of a raft of post-2012 proposals covering issues including national emissions targets and clean energy subsidies.

Needless to say, the idea of imposing some kind of tariff on goods imported from countries with less strict controls on greenhouse gases was first put forward by Jacques Chirac as president of the EU. L'Esroc lives!

COMMENT THREAD

An alternative to committing suicide

Asked for his views on an alternative to the EU, Alan Sked, the founder of UKIP, famously noted that the alternative to suicide was simply not to commit suicide.

The logic of this is absolute. Such are the dynamics of trans-national organisations that, even if the EU was replaced with a completely different structure, the new organisation would, in the fullness of time, end up with much the same world view and aspirations as the body it replaced – presenting just as much a threat to the survival of nation states.

Today, John O'Sullivan in the Telegraph op-ed gives sustenance to that view, advocating the concept close to the heart of this blog, namely the Anglosphere.

As a long-term supporter of the idea, he frames it to perfection, describing it as a "network civilisation" which has the capability to mature into a more formal arrangement creating what a "network commonwealth". These, says O'Sullivan, may end up being more integrated - psychologically and socially, as well as economically - than consciously designed entities such as the EU.

Strangely enough though, we get another of those dichotomy of views between the headline writers. The print edition sports the title, "The Anglosphere could be the making of Britain if we dare", while the online version heads up with the question, "A British-led Anglosphere in world politics?"

The latter title is highly misleading. A loose "network" that would encompass such nations as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India, would never accept British leadership. As to India, the growth in its economy and its emergence as a regional power are set to make it a greater economic and military force than the UK in the foreseeable future.

The question is, therefore, not whether Britain could or would lead the Anglosphere but whether indeed it could even participate in it, as we are drawn inexorably into the European sphere with the advent of the Lisbon treaty and treaties yet to come.

Already, as we have pointed out, there is a strong defence component in the Lisbon treaty, which brings us that much closer to creating a common defence structure, and pressures within the Union are building up to make this a reality.

Despite the advances triggered by the 1998 St Malo agreement between Chirac and Tony Blair, however, the process of European defence integration has largely stalled. We have noted an increasing lack of enthusiasm, amounting to direct obstruction of the European ambitions, to the extent that the UK can no longer be counted as an active partner in the process.

Interestingly, although the active promoter of the European defence identity in the days of Blair was France, Sarkozy does not seem to be demonstrating the same enthusiasm as his predecessor either. Possibly as a result, the guardianship of the flame seems to be passing to Germany, from which the most strident voices can be heard.

German enthusiasm for a European army, however, is not all it seems. Rather than being an expression of strength – and a desire to dominate Europe, as some fear – it is a sign of the country's continued weakness. Still haunted by its conduct during the Second World War, Germany's leaders wish to take a more active role in world affairs, but lack the self-confidence to do it alone – not least because of the reaction of its neighbours to a resurgent Germany.

Thus, German policy is the same now as it was in 1954 which saw the first attempt at forming a European army – to clothe its military and foreign policy ambitions in "Europe", vesting control in a supranational authority, to reassure it neighbours that it has no ill-intent towards them.

Some progress has been made over the last fifty years since 1954, but it has been glacial and, even today, the European army is regarded as a long-term project. Therein lies the bigger problem for the Europeans. Events await for no man, and certainly not for the Europeans to get their act together and field a credible force.

Furthermore, the nature of the threat is changing and, while the Europeans gaze studiously at their navels, those forces which are actually engaged in fighting the new threat – the war against terror – and evolving new equipment, tactics and doctrines, leaving the European further and further behind.

Added to that, there is an anti-militaristic ethos pervading Europe, with a widespread reluctance to spend the necessary sums on equipping and maintaining modern armies, further diminishing the capabilities of the European forces. And, some of the EU member states which do show enthusiasm for defence integration see in the project not an opportunity to exert greater power, but a means by which they can spend even less on defence than they do at present.

Thus, the reality behind the ambitions of European military might is that the member states cannot deliver, neither individually nor collectively, and there is no prospect of them doing so in the foreseeable future. And, so far are they slipping behind that, should they ever be able to develop the political and command structures that would allow them to operate on a European level, their capabilities will be substantially less than optimal.

That brings us back to the Anglosphere. The UK, having taken a more robust and proactive role in world affairs, cannot wait for the Europeans to get its act together. After a flurry of activity post-St Malo, European co-operation has weakened while the UK's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have strengthened co-operation with Anglospheric partners such as Australia and Canada, as well as the United States.

The degree of US co-operation has emerged from the accounts of the recent re-taking of Musa Qala where, not only were 600 troops from the US 82nd Airborne Division deployed – using more helicopters in that one operation than have been deployed by the British in the whole theatre – but the US command was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the operation.

It is perverse, therefore, that just at the time when the UK is working so closely with the Anglosphere, it should be signing up to a tranche of further European integration, in the Lisbon Treaty. In the final analysis, though, deeds may be worth more than words on a piece of paper. The threats we face are real, while the treaty remains a European fantasy which cannot deliver.

On that basis, the print edition heading of O'Sullivan's article may be close to the truth: "The Anglosphere could be the making of Britain if we dare". But there may be another truth. The Anglosphere could also be the undoing of attempts to draw the UK deeper into the maw of European integration. As an alternative to committing suicide, it has much to commend it.

COMMENT THREAD

Sarko is having a bad time (sort of) – Part I

It is a little hard to tell whether Nicolas Sarkozy wants to ensure that France becomes or remains top dog in the EU or whether his real aim is to destroy the EU. Could be first one then the other.

Fistly, there was Sarko’s rush to congratulate President Putin on his party list’s victory in the Duma elections. The rest of the EU is still humming and haing, unable to achieve one of those famous common positions.

But Germany flatly called the election "neither free, fair nor democratic" by Western standards, and most other EU governments expressed concern about reports of voting irregularities.

Donald Tusk, the new prime minister of Poland, on Tuesday questioned the legitimacy of the Russian elections, saying that they had not respected democratic standards.

"We in Europe should not be tolerant of a situation when democratic standards are not being respected or are downright broken," he said.

Mind you, Donald Tusk also said

You cannot turn a blind eye to what happened, there are results of elections and these results are not going to be challenged by anyone in Europe.

Make what you will of that.

Other countries have not been happy with the conduct of those elections either but when it came to a statement, the best the Portuguese presidency could come up with was a bit of finger-wagging:

The EU regrets "that there were many reports and allegations of media restrictions as well as harassment of opposition parties and NGOs in the run-up to the elections and on election day, and that procedures during the electoral campaign did not meet international standards and commitments voluntarily assumed by Moscow," the statement said. "The EU hopes that investigations will clarify the accuracy of these allegations."

Hmm. I bet that scared President, now also, presumably, Duma deputy, Putin.

The EU seems to have abandoned its strong feelings about democracy and European values as far as Russia is concerned.

In a similar incident last week, the Portuguese presidency put out a critical statement three days after the arrest of opposition activists in Russia, including the former chess champion Garry Kasparov, only to withdraw it and issue a milder version without explanation.

Incidentally, I do not call 63 per cent of the vote (more or less what was expected before Putin went on a huge campaign) on a 64 per cent turn-out a landslide. By Russian standards that is an abject defeat. I have not yet managed to see the full figures so have not blogged on the subject but I understand in Chechnya the vote for United Russia was over 99 per cent on a 99.5 per cent turn-out. Good to know that somebody in that country is paying attention to what matters.

President Sarkozy’s behaviour is particularly odd as he has been, since elected, a lot tougher in his dealings or, at least, conversations with Putin and his henchmen than his predecessor President Chirac was. One cannot help wondering what motivated him to break ranks so visibly.

A humourless post

Some readers may have noticed that we don't do "lightweight tat" on this site, and such humour as accidentally finds its way into our posts is largely of the dry, sardonic variety. Mostly, though, we tend to write serious, heavy stuff which is not to everyone's taste.

But, if our (and certainly my) posts are weighty and lack humour, it is because – and here I'd better speak for myself – I find very little amusement in the current dire state of politics. And, as there is much that is neglected by an increasingly frivolous and inconsequential media, I felt it needed a corrective, which is why we set up the blog in the first place. There is plenty of lightweight, humorous tat in the marketplace already and I saw no point in replicating it, even if it was the route to easy popularity.

No more so was – and is - this needed in the defence field, where a fundamentally unserious media has consistently failed to take an adult interest in the issues, or spent even a fraction of its resources on exploring where the real stresses and problems lie in our Armed Forces.

But, from sporadic and ill-informed commentary, over the last weeks and months, building to a crescendo over the last couple of days, we have seen an intensity of criticism of defence policy, the thrust of the complaints directed at the mantras of "overstretch" and "underspending". And, in the vanguard is former CDS Charles Guthrie, yesterday given space in The Daily Telegraph to peddle his creed.

Nowhere in his pronouncements, however – nor anywhere in the torrent of media coverage – does he or any other commentator descend into the detail of spending arrangements in the Armed Forces and tell us why it is that defence is underfunded and where, particularly, the alleged shortages lie. Yet, it is the appreciation of the detail that the argument must stand or fall.

Now, to turn to just one small detail – which we will go on to explore for its wider implications – at the end of last month we reported the remarkable escape of a Canadian soldier whose Husky vehicle was hit by a massive buried bomb as he patrolled a route in Afghanistan – with no more inconvenience than a spilled water bottle. Now, courtesy of the Canadian Guardian we have a picture of the damaged vehicle, from which the soldier emerged (above left).

At this point, we descend into "toy" territory and the lofty political bloggers, to say nothing of the oh-so-grand political commentators depart the scene. They occupy the high ground, and such detail is of absolutely no interest to them. The Armed Forces are underfunded and soldiers are dying as a result. Charles Guthrie and four of his mates say so, and that is all they need to know.

But, in that small picture lies one of the central issues in the whole debate, and perhaps the key to what is going on.

First, looking at the vehicle (an intact example is shown right) one can see several design principles at play. The front wheels have been blown off completely – which is exactly as intended. They are "sacrificial" parts, which can easily and cheaply be replaced.

Then, you will see the lengthy engine compartment, in front of the driver, distancing the man from the expected point of explosion, improving his survivability. Add to that, the v-shaped profile of the hull, which deflects blast away from the driver, and the armoured cell which forms the cab, and you have a protection package which enables personnel to walk away from all but the largest of explosions.

The crucial points for the general argument though are that these attributes are achieved by design. They cannot be bolted on to an existing vehicle to achieve the same effect. Secondly, they give the vehicle a profile which is entirely unsuitable for what is known as "high end" conventional warfighting, where low profile to aid concealment is at a premium. Thirdly, this technology is relatively cheap, this type of vehicle costing a fraction of the more sophisticated "high end" war machine that, in these types of circumstances, actually offer less protection.

With these points in mind – be they ever so boring or not – let us now turn our gaze to the "bigger picture" so beloved of the grand polemicists – starting with the proximate cause of the Army's current problems.

In fact, the rot started with in St. Malo in 1998, with Tony Blair's historic agreement with Jacques Chirac to dedicate the bulk of our Armed Forces to what was to become the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF).

Despite constant denials, this led to a Europeanisation of defence policy which, by our calculations, added at least £8.8 billion to our procurement costs to date. As we wrote at the time we did the calculations, that would buy a ridiculous 35,000 RG-31 mine protected vehicles or 350 Chinook helicopters – additions to our forces which would transform the situation.

However, when it comes to Charles Guthrie, who now complains so volubly about "underspending", it was he as Chief of the Defence Staff, together with then secretary of state Geoff Hoon, and the Chief of the General Staff Mike Jackson who drove the Euro Army agenda, re-shaping the British Army to fit in with the ERRF concept.

An essential component of ERRF was, of course, FRES – this being the only way armour could be air-portable and thus become part of a "rapid reaction" force.

The triumvirate was so protective of the plan that this was indeed the reason why new equipment which did not fit the scheme was actively blocked. The trio was looking over at the US and its equivalent Future Combat System (FCS) programme, noting that funds were being siphoned off to pay for the war in Iraq.

Guthrie, Hoon and Jackson thus reasoned that if theatre-specific equipment was bought for Iraq, then FRES would suffer. This, we aver, was one of the main reasons Jackson put "Snatch" Land Rovers into Iraq, rather than dedicated MRAPs. This was also the reason why the Army (now under Richard Dannatt – also a firm proponent of FRES) initially resisted the purchase of Mastiff protected vehicles, until it received assurances that the cost would be borne from the Reserve and not met from the Army budget.

Until recently, the status quo held but, in October, the MoD ordered a further 140 Mastiff protected vehicles (with a promise of 250 more MRAP-type vehicles), this time the funding coming from the Army's agreed equipment budget.

This, we noted, signalled a new realism in the MoD, that the current operations had to be supplied with theatre-specific equipment and not rely – as they had been doing – on existing inventories.

On the other hand, this must have sounded alarm bells with Guthrie and his fellow travellers, which must have intensified when rumours of cuts in one or more of the major spending programmes began to emerge, on top of indications that Gordon Brown was unenthusiastic about pursuing Blair's ambitions for greater European defence cooperation, and was pulling back from the project.

It was shortly afterwards that the screaming started in earnest and it cannot have been a coincidence that it did. The Euro-army supporters, with Guthrie at their head, must have realised that FRES was the most likely candidate for any cuts in the equipment programme, and with its demise went any prospect of the Army playing a leading role in the ERRF.

So it is that Guthrie's campaign is not about the welfare of the Armed Forces, or its current capabilities, but an attempt to preserve plans to develop future capabilities within the framework of the ERRF. Yet, so opaque is his agenda, and so lacking in knowledge and understanding is the commentariat that his claims are taken at face value.

It would be misleading, however, to position Guthrie's campaign solely in terms of the European agenda. There is within the MoD and defence planning circles, creative tension over the balancing resources between current operations and the need to prepare to the "future war".

Inasmuch as the Europeans are not significantly committed to current operations, their thinking is also focused on the future war scenario. The future war proponents in the UK, therefore, have a common interest with the Europeans and thereby have formed a natural alliance with them, even though their overall ambitions may not be the same.

Thus, Guthrie is able to attract a far more powerful lobby under his tent than merely his Europhile "colleagues" could muster.

This, in a roundabout way brings us back to the Canadian soldier and his remarkable escape. To prosecute their "future war" the advocates want their FRES vehicles (example pictured above) which are set to cost – most likely – in excess of £10 million each. Being custom-built and extremely complex, they will also cost a small fortune to maintain.

Yet the optimal equivalent vehicle to fight the current campaigns is the state of the art, superbly equipped Mastiff protected vehicle, based on exactly the same design philosophy as the Husky. And, despite being specifically designed for counter-insurgency operations, it costs a relatively modest £600,000. Based on a commercial truck chassis, it is supremely reliable and durable and, using commercial parts, maintenance is cheap and simple.

This is a microcosm of the general situation. Single engined Super Tucanos (below), used for ground attack, cost less than £5 million apiece, but the RAF spurns them in favour of Tranche 3 Eurofighters, at £80 million each - not because the Tucano cannot to the job (it can, better than the Eurofighter) but because it cannot operate in "high intensity warfare" of the nature projected for the "future war".

What this boils down to is that, if the need to finance the "future war" is removed (or modified), the budgetary problems disappear. In that context, we are actually faced with two modest (in military terms) overseas operations (not even a division in each theatre) which absorbs less than ten percent of the manpower of the Armed Forces. Where else could there be a situation where any other organisation can scream "overstretch" and "lack of resources" when it has less than ten percent of its strength committed to doing the job for which it is paid?

The problem, therefore, is not operations, per se, but the enormous resource put to other tasks - the main one of which is preparing and training for the "future war". This is akin to a situation in World War II of holding back the bulk of the forces to train for the next war, while also devoting the bulk of the budget to equipping for that war.

This, though, is only one part of the phenomenon we are seeing. When it comes to defence issues, one of the many things that drags the debate down is the inability to discriminate between the various factions within the overarching organisation of the MoD, and to separate political from military influence.

One of the simplistic fictions of modern politics is the belief that the Secretary of State is actually in charge of his department and thereby has absolute powers to control it.

This is hardly the case and less so in the MoD, where there is an uneasy "alliance" (conflict would be a better word) between the politicians and their advisors, the officials and then the three separate services (with huge meddling by defence contractors), all overlaid by dealings with the common enemy (the Treasury) and the even more dangerous enemy, the Foreign Office. Furthermore, there is not only bitter inter-service rivalry, there is also intra-service rivalry (gunners versus tanker versus infantry, etc), which makes for a turbulent, foetid broth of intrigue and back-stabbing.

Add to that the length of the procurement cycle (procurement taking 40 percent of the budget) where decisions are made which have a direct financial impact decades after they are taken (the Eurofighter was agreed over 25 years ago but only now is the MoD having to find the bulk of funds for it) and the secretary of state's freedom of action is massively circumscribed. He is at best a referee, with a rule book that is constantly changing (without him being told), with his decisions being overruled off-field, all in the context that he cannot see (or control) most of the players (or even the ball).

Looking at the bigger picture, the military has an infinite capacity for spending money and, as a general rule, the more they are given, the more they will spend - but much of it will be spent unwisely and wasted. Throwing money at public services is not the answer to improved efficiency, if there are underlying structural problems. That applies to the military as much as any other service. Give more money to a wasteful organisation and it will simply waste more money.

What is troubling, though, is all it takes is a few military men to stand up and scream that their men are dying for want of funds (rather than from military incompetence) and otherwise sensible people put their critical faculties on hold and believe everything they are told.

So, I will continue banging on in my own humourless way, leaving others to do the funnies, in the hope that wiser counsels will prevail.

Cross posted on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

The Brown paradox

Gordon Brown's enthusiasm for the new EU treaty – or at least his stubborn resistance to holding a referendum on it – has the hallmarks of a rabid Europhiliac. But, according to The Financial Times he is by no means buying into the whole package, reportedly resisting France's attempts to rejoin Nato as a full member.

Full membership of Nato is at the heart of Sarkozy's newly minted Atlanticism, and a central part of the pitch he made in a speech to a joint session of Congress during his visit to Washington last week.

However, at the same time, he is making fuller participation conditional on the European Union acquiring a greater capacity to deploy troops and manage crises, alongside Nato, which is apparently causing concern in Downing Street. Senior officials in Paris interpret this as a deep-seated reluctance in Gordon Brown's government to adopt any big European initiatives.

The suspicion is probably well founded, as any further engagement by France in Nato is undoubtedly motivated by an ambition to become the lead European power, leading to the prospect of a Nato run by France.

Sarkozy, though, has invested a great deal of political capital in this scheme, intending to make defence one of the main priorities for French EU presidency, which starts in the second half of 2008. He wants, we are told, to kick off a debate in the summer about ways of boosting the EU's defence capabilities, with decisions by the end of the year.

This will have enormous symbolic significance as it will mark the tenth anniversary of the "ground-breaking" defence agreement in St Malo in 1998, between Chirac and Tony Blair, launching the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF), when there are high expectations of taking European defence integration to the next stage.

Brown's reluctance, though, seems more than skin deep. The expected defence "cuts" are an indicator, especially if they are seen more in the context of a re-prioritisation of defence policy.

If they lead to a greater focus on supporting current operations, and a reduction in the expeditionary capability which lies at the heart of the ERRF concept, then it will be a significant distancing not only from the European “defence identity” but from the legacy forged by Blair in the early Europhiliac phase of the New Labour government.

This may explain why former CGS General Guthrie has come out of the woodwork, demanding a commitment to greater defence spending. Known to be strongly supportive of UK involvement in a Euro Army, part of his tenure as CGS - from 1997 to 2001 - coincided with that of Europhiliac Geoff Hoon as defence secretary. They pair between them did much to drive forward the European defence agenda in the British forces.

The result was that, however, with the commitment to the ERRF, British defence policy was split between the Euro-centric expeditionary concept and the need to support current operations, alongside the United States. This the UK could not afford, without substantial extra spending which was not forthcoming. That tension created many of the financial stresses that are current affecting defence.

If the policy realignment is leaning in favour of current operations – as seems likely – the only way Guthrie can rescue anything of the European agenda is to force more money of the Treasury, which seems extremely unlikely. But that does not stop him trying.

Therein lies the paradox. Brown, the prime minister who is actively supporting the biggest extension of European political integration since Maastricht (if not before), seems on track to be the prime minister who brings Blair's grandiose plans for European defence integration (which is also a central part of political integration) to a grinding halt.

This is certainly the way it looks, and it does not make sense.

This report is also cross-posted on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

Foreign policy deficit

The Spectator has an interesting piece on our favourite Minister of State, Lord Malloch-Brown, former interference runner for SecGen Kofi Annan and former member of the “Soros axis of evil”, as the Wall Street Journal described it. At least, we hope he is former.

As it happens we have mentioned before that the man was going to get a grace-and-favour apartment on becoming a member of Gordon Brown’s government as well as pointing out that all this happened because the new Prime Minister has absolutely no idea of foreign policy or, indeed, where foreign is.

Still, it is very nice to have his lordship’s past career, relationship with George Soros, chief funder of the European Council on Foreign Relations, curiously enough, not mentioned in the Speccy article, as well as the expenses of his new residence laid out in a clear and easy to follow fashion.

The CV of Brown’s most senior outside appointment reads like that of a hair-shirted technocrat: a vice-president of World Bank, head of UNDP, chief of staff and then deputy secretary-general of the United Nations and now Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN. His entry in the Lords register of interests is spartan; he declares only his government salary, which is £81,504.

But Malloch Brown’s living arrangements in this country are exceedingly grand, and provided by the taxpayer. Only three members of the government have grace-and-favour residences in London. Malloch Brown is one of them, the other two are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. David Miliband and his growing family have yet to use 1 Carlton Gardens, the Foreign Secretary’s London residence.

Yet Malloch Brown, astonishingly, has secured one of the three government flats in Admiralty House, where John Prescott used to live. In so doing, this newcomer has leapfrogged 20 full members of the Cabinet who notionally enjoy seniority over him. The oddness of the situation is compounded by the fact that the other two flats in the building are empty, and another government grace-and-favour residence in South Eaton Place, SW1, is being sold off. In response to The Spectator’s investigation Eric Pickles, a member of the shadow Cabinet, has laid down a series of parliamentary questions in an attempt to find out how much Malloch Brown’s living arrangements are costing the Foreign Office.

Malloch Brown’s return from abroad is given as the explanation for him receiving a grace-and-favour flat. Others hint that he secured it because he has four children under 16. If so, Ruth Kelly — with four pre-teen children — should surely have had first pick.

The Treasury’s National Assets Register values the Admiralty House accommodation at £7.76 million and as worth more than the flats above No. 10 and 11 Downing Street. It is, indeed, fit for a Lord, and one with tastes which are the opposite of frugal. A parliamentary answer earlier this autumn revealed that ‘the floor area of the ministerial residences in Admiralty House is 859 square metres.’ In 2006–07 the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office paid the Cabinet Office no less than £173,000 for John Prescott’s living in one of the flats there.

I guess housing in London is quite expensive but I do find it rather difficult to believe that the salary Lord Malloch-Brown is receiving together with expenses and very much together with the savings he must have made while inhabiting George Soros’s palatial residence for peppercorn rent cannot allow him to buy or rent a hovel somewhere in Westminster.

That brings us to the question as to why this man of dubious qualifications but impeccable tranzi background should have managed to negotiate quite such a good deal for himself.

There have been various theories advanced, not least the one about PM Gordon Brown wanting to ingratiate himself with the tranzi world and distance himself from the United States. That may be so (some evidence of the latter has been made clear recently as I shall explain) but we tend to agree with the authors of the Speccy article, one of whom is the estimable Claudia Rossett. Gordon Brown has no knowledge of or interest in foreign policy.

Meanwhile foreign affairs have been marching on. We discussed yesterday developments in Turkey and the fact that Prime Minister Erdogan has met President Bush to discuss various matters of importance to both sides.

The Los Angeles Times added to its report on the US-Turkish negotiations:

With his tete-a-tete with Erdogan, Bush began a week of diplomatic conferences focused on some of Washington's most important relationships. He will host French President Nicolas Sarkozy for dinner today and for official talks Wednesday. At the end of the week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her husband will stay with the president and Laura Bush at their home outside Crawford, Texas.

Very nice, too, but isn’t there a name missing? Turkey, France, Germany. Where is Britain? Is there a meeting planned with Gordon Brown at some later stage? Or have the Americans finally decided they had enough of the British politicians’ complacency and arrogance? Or does Gordon Brown not want to meet President Bush? To be absolutely accurate one would have to ask: does Gordon Brown not want to meet any of the leaders of other countries?

Where is David Miliband, come to think of it? We all sympathize with him adopting another child and wish the family well. But he does have an important job to do for which he gets paid rather handsomely by the taxpayer.

I must say I am rather disappointed by Miliband. The man seemed to start quite well but has fallen off recently. Must try harder.

So, what have we got out of the Sarkozy’s second visit to Washington DC (this time, one must assume without Mme S.)? Not a whole lot, according to the Daily Telegraph leader and one is inclined to agree with them.

He addressed Congress and talked much of Lafayette and Washington (old general L. does get trotted out by the French periodically, though it was, actually, the French navy that helped the Americans most), 1917, 1944, Marshall Plan, Berlin airlift (hmm, minimal French involvement in that). All jolly nice and very different from l’escroc Chirac, who had selective deafness when it came to hearing historical facts.

But on top of these familiar historical references, the French president lauded the "can-do" spirit of America, whether expressed through stars such as Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe or through the moon landing of 1969. America's moral value consisted in its "extraordinary ability to grant people another chance"; it was a country where "failure is never the last word", where nothing is owed but everything has to be earned.

Such verbal flourishes were, inevitably, somewhat punctured by Mr Sarkozy's analysis of current problems. He spoke of standing shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan, without mentioning that French troops are not engaged in combat operations. He made no reference to Iraq. His determination to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons did not envisage military action. And his belief that the way towards French re-integration into Nato's military command is through strengthening the European Union's defence capability failed to convince.

All of which is true. But, as the article grudgingly acknowledges, rhetoric does matter, though practical involvement would matter more. For all of that, given Britain’s gradual withdrawal in Basra as chronicled by my colleague in too many postings to refer to, a little bit of rhetoric on our own Prime Minister’s part would not come amiss.

Perhaps, a reminder that Britain and America do have a great deal in common historically and politically speaking, as well as many differences or a casual reference to the Anglosphere, whose other members also have much in common with this country could give us some idea that Gordon Brown does, indeed, know something about the world.

Sadly, it will be Chancellor Merkel who will be going to the US next, hoping, as the German journalists put it, to influence President Bush not to upset the Iranians or think about doing anything about their nuclear capability.

It seems unlikely that she will succeed. President Bush has a track record of seemingly agreeing with his European “instructors” and then doing exactly what he thinks is right. Remember the much-vaunted Merkel victory over climate change? When the dust settled (well, there is rather a lot of it what with global warming and all) it became obvious that the agreement was really along the lines the United States had advocated for some time.

We predict that Chancellor Merkel and her husband will come back, basking in the success of her mission, only to find that she had been once again diddled by the “Texas cowboy”.

All of which brings me back to my first question: where, in all this, is the British Prime Minister.

COMMENT THREAD