The sky is falling in

No, really ... it is. And this is the second time. It must be a sign, writes Mary Ellen Synon.

COMMENT THREAD

Naïve or just plain arrogant?

It takes a really arrogant man to describe himself as being naive, adding immediately that being naive, if you are also ambitious, may not be the worst thing. Sometimes you just have to take your lance, charge downhill and to hell with the consequences.

There was much more sub-military language in Declan Ganley's address to the Henry Jackson Society last Tuesday and in the subsequent discussion; much talk of holding the line, leaving the trenches, the Irish people ("not me, it was the people") being the advance guard that needs the support of the rest of the people of Europe. [And yes, I know, I should have written about it before but other matters intervened.]

In parenthesis it should be noted that as far as Declan Ganley is concerned there is no difference between the EU and Europe and democracy means asking the people of Europe, whatever that might be, though he did acknowledge that there is no pan-European politics as yet. I shall return to this extraordinary muddle in thinking.

Several minutes went on a fiery announcement that he, Declan Ganley, was prepared to make any sacrifice to achieve his aim of restoring [sic] democracy to the European project. There is nothing more "they" can do to him. In fact, "they" have not done much to him anyway, except for calling him names. Big deal! Some of us have had to put with that for some time, on occasion losing jobs for not toeing the line. Hardly great sacrifices, particularly as some of the shocking names he was called were "eurosceptic" and "anti-European". As risk and sacrifice go, facing up to those words does not come very high on my list.

Of course, said Mr Ganley, almost succeeding in looking modest, other people have made far greater sacrifices for democracy. Nevertheless, he managed to draw an implicit parallel between himself and an (unnamed) commander of the Continental Army at Yorktown (not, I presume, Washington) who ordered a devastating artillery fire at his own home, suspecting that General Cornwallis had made it his headquarters.

What there was a shortage of in the talk and subsequent discussion is coherence in Libertas's stance. Just what is it Mr Ganley (oops, sorry he did say call him Declan because Mr Ganley is his father) wants to achieve? I managed to ask two questions, introducing myself as being from EUReferendum, clearly an unfamiliar name to Mr Ganley Declan. Congratulating him on his readiness to make any sacrifice for the cause I wondered whether it might not be wasted.

Even if the Lisbon Treaty fails and even if Libertas gains a large number of seats in the Toy European Parliament, almost all that he dislikes about the EU - lack of accountability, European legislation trumping national, European citizenship - would still be in place. Indeed, they are integral parts of the European project, which Mr Ganley Declan, according to his own repeated comments, supports.

Is he suggesting that the Consolidated Treaties should be torn up and a completely new structure created?

No, of course, not. Mr Ganley Declan is not, he assured us, a revolutionary (though he is ambitious and ready to take risks). The revolutionaries are those who sit in Brussels and create a system that takes power away from the people.

Though that statement had the air of being thought of at the last minute, it is closer to the truth than Mr Ganley Declan suspects - the European project is a revolutionary one. The problem is that it is more coherent than Libertas who seems to have no other spokespersons, gives it credit. To say, as Mr Ganley Declan did, that the problem is the Lisbon Treaty and there is no need for it because we still have the Nice Treaty and then to talk about the need for democracy is to exhibit a terrifying lack of knowledge.

However, he did explain that his main aim in getting himself and others of his ilk into the European Parliament is to ensure that people like me had a voice because at present we have none. They are not listening to people like me. They are not exactly listening to people like him, either, but Mr Ganley Declan obviously has a slight touch of the Obama about him. No, they are not listening and they are not democratic but once he is in the European Parliament, all will change because he is not prepared just to sit there and let business as usual carry on.

I did not bother to ask him what he was going to do about it in the Toy European Parliament because it was quite clear that he saw himself as considerably more savvy and knowledgeable about the EU (despite all evidence to the contrary). In fact, I was waiting for him to tell me not to bother my little head about it because he will ensure that my voice will be heard.

My other question was about the European President, something Mr Ganley Declan finds abhorrent, particularly as the people of Europe have not been asked whether they want one. The people of Britain, he proclaimed in ringing tones, should have a choice in this matter; they should be asked whether they want a European President.

Very well, said I, suppose the people of Britain are asked and vote against the idea; but suppose across Europe the people of it vote in favour; we shall get a European President whether we like it or not. I am sorry to say that Mr Ganley Declan did not answer the question, possibly because he was too busy assuring everyone that he was not a withdrawalist, not a revolutionary and not a eurosceptic. In fact, he wanted to save the European project because if it carries on the way it is going, there will be serious calls in many countries for withdrawal and that would be a tragedy.

This was one of the themes of his talk. The European project, in his opinion has come a long way and must not be undermined by those in Brussels who want to put an anti-democratic spin on it; who are shocked by the fact that people, who ought to be the owners of this project, do not want to march in lockstep with them. If they are allowed to go their own way, the withdrawalists will become strong and the project will disintegrate.

The problem with that is, as all our readers will instantly realize, that the project never had a democratic aspect to it. Clearly Mr Ganley Declan has never read a certain book that the boss and his colleague, Christopher Booker, wrote, in which they clearly explain the anti-democratic nature of the project from the very beginning.

Now, this would not matter if one said openly that democracy is a so-so idea, a recent and not very successful experiment and, maybe, it is best to move on. But that is not what Mr Ganley Declan is saying. He sees himself as the man whose appointed role it is to restore democracy to "Europe" or the European project.

We do not need the Lisbon Treaty, which has all those undemocratic and even anti-democratic ideas in it; we already have the Nice Treaty and can go back to it. Presumably, he has not read the Nice Treaty either and has forgotten that the Irish voters tried rejecting it once but were bullied and cheated into voting it through. Hardly the behaviour of a democracy. No wonder he did not answer my question about the European President.

Furthermore, Mr Ganley Declan keeps talking about the people of Europe and the need for them to have their democratic rights restored and to speak up about the way these are being stolen from them. Those who are doing the stealing, we were told several times, are using the well-tried method of "divide and conquer". They ask the people of individual member states and discard those results if they are not the ones the eurocrats want to hear. Now, if only the people of Europe united and stood up to these dastardly tactics …

Well, what? It seems Mr Ganley Declan does not understand exactly what he is saying. At best he believes in a perestroika: if we change things a little bit here and there the whole project will miraculously become what we always wanted it to be. Except that it was not clear to me or to a number of people in the audience what the aim of the exercise is – just what is it Mr Ganley Declan wants to achieve beyond getting a group of like-minded and woolly-minded individuals into the Toy European Parliament.

He was also very coy about his plans in the UK and one cannot help feeling that he is leaving the putting together of his pan-European list of candidates (the only one, as he proudly explained) very late. Those elections are in June.

COMMENT THREAD

When I use a word it means what I want it to mean

Our readers will possibly recall the story of the fragrant Commissar, Margot Wallström deciding to do a spot of moonlighting from her highly paid job. In March the new leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin welcomed Margot back into Swedish politics. The fluffy fragrant one was going to be part of a committee that would decide on the party’s foreign and EU policies before the next European elections in 2009 and the next Swedish elections in 2010. (Not that elections matter in the European Union as the legislation just goes on and on according to a multiannual plan.)

Hmmm, we said at the time, how is this possible? Are the Commissars not legally bound to be independent? The UKIP MEP for London, Gerard Batten, put down some written questions in the Toy Parliament. This was Written Question 1717/07:

Subject: Commissioner Margot Wallström and national politics

When members of the Commission take office they swear to ‘perform their duties in complete independence in the general interests of the Communities’, and ‘to refrain from any action incompatible with their duties’.

According to 'The Local', Sweden’s news in English, the new leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, announced that EU Commissioner Margot Wallström is to sit on a working group committee to develop the party’s foreign and EU policies.

Mrs Wallström is reported to have said, 'Yes it is (true), but I cannot take on a formal position and sit on a board. But everyone in the Commission is politically active and I think that only enriches our work. I will continue my work with full impartiality'.

1. Is this report accurate? Is Mrs Wallström taking up a position, even part-time, on, or advising, a committee of the Swedish Social Democratic Party?

2. If so, how is this compatible with the undertaking given by Commissioners when they take office?

3. Are any other Commissioners 'active in politics' as alleged by Mrs Wallström? If so, who are they, and what is the nature of their involvement?

4. If the Commission answers positively to question 3, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Commissioners comply with their undertaking to act only in the interests of the European Union during their time of office? Or, does working within national politics to promote the European Union comply with that undertaking?

Although he asked the question two months ago, the response came only today. To say that it is evasive is to understate matters somewhat. Mr Batten tells me that this is the fate of all his questions. The answers he gets, when he finally receives them give nothing at all. In fact, he sees little point to asking questions in the Toy Parliament unless some particular issue needs to be brought out.

I am encouraging him to go on asking questions. Then we can publicize questions and answers on this blog. Anyway, here is the response, for what it is worth.

Apart from Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty, which provides for the general obligations of independence incumbent on Members of the Commission for the protection of the general interest of the Community, the Code of Conduct for Commission Members contains a number of specific provisions relating to their political activities and their involvement in election campaigns .

Commissioners may be active members of political parties or trade unions, provided that this does not compromise their availability for service in the Commission.

As the Commission has said so often, Members are political men and women. In the performance of their duties they are required to work for the general interest of the Communities and are not allowed to take any instructions, but they are free to attend political meetings provided, of course, that this is not detrimental to their availability at all times as Members of the Commission.

Well, well, well. Let us have a look at Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty, the latter being the fons et origo of all EC/EU legislation.

The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties.

In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 216 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.

Ahem, what is that at the beginning of the third paragraph?

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.

Would that occupation include writing national policies for one’s party back home? “When I use a word,” – said Humpty Dumpty, - “it means what I want it to mean.”

COMMENT THREAD

Smoke signals

By the time the "colleagues" have finished with their smoking bans all over Europe, it looks as if the only place smoking will be permitted inside a public building throughout the whole of the EU is in … the EU Parliament.

That the parliament buildings are now havens for smokers is not for want of trying. On 1 January, the 16-strong committee of presidents actually banned smoking, only to find that the ban was extensively flouted by both MEPs and staff. Bowing to reality, therefore, the committee – which has 12 smoking members – voted to rescind the ban.

This action is hardly surprising – the parliament has always had an ambivalent attitude to smoking. The first time I ever visited the building in Brussels, way back in 1996, the first thing to greet visitors was a reception clerk sitting under a "no smoking" sign, with a cigarette on the go.

Now, the Sunday Times has picked up the story and records Deborah Arnott, director of the antismoking campaign group, Ash, describing the latest decision as "scandalous". "There can be no justification for politicians to place themselves above the law and it makes a mockery of the commission's proposals for an EU-wide smoking ban," she says.

One unrepentant rebel is UKIP leader Nigel Farage who told The Times: "I have been ignoring it since January 1 and I have smoked in more places than before. I don't want to be told by PC people what I can and cannot do." But then, as both the Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph record today, Farage leads a party that is no stranger to rule-breaking.

COMMENT THREAD

European politics just got more interesting

This is Lavinia Sandru, a candidate for May's MEP elections in Romania. She is currently an MP in the Partidul Initiativa Nationala (PIN). Without a blush, therefore, we can say that she is set (we hope) to become the EU parliament's newest PIN-up.

If that happy event occurs, she will also one of the newest recruits to the Eurosceptic Ind-Dem Group in the EU parliament, home of, amongst others, the UK Independence Party MEPs, headed by Nigel Farage.

There is already, we understand, considerable competition amongst the male members of the group to obtain a specimen of Ms Sandru's business card.

There has been no reaction from the Europhile Lib-Dems in the EU parliament, who recently had to resort to a comic book heroine in order to inject some glamour into their lives.

Thus they have invented the fictional Elisa Correr, an MEP who gets embroiled in a risky and fascinating adventure whilst in pursuit of her parliamentary activities.

When it comes to glamour though, it seems the Eurosceptics are ready to upstage them by producing the real thing. Why, they might be asking, should the Devil have all the best figures?

COMMENT THREAD

The heart bleeds

Graham Watson, British MEP and leader of the EU parliament's Liberal group is warning that he and his colleagues do not have enough work to do to keep them busy over the forthcoming year.

Ironically, this situation has developed just as the number of MEPs rose from 732 to 785, to accommodate the entry of Romania and Bulgaria. Thus, as numbers go up, work goes down.

This is attributed, according to Watson, to the commission "pushing ahead with efforts to slash business red tape" and its attemps to "cut the burden of regulation for European companies". "We have all these people, and the commission has taken its foot off the accelerator," Watson complains. "There are very few substantial pieces of legislation this year."

However, Italian MEP Monica Frassoni - co-leader of the parliament’s Green group - thinks she has an answer. In addition to responding to commission proposals for new law, the parliament should propose new legislation to the commission. These are the infamous "own initiative" reports which have no legal status (even in community law) but they are often used by the commission to test the water when it is considering new legislation.

Watson wants to go further, arguing that it was high time for the EU parliament to get more say in areas such as the fight against terrorism and foreign policy – second and third "intergovernmental" pillars from which the parliament is currently excluded.

Parliamentary involvement would have increased had the EU constitution been approved but, with the rejection by the French of Dutch, the status quo is keeping the EU parliament idle. "This has to change," says Watson. "Then there could be real progress in democratising Europe."

Thus is the myth that the EU parliament has anything to do with democracy perpetuated. In fact, Watson, Frassoni et al would serve their fellow "Europeans" by extending their period of idleness as the only democratic EU parliament is an empty EU parliament.

COMMENT THREAD

Of course, we are in favour of democracy ...

... it's just we don't really like it when it does not go the way we want it to. Or so, clearly, reasons Martin Schulz, leader of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. He is not happy about what the EUObserver quaintly describes as the centre right being sort of in power in the European Union.

The reason for this mini-flap is that the former leader of the EPP, Hans-Gert Poettering (pictured below), has been elected as president of the European Parliament, thus becoming the third vaguely right-wing person to hold an important position in the EU. The others are Commission President Barroso, whose right-wing credentials are questionable or would be if one knew anything about his politics, and Chancellor Angela Merkel, temporary president of the European Union, rather handicapped by the grand coalition she heads back in her own country.

None of this is the slightest importance, politically speaking. Merkel is in that position only till the end of June and the Toy Parliament that Poettering presides over is not exactly a power in the land. In any case, what matters in EU politics is attitude to further integration and greater centralized regulation. In that there is not much to choose between the left and the right, the division being between the main groupings and the smaller ones.

Nevertheless, Martin Schulz is finding the situation disturbing.

Socialist leader Martin Schulz told EUobserver that while he was "not concerned" by the set-up, he added that "We're here to ensure that this will not change into a dangerous situation."

Oooh-err! Those centre-right Germans and Portuguese can make any situation dangerous.

Herr Schulz is worried by another development and that is the formation of the new right-wing (or so we think, though many of them are old-fashioned socialist corporatists) grouping in the Toy Parliament, the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group.

Disregarding the fact that all these people were elected in their various countries, just as Herr Schulz was and that they have not actually broken any rules in the European Parliament (they have not even pointed out the criminal past of various Commissioners, as UKIP has done), he is demanding that they be deprived of their rights.

Immediately after the announcement of the 20-member group's formation, Mr Schulz wrote to leaders of the parliament's democratic groups, urging them to deny the new group posts under the proportional d'Hondt system of appointment.

In his letter Mr Schulz says: "We must not abandon this Parliament, which symbolises the integration of Europe, to those who deny all European values."

Oh dear, those European values again.

Let us for the moment set aside such awkward historic incidents as the Inquisition, religious wars, bloodshed on a large scale, concentration camps and various others I am too tired to mention. Let us take Herr Schulz's statement at its face value. Surely those famous European values, as represented by the Toy Parliament, include the concept of democracy and freedom of speech.

In that case, much as one may dislike what the various members of the new grouping say, as long as they do not break the law (and that contingency is provided for by their immunity) and are not linked to any terrorist or criminal organization, they are entitled to the rights and privileges (of which there are many) exactly as the Socialists are.

Of course, if our suggestion were taken on board and the European Parliament were abolished with consequent large savings to all of us, none of these problems would arise.

As this is unlikely to happen in the near future, let us consider what might emerge if one started banning people from taking the positions for which they were elected because some do not like their views. Can Mr Schulz answer for all members of his grouping? Have none of them expressed support for deeply unpleasant systems and leaders like Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi-minh or Mengistu? Have none of them wept over the wrongs of terrorists who openly say that their aim is to exterminate as many of their enemies as possible?

What of Glenys Kinnock, chosen at random, who came back from a study trip in South Africa and neighbouring countries before the end of apartheid and cheerfully admitted that she had not bothered to investigate conditions in SWAPO prison camps?

What of the various East Europeans who had been in their Communist parties before "seeing the light" not to mention the various goodies, and becoming all European in their attitudes? Should they not be deprived of various rights and privileges?

It seems that European values, so dear to the heart of Herr Schulz and Chancellor Merkel, do not include freedom of speech or of historical debate. Once again, it has been put forward as an aim of the German presidency, to make Holocaust denial illegal across the European Union.

Germany has set numerous goals in its 25-page programme for the EU presidency, including everything from securing Europe's energy supplies to outlawing Holocaust denial, improving Europeans' image of the bloc and getting serious about climate change.

This is beginning to be seriously boring.

Let us be quite clear on the subject. No event in history, however horrible, can to be immune from discussion, wrong-headed arguments, lies and denials. That applies to the Holocaust as much as the far greater numbers murdered by various Communist tyrants.

It made sense to pass that law in West Germany and Austria immediately after the war. Let us not forget, however, that both those countries have been democracies for nearly six decades and there is not particular evidence of that coming to an end. Far from spreading laws passed at a particular time in history to other countries, who are in no need of this sort of cleansing, it may be time for Germany and Austria to rethink the matter for themselves. They have grown up and can treat deeply unpleasant episodes in their past as mature democracies.

Alternatively, we might have to start campaigning for the outlawing of denial of Communist atrocities. And then where will Martin Schulz and his grouping be?

COMMENT THREAD

A great service

How the Independent must have loved posting this headline: "Gypsy-haters, holocaust-deniers, xenophobes, homophobes, anti-semites: the EU's new political force."

This, as written by Stephen Castle, the paper's EU correspondent, records
"Europe's far-right, xenophobic and extremist parties" crossing a new threshold yesterday, winning more speaking time, money, and political influence in the European Parliament than ever before.

Claiming the backing of 23 million Europeans, ultra-nationalists secured enough MEPs to make a formal political grouping in the EU Parliament, surmounting the hurdle that requires 20 MEPs from at least six member states, all sharing a general political philosophy.

Called the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty (ITS) group, this has been made possible by the admission of Romania and Bulgaria in January. Their "far-right" MEPs have joined together with "hardline nationalists and extremists" from France, Austria and Italy, plus one from the UK, former UKIP MEP Ashley Mote, now sitting as an independent.

Mote, therefore, is being held partly responsible by The Times for helping this far-right groups to get funding, a cool €1 million each year for "administrative expenses".

Prominent members of the far-right alliance include Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, Alessandra Mussolini, granddaughter of Benito Mussolini (pictured), Frank Vanhecke, leader of Belgium's separatist Flemish nationalist party, Vlaams Belang, and Andreas Mölzer, a former aide to the Austrian far-right leader, Jörg Haider.

In their haste to declaim this new group, however, none of the media seem to have realised that, in branding it "far right" and "extremist" - a position led by the BBC - they can no longer so easily tar the UK Independence Party with the same brush. Unwittingly, they have positioned UKIP – and its agenda of leaving the EU – that bit closer to the "moderate" centre.

Although having been expelled from it, Ashley Mote has in fact done a far greater service to his former Party than he could have, had he remained in it.

COMMENT THREAD