Well I never!

As Westminster MPs lick their wounds, their European counterparts grow ever more confident, says Boris Johnson. And because the great Boris says it, it must be true.

The point is, it has been true for a long time, but now the gifted scribe has noticed. Not quite yet has he realised that we now have a parliament that cannot even ban light bulbs – or un-ban them. That we have a government that cannot decide its agriculture or fishing policy. Or even decide how many wash basins there should be in a slaughterhouse.

But he has noticed that, increasingly, Brussels decides on financial services regulation. We could have told him that ... we told our readers that many moons ago. But the great Boris didn't notice – or didn't care. But now he does.

And what is he going to do about it? More to the point, what is Dave going to do about it?

In truth, very little. Dave's Tories, like all Tories before them, will huff and puff, and roll over. Small wonder, Dave is finding it tough going - especially ooop North. Hundreds of miles from the Westminster bubble, they know a poser when they see one.

The EU issue and voting intentions are not directly related. In that sense, the pundits are right. The EU is not an electoral issue, in that people are actually thinking about Brussels when they vote. But what they perceive is an etiolated, powerless, irrelevant political class, where presentation has overtaken substance, because there is no substance. And there is no substance because the power has drained away to Brussels.

Boris might now have discovered this. But he is a long way from identifying the remedy. There is only one. We have to leave the EU. All the rest is talk.

COMMENT THREAD

The Brussels Taleban

Nearly two years ago, I wrote about the EU's proposed "e-call" system, in-car technology linked to GPS (and in time Galileo) which could automatically alert the emergency services in the event of a crash, when the driver is incapacitated or rendered unconscious.

The US has a similar system, funded as a private-venture enterprise, which is attracting thousands of subscribers. The difference here, though, is that the Socialist Republic of the European Union wants a state-run system, controlled by its gifted bureaucrats in Brussels.

Its ambitions, however, have been stalled by the unwillingness of enough of its vassal states to cough up the dosh, which means that it is having difficulty meeting its proposed roll-out target of 2014.

Undismayed, however, we now learn that the Brussels Taleban are flexing their muscles, and have decided that, unless the member states play ball, they will make the system compulsory.

"If the eCall roll-out does not accelerate, the Commission stands ready to set out clear rules obliging governments, industry and emergency services to respond," says Mullah Viviane Reding. "I want to see the first eCall cars on our roads next year."

So there if have it – if you do not volunteer, you will be volunteered. And the difference between the EU Commission and the Taleban is?

COMMENT THREAD

More news from Iceland

At first I imagined that I was treading in the footsteps of William Morris who had written about Iceland; then I checked my facts (always a useful thing to do) and found that though Morris had visited Iceland at least twice and translated several of the sagas he had not written any books that could be called news from Iceland. He did write a poem about the country and published his travel journals, though. That's just as well because I am not exactly a follower of William Morris: a great deal to be said for his designs but his literary output is heavy going and his political ideas are mushy to put it mildly.

W. H. Auden, on the other hand, is a man I admire greatly; just in time I recalled that he and Louis MacNeice (less admired but good nevertheless) wrote a book together, called Letters from Iceland. That's all right, then. I do not mind treading in their footsteps though it is unlikely that I shall ever produce poetry one tenth as good as Auden's.

Right, on with the motley. (Hey, you have to keep up on this blog.) The government of Iceland has, as we know, applied for EU membership, which was not the cause of unalloyed joy either in that country or in the existing Member States.

Now we have a couple of updates on the situation from Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson of the excellent EU News from Iceland. This posting analyzes poll results about EU membership in Iceland.

Polls asking if people wanted to start membership talks (aðildarviðræður) with the EU have almost always resulted in a majority in favour.

Polls asking if people wanted to apply for membership (umsókn um aðild) of the EU have almost always resulted in a majority against.

Polls asking if people wanted to join the EU have usually resulted in a 50/50 situation.The first two examples obviously contradict each other. But this has an explanation. For years people in favour of EU membership have claimed it was possible to enter some kind of a non-obligational "scouting talks" with the EU just to find out what kind of a deal Iceland would be able to get.

Of course, as the talks progress the Icelanders will realize that those non-obligational, exploratory talks are more mythological than the Viking heroes of old. And as Mr Guðmundsson points out, there will have to be a referendum before Iceland actually joins. Not to mention the possibility of the government falling.

In another article on EU Observer Mr Guðmundsson deals with that familiar canard that countries in the EEA might as well join the EU because they have to adopt most of the legislation, anyway, while having no hand in shaping it. Anyone would think that Britain a fully paid up member of the European Union had any say in that legislation but let that pass.

In any case, Mr Guðmundsson says, this is not true.

In the spring of 2005 research carried out by the EFTA [European Free Trade Association] secretariat in Brussels at the request of the Icelandic foreign ministry, however, revealed that only 6.5 percent of all EU legislation was subjected to the EEA agreement between 1994 (when it came into force) and 2004.

In March 2007 a report published by a special committee on Europe commissioned by the Icelandic prime minister, showed that some 2,500 pieces of EU legislation had been adopted in Iceland during the first decade of the EEA agreement. The study also found that about 22 percent of Icelandic laws passed by the parliament originated from the EU during the same period of time.

The totality of EU legislation is according to various sources around 25,000 to 30,000 legal acts. Total Icelandic laws and regulations, however, are around 5,000. Of those there are less than 1,000 laws, the rest is regulations. Even if the entire legislation of Iceland came from the EU it would only be around 20 percent of the total acquis communautaire.

Clearly Iceland does not adopt two thirds of all the legislation of the EU; neither is it true, to turn the numbers round, that two thirds of Icelandic legislation comes from the EU.

COMMENT THREAD

And that election ...

It says something either of this writer, politics in general, or both, that the by-election in Norwich North is very low down the batting order. But then, the only outcome is to vote in another "useless mouth" to the provincial parliament, while the real government gets on with its business in Brussels.

For the record, the "victor" was Conservative, Chloe Smith, 27 – a former "management consultant" and therefore able to bring her extensive experience of business into play, as to how to comply with EU legislation.

The Times tells us the fair Chloe won a bigger than expected 7,348 majority, overturning Labour's lead of 5,459 in the 2005 general election. With 6,243 votes, Labour was down 26.7 percent on the general election, with 14,854 voters deserting the party since 2005.

Interestingly, the turnout was 45.8 percent – pathetic but only to be expected – which means that the Tories now hold the seat with votes from just over 18 percent of the electorate. A sweeping mandate it ain't, especially as the majority is attributable more to a collapse of the Labour vote than a positive endorsement of the Cameron agenda.

Ukip's Glen Tingle apparently did quite well, bringing in 4,068 votes, taking 11 percent of the vote. Lib Dims only made 4,803 votes, two percent less than in the 2005 general election – a very poor showing for a party that is supposed to specialise in by-elections. Nick Clegg's message is not wowing the voters.

The UKIP vote is interesting. Together with the Greens (3,350 votes), BNP (941) and Craig Murray (953) running as an anti-sleeze candidate, the "tiddlers" polled 14,115 votes, more than the Conservative's 13,591, taking over 40 percent of the vote cast, better than the 39.5 percent which the Conservatives took.

This did not prevent the Tories winning the seat, but this is a significant tranche of votes. If the minority vote holds up across the board in the general election (a very big "if"), we could see variations of the UKIP effect, with unpredictable results.

Predicting results is a mug's game at the best of time, so all that can be said is that this result injects an element of unpredictability into a situation already fraught with unpredictability. We could be in for an interesting time – or not.

COMMENT THREAD

They can't do it

David Cameron would scrap FSA in biggest overhaul of City regulation since 1997, says The Daily Telegraph. The Financial Services Authority will be scrapped to make way for an all-powerful Bank of England as part of a radical overhaul of the financial system, the Conservatives government will effect if they are elected.

They want to get rid of the so-called "tripartite" regulatory system, comprising the government, the Bank of England and the FSA. Except that it isn't a tripartite system - it's a quadripartite system. The fourth player is the European Union, which makes the bulk of the law and has the superior enforcement powers.

Thus, as we explained earlier, the Tories can't do it. But then hope springs eternal, and there is no fool like a Tory fool when it comes to the EU. Osborne has announced the creation of a new Treasury minister for European financial regulation who "will spend as much time as necessary in Brussels to build alliances and defend Britain’s interests."

In time, if this post happens, the holder will become the minster for obeying European financial regulation. At least, when he goes to Brussels, he will be able to pick up his instructions directly from our government.

COMMENT THREAD

I suppose we should be interested ...

... in the machinations of "Tory" MEPs, like wot the propper media is.

Actually, McMillan Scott never was a Tory, and now he's been kicked out of the not-the-Tory group in Brussels, for something or other, leaving the Poles in er ... pole position. UKIP are wetting themselves with mirth. First day back at school and the Tories have lost one of their number. This time five years ago, UKIP had just lost its first MEP, when they had to ditch Ashley Mote.

It is rather funny in a way, I suppose ... doesn't compare with Moldavian gun-runners flying dodgy choppers for the British Army, but you can see why the "colleagues" are all a-twitter.

COMMENT THREAD

Me no understand

Ambrose has an alarming (or alarmist) story in The Daily Telegraph today telling us that the EU is "considering a voting structure for its new apparatus of financial regulation that would make it almost impossible for Britain to block measures, even if they pose a major threat to the City of London."

We are thus told that the commission is mulling a simple majority system (SMV), making it far harder for the UK to mount a "blocking minority" with like-minded allies. Malta or Slovenia would have the same voting weight on financial regulation as Britain, the world's banking capital.

On the face of it, this does not seem possible, as voting procedures are defined in the treaty and cannot be changed willy-nilly by the commission, or anyone else. But it is not at all clear from the story as to the context in which this system is supposed to apply.

However, Ambrose tells me that the commission hopes to use the procedures within the technical committees for the three new regulatory authorities, which of course is a devious piece of Monnet salami tactics. The regulators, therefore, will be able to impose their rule over the heads of the British government – if this procedure is approved.

In fact, says Ambrose, it makes little difference whether it is QMV or SMV. The key moment was when the member states agreed to binding EU powers at the Ecofin meeting in May and then at the June summit. That entailed the transfer of ultimate control over the City from London to Brussels. The rest is detail.

That, in many ways, defines the EU – submerged in technical detail and complexity which lacks clarity and defies understanding. However, we are also told that, "The City is very seriously concerned about this," which is no bad thing. If the money men are seriously worried about the depredations of the EU, then we might see some increased resistance to the evil empire and more pressure on the Conservative Party.

On this, though, it would be unwise to rely. City financiers, in our experience, tend to be extraordinarily naïve when it comes to dealing with the EU, believing they are dealing with a rational organisation with which it is possible to have sensible negotiations. They will learn in time, but not before the City has largely been destroyed by a welter of regulation and procedures that no one understands and which are too complex to report in a popular newspaper.

Any which way though, even if it is not this issue in particular which does the damage, the one constant is that we are going to get shafted, with the City shackled by a ball and chain of perverse regulation. When it happens, we will probably not even realise how it is has been done. A thought thus occurs that between the Taleban and the EU as enemies, the former are possibly preferable. At least we can shoot the Taleban.

COMMENT THREAD

Crap and fade

Read the post here and follow the link. Likewise here. One can only marvel at the fact that there is a political debate, even if we support the losing side.

In the UK, of course, we already have crap and fade. It is called the European Trading Scheme (ETS). No debate here ... another example of how the EU completely emasculates political discourse. Instead, our MPs are rushing through a Bill further to emasculate their own powers. In Brussels, the issue du jour is whether to keep José thingy on as commission president.

You can understand why so many people find US politics more interesting than our own. Weep while you can.

COMMENT THREAD

Another one down?

The long-awaited ruling from the German constitutional court at Karlsruhe has been delivered, offering a curate's egg verdict – good[ish] in parts.

According to the BBC, the court has decided that the constitutional Lisbon Treaty is compatible with German law - but has suspended ratification of it pending extra national legislation needed to ensure that the German parliament participated fully in adopting EU laws.

Quite what this latter provision means is not explained and we are not much the wiser from the report in Deutsche Welle. It, however, summarises the court ruling, telling us that, "the constitution says 'yes' to the Lisbon Treaty but demands that parliament's right to participation be strengthened at the national level."

Der Spiegel tells us that the [German] parliament will now be under pressure to rapidly bring in new legislation so that the ratification process can continue.

The treaty is supposed to be implemented by the beginning of 2010 at the latest and the parliament is to gather for a special sitting on August 26 for a first reading of a new law which will pave the way for ratification. The vote would then take place on 8 September, weeks before Germany's national election.

Nothing, it seems, will stop the Gadarene rush of national legislatures to divest themselves of powers, handing them over to an alien construct in Brussels.

With Irish commissioner Charlie McCreevy recently conceding that voters in most EU countries would have rejected the treaty, given the opportunity, one wonders what it is that impels our rulers to defy their own people in such an egregious manner.

Possibly, there is now a chance for German MPs to stall the new law before the national elections, although this seems a forlorn hope, which means that, even before the Irish re-run of the referendum, another ratification will be safely in the bag. The vice-like grip of Brussels gets ever tighter.

COMMENT THREAD

Unsustainable

In the News of the World yesterday, Fraser Nelson writes a piece under the heading "Condemned by silence".

He notes that, three weeks since BNP's election triumph, no party has started to discuss immigration. Westminster parties have kept their baffled silence and are giving the BNP a monopoly over the most explosive issue in politics.

You'd think, writes Nelson. Gordon Brown and David Cameron would have been shocked into action after seeing Griffin win a seat in Brussels, his party taking almost a million votes.

Immigration was always a "big subject" and it is bigger now because layoffs in the recessions are hitting British-born people hardest. Directly from the Office for National Statistics – but not openly published – Nelson has found that there are fewer UK-born workers in the private sector than 12 years ago.

In the last year there are 119,000 more migrant workers in UK jobs, but 615,000 fewer UK-born workers. In recent months, both are falling. But UK-born workers are being laid off at five times the rate. Workers, he says, can see it with their own eyes, and ask: why? And because no mainstream party has an answer, the BNP prospers.

Other statistics gleaned include the nugget that 1,000 Britons are emigrating every day, although they are not working in Europe. Although Alan Johnson, now Home Secretary, claimed a figure of 1.5 million British working in Europe, that is actually seven times the real number. Of immigrants in the British workforce, the official figure is two percent but the real total is fourteen percent.

But, while Thatcher killed off the National Front in the late 70s by taking the issue immigration head-on, Cameron is silent. The subject scares away voters in the marginal seats he needs to take power. Westminster only cares about swing voters in swing seats - so millions are forgotten. Thus writes Nelson, the silence from Westminster suggests that the BNP's "shocking success story" is far from over.

Taking a broader perspective, it is not just immigration on which the political classes are silent. We have all been impressed with the US treatment of the climate change bill over there. It may have been rammed through the House of Representatives but at least it is as political issue. Here, the silence of the politicos is deafening.

Similarly, defence in the United States is an issue – discussed widely in the media and on the Hill. Here, although a debate has started, it has been led by the military and the media. Over the pond, it was kick-started by defence secretary Gates.

One by one, you can tick off the "big issues" – the European Union also comes to mind – and our politicians are silent. They have their own agendas, but these increasingly are not ours. The gulf between the politicians and the people may have been greater, but in recent times it is hard to imagine when. Thus, to use a word beloved by politicians, whether new or not, the current gap is "unsustainable".

COMMENT THREAD

Where Catalonia leads ...

An interesting piece and somewhat alarming piece in The Sunday Telegraph pulls together the rarely discussed issue of the EU regional policy, noting that various European separatist movements are set to welcome the expected ratification of the constitutional Lisbon treaty.

They believe that increased power for Brussels means weaker nation states and a stronger case for the regions to be given independence.

The paper offers two case studies, one dealing with Catalonia and the other Flanders, in both of which the separatist movements see in the EU an opportunity to break away from their own national governments and re-create themselves as "independent" member states under the aegis of Brussels.

This process gets a distinct boost with the constitutional Lisbon treaty. For the first time, for instance, Regions will have direct access to the ECJ, being able to bring their own cases, having hitherto to rely on their central governments to act for them.

What we are seeing, therefore, is a continuation of a scheme that actually pre-dated the European Union and even the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, stemming from town twinning which was conceived, in its present day form, immediately after the Second World War. The ethos then is the same as it is now – that by strengthening ties between cross-border entities, the grip of the nation states was weakened, thus reducing the prospects of war between nations.

The EU (and the EEC before it) was late into the game, with its first faltering move in 1975, creating the European Regional Development Fund, and the formation of a distinct regional policy in 198, managing a funding stream that by-passes central governments with direct payments to regional bodies.

Making up for lost time, it now encourages direct relations between the regions and Brussels, with some 300 different regions staffing offices in Brussels, dealing directly with the commission and other EU institutions. And with many of the regions boasting populations and GDPs larger than some of the EU's newer members - including Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia – the logic of "independence under Brussels" is gaining ground.

Such a movement could directly affect the United Kingdom for, if regions like Catalonia and Flanders do break away, there would be a strong precedent for Scotland, Wales and even Ulster to follow. And where they lead, could Yorkshire – or perhaps Cornwall – be far behind?

And that is the hidden threat posed by the EU. An English rump, weakened by successive EU policies and the depredations of Gordon Brown's financial management, would not have the strength to block such moves. A puppet parliament in Westminster, eager to conform as long its members expenses and pensions were paid, would raise few objections to the break-up, engineering our final subjugation to an alien power.

Nightmare scenario this may be, but that does not mean it is impossible – or even unlikely. The threat is real and Catalonia is showing the way.

COMMENT THREAD

Mad ... completely mad

Climate change minister Stewart Stevenson (pictured) said: "Scotland can be proud of this bill, the most ambitious and comprehensive piece of climate change legislation anywhere in the world."

"As a country, we are leading global action and expect others to follow our lead as we look to the international summit in Copenhagen this December."

It may only be Scotland but it is still completely mad. The trouble is, our own lot are not much better, if at all. And, in any case, we have Brussels to contend with as well.

To a very great extent, the obsession of diverse legislatures with global warming is a symptom of the greater malaise, illustrating the great divide between the people and our rulers. Time and again, across both sides of the Atlantic, opinion polls indicate that ordinary people do not rate climate change as an important issue.

The real science, as opposed to the tripe promulgated by the scientific rent seekers, does not support the thesis of human-induced warming, or even that CO2 is a driver. And, for the past seven years, the "global temperature" – if there is such a thing – has been declining.

Yet still, the politicians plough on regardless, oblivious to reality, totally locked in their own self-referential bubble, spewing out the mindless instruments of the sort we see in Scotland.

And the worst of those is that among the measures voted through parliament were powers to fine householders and companies if they do not take action to improve the energy efficiency of their houses and buildings. Next thing you know, they will be fining people for putting things in the wrong dustbins ... er ...

More and more, I am convinced that "we" are going to have to shoot them. Of course, "we" are not going to do that. We are going to moan, bitch ... and write blogs. But if politicians continue on this path, that is the inevitable outcome – perhaps not for decades or even generations. The rate it is going though, it will be sooner rather than later.

As we watch the tragedy of Iran play itself out, it looks such a long way away, but we are not that far from it - it only took a couple of generations to turn that country from a wealthy, advanced, western-orientated nation to the basket case it now is. Civilisation is never more than skin deep - mess with it and it will mess with you.

COMMENT THREAD

Kippered

Last week the prime minister returned from the European Council having denied the EU the right to determine which financial institutions he, or his successors, would have to bail out in the future.

Or so he says, and may even believe, notes Irwin Stelzer. But he hasn't. Stelzer continues:

In fact, France's Nicolas Sarkozy was closer to the truth when he proclaimed that "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism has been altered by the establishment of new pan-European regulatory bodies. Prepare yourself to learn new agency titles: the European Banking Authority; the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority; the European Securities and Markets Authority; the European Systemic Risks Councils. You couldn't make it up, as our tabloid cousins say.

These new agencies will not only provide jobs for the boys: they have binding powers to investigate and oversee cross-border banking, insurance, pensions and securities, and can issue binding orders to resolve disputes between member states.

Sarkozy has only scorn for Gordon Brown's claim that these bodies have very limited power. "We have agreed a European system of supervision with binding powers. My conviction is that its scope will increase."

History is on the French president's side – efforts to hold EU institutions to their original remits have uniformly failed. Surely, Lord Mandelson, a Europhile whose next project is the replacement of sterling with the euro, knows this.

Whether he shared that insight with his ostensible boss we do not know, but it is a reasonable guess that his Lordship neglected to warn the PM of the pending loss of still more national sovereignty. When the Prime Minister said that "candour" is the new watchword of his government, he surely did not expect it to apply to his new best friend.

The implications of this are profound. In the few short months following the banking crisis, we have ceded huge tranches of control over our financial institutions to the EU, vested in hostile hands with agendas which are entirely inimical to our own.

This has been matched by an almost complete absence of outrage and front-page coverage – part of the "opportunity cost" arising from the obsession with MPs' expenses. While the political classes have been discussing little else but the penny-ante sums involved, the EU has made a power grab that will cost us billions, all without reference to our own Parliament which has not yet debated the issue and never will.

That there should have been so little attention to this issue is unsurprising. Bankers, whatever their contribution to the economy, tend to be the lowest form of scum that inhabits the earth, and they have not made many friends recently.

Further, the whole issue of banking regulation is fiendishly complex, as we know from our own forays into this field. Then, apart from a few high-profile banking executives, the field is populated by anonymous, grey figures conducting back-room, technical deals which do not lend themselves to the "biff-bam" style of modern media reporting.

Thus, in the couloirs of Brussels and beyond, one of our most important wealth generating activities has been stitched-up, kippered and delivered to the enemy. We won't poinpoint the cause of the effects immediately – or at all. As the EU exerts its malign grip, its depredations will not be reported and that which escapes into the public domain will not be understood.

The only thing certain is that we will pay, directly and indirectly, and keep on paying ... until such time as we are forced to leave the EU or go bankrupt.

COMMENT THREAD

Slaughter them now

Run on the front page of The Daily Express without apparently an online link, is the "shock-horror" story that household energy bills are set to soar to more than £5,000 a year within the next decade, up from an average of £1,243 currently – a figure which has doubled over five years.

The story also finds its way into The Daily Mail and others, where we find that this quadrupling of costs arises "as Britain increasingly relies on outdated infrastructure and green energy policies."

Here we see writ large the failure of the energy policy and the consequences of the obsession with global warming but, unsurprisingly, we see no broadside against the cumulative stupidity that is to bring this massive price-hike about. Instead, we see the anodyne comment that " … we are entering a new era of high-cost energy and households will have to adapt their behaviour accordingly."

Indeed though, we will have to adapt behaviour and, for many people that will mean using less energy. Summing this up is Michelle Mitchell, charity director for Age Concern and Help the Aged. She says, "With more than one in three pensioner households already in fuel poverty, any further price rises could have serious consequences."

What is not conveyed is any sense that this increase is entirely artificial, created to a very great extent by top-loading electricity bills with the EU emission trading scheme, carbon capture, the renewables obligation and all the other crazy imposts, devised in the name of reducing global temperatures.

On top of that is the dash for gas, the industry's answer to the failure of successive governments to get their acts together on nuclear power.

Built in to this hike also is the cost of providing the so-called "smart meters", the real agenda there being to provide the utility companies with a means of rationing electricity without having to suffer the embarrassment of highly visible power outages.

Those unable to pay the inflated bills can also be cut off without having to send an official to do the dirty work, which avoids the even greater embarrassment of having to explain why so many people cannot pay for their electricity.

That this is going to kill people was rehearsed on this blog in January, but a silent epidemic of hypothermia is of no matter to the greenies, who would have us all die to save the planet.

To put the matter in context, our revered and highly respected MPs cost us about £4 per year, for each household. They had – and have – the power to stop this mass stupidity on global warming. But, of course, they have bought into the scare and support the government in its determination to drive up costs.

That, amongst other things, is a measure of the failure of our political system but, in ten years time, it will be too late to slaughter the MPs - to say nothing of those buffoons in Brussels - who made this happen. We should do it now while we still have the opportunity.

COMMENT THREAD

A vile creature

More than a few eyebrows were raised when, after the sudden departure of Caroline Flint, Glenys Kinnock was appointed Europe minister.

Open Europe was then quick to report that, for their 10 years on the EU gravy train, she and her husband were rewarded with more than £10 million in salaries, expenses and pension rights.

But, writes Christopher Booker, little attention has been paid to what Baroness Kinnock was actually doing for our money during her 10 years as an MEP. From his account of some of her activities as an MEP, there emerges some detail of quite how vile a creature this woman really is.

In various roles, Booker writes, she was much occupied with Africa, and thus became involved in two lengthy and very nasty sagas, which were scarcely reported in the British media.

The first was the tragic story of how, since 1996, the Botswanan government has used every means, including shooting and torture, to force the few hundred remaining bushmen off the Kalahari Central Game Reserve (which was constitutionally guaranteed them in perpetuity when Botswana won independence from Britain in 1966). Claiming that the bushmen needed access to modern educational and health facilities, the government herded them into a hellish settlement at New Xade, dubbed by the bushmen "the place of death".

In 2002, Mrs Kinnock made a regal visit to New Xade as "EU spokesman" though to local ears it seemed she simply retailed the propaganda of the Botswanan officials accompanying her. When the bushmen's dignified leader, Roy Sesana, rose to give the other side of the story, the microphone was snatched off him. He said later: "She wasted money coming from London. I am crying when she says these things. She should pay the money back."

The other horrible story concerns the catastrophe which befell a large rural community outside Nairobi, when in 1989 an Italian company embarked on an EU-funded motorway scheme. Carving right through the settlement was bad enough, but a barrier in the middle of the highway caused dozens of deaths, as villagers tried to jump over it to reach schools, shops, friends and relatives. But much worse was the appalling damage done by the blasting and crushing of a million tons of rock for road building materials, creating a 97ft-deep crater right in the middle of Rungiri village.

Homes and schools were damaged by flying rocks. I spoke last week with Francis Gautugata, a Kikuyu elder, and his niece Rosemary Wambui, recalling how the whole area was carpeted for five years in dense, choking dust, killing animals and crops and leaving some 2,000 villagers with serious health damage. Blasting destroyed the area water table and the quarry filled with water, in which, to date, more than 40 villagers have drowned, many falling from steep rocks while trying to wash their clothes in the only filthy water left to them.

When, with the aid of Ann Usher, a Nairobi-based British nurse, the villagers began to plead for help, Glenys Kinnock, as a new MEP in 1994, expressed concern at what had happened and wrote: "I will pursue it". In 1995, a letter to the British government from a senior Brussels official claimed there had been only "minor damage" to a few houses. All who suffered had been "duly compensated"; the villagers had been provided with drinking water; the quarry was now safely fenced off; and a dead boy, Mr Gautugata's nephew, only drowned through "lack of swimming practice".

This was all so blatantly untrue that it prompted a storming response from six MEPs, including Mrs Kinnock. They pointed out that the project had clearly been "fundamentally flawed", and that, under the Treaty of Rome, the EU was liable for damage caused by "its servants". It must "accept responsibility" for a "series of failings" which had led to "human misery" and "material harm".

Help was pledged by the head of the EU delegation to Kenya, but the promised aid never arrived. In 2002, after I reported this story, the case was taken up by another Labour MEP, Philip Whitehead. Brussels offered to provide two boreholes, which were finally installed in 2006. When Mrs Usher wrote again to Mrs Kinnock, setting out the story in harrowing detail – health problems were worse, villagers were still drowning and being killed on the road – the new head of the local EU delegation, Eric van der Linden, drafted an extraordinary reply.

The EU had done all it could to help, he said, implying (in the face of a mass of medical evidence) that most of the compensation claims were bogus. He ended: "There is nothing more to be done on this matter". Mrs Kinnock sent on this chillingly contemptuous letter to Mrs Usher and the Kikuyu community, noting: "I hope this response is helpful." In May, this year Mrs Usher wrote yet again to Mrs Kinnock but received no reply.

Now that Baroness Kinnock is our Europe minister, Booker suggests, the least she can do is ensure that justice is very belatedly done to those thousands of Africans whose health and livelihood has been destroyed by this disaster which, 13 years ago, Lady Kinnock readily acknowledged the EU had a responsibility, under the Treaty, to make good.

COMMENT THREAD

Getting interesting

The Irish referendum drama took another lurch towards a conclusion today, with the European Council agreeing to offer to the Irish government "legal guarantees on national sovereignty" as an incentive which they hope will attract a "yes" vote in October when a re-run is planned.

That much is according to Reuters which refers to the guarantees being given the status of a treaty "protocol". This, as opposed to the declarations which were originally proposed, give them legal status, but this also means that they must be ratified unanimously by all 27 member states.

The Irish Times, unsurprisingly, has following the drama, earlier reporting that the deal followed an early morning meeting between Irish prime minister Brian Cowen (pictured) and Gordon Brown - the latter having blocked the idea of a protocol. It is understood that, as the meeting, Brown withdrew his objections.

Protocols do not actually change the constitutional Lisbon treaty. They are described as providing a "common interpretation" of it. Specifically, they pledge that nothing in the treaty will affect Ireland's constitutional provisions on abortion and the family, its right to determine its own tax regime, or force the state to sign up to European defence co-operation.

Bruno Waterfield suggests that this move could see a future Conservative government plunged into fraught negotiations over the EU's powers. The process could require the opening of full-blown treaty negotiations next year, possibly allowing a new Conservative government to renegotiate the power balance between Britain and Brussels.

To support this we get an unnamed official cited, saying that, "Some people see this as a Pandora's box," adding: "It could be used by Conservatives to reopen the question of EU powers over [Britain's] social affairs." Bruno adds that a fresh debate in the Commons soon after returning to power could open up old wounds in a party historically split between europhiles and euro-sceptics.

This is amplified by the BBC's Mark Mardell, who remarks that there could be a campaign in Britain for a referendum on the protocols. Either that or someone will pop up and ask for their own reassurances, or the Czech or Polish president will find a new reason for not signing off Lisbon, or there'll be some other democratic diversions.

However, Mardell also notes that the protocols could simply be tagged onto the next accession treaty – perhaps either Croatia or Iceland – which was always an option. That would require no further discussions at EU level, unless of course a new Cameron administration made it an issue.

Here, Dave could make agreement conditional on the EU agreeing to new British opt-outs or, writes Mardell, "even a new relationship with the EU," then leading to a British protocol being attached to the accession treaty, on the back of a UK referendum.

Back in Ireland though, there is a mixed reaction to the deal. Newly-elected Socialist MEP for Dublin, Joe Higgins, is insisting that the protocols are an "elaborate charade" meant to distract attention away from the key issues.

"The debate on the Lisbon Treaty has yet to be held because we've been dealing with side issues," he says. "The fundamentals have still to be debated." Higgins thus maintains that the protocols (which will not be in force by October) will not mean that the treaty will be ratified.

This "take" on the treaty is, of course, spot on – the protocols do deal with side-issues, leaving the substance of the treaty unchallenged. But that aside, one wonders whether the Irish will even accept the assurances so far given, bearing in mind that any member state could refuse to ratify them after the next referendum, thus negating the whole deal after it is too late to block the treaty.

What would be interesting, therefore, is whether the Irish would be prepared to refuse to agree to Lisbon until after the protocols have been ratified – which could be some years hence. That would certainly put Cameron in the frame as his new administration would have no excuse whatsoever for refusing a UK referendum.

All of a sudden, EU politics are getting interesting again.

COMMENT THREAD

Brown Thursday

"Regulation of City may be handed to Brussels" writes Bruno Waterfield.

Hopes that Gordon Brown would make a stand against the European Commission's financial regulatory proposals, which could see control over the City transfer from London to Brussels, appear to be fading, he tells us.

In The Times, however, we get a little more detail. Brown, it appears, has agreed common EU rules for financial supervision but has refused to accept the new EU financial regulators should have the power to order governments to bail out struggling banks and other bodies.

This still represents a substantial transfer of power to Brussels as there will now be "a single rulebook" of standards for all European financial institutions. And, while the regulators lack the "nuclear option" – for now – they will have powers to oversee and investigate the cross-border banking, insurance and pensions, and securities sectors, and to mediate in disputes between member states.

As you would expect, though, The Independent put a positive spin on this expected defeat, proclaiming: "Brown wins EU battle to keep crisis-hit banks under UK control".

This paper is telling exactly the same story as the others but is typical of the Europhile tendency, talking up a temporary interruption in the torrent of EU measures and playing down the substantial erosions of power that have taken place.

In The Guardian, we see exactly the same trick being played, this time the headline reading: "Brown wins independence from European banking regulator". He has done nothing of the sort, of course – simply warded off the assumption of EU-wide emergency power – but the headline looks reassuring enough for the readers to go back to sleep.

In a few days time, this will be history as far as the media are concerned, leading the commission free to work up its detailed legislation without scrutiny or interference.

The full effects, however, will not be felt for many years but when the City has noticeably slid into obscurity at least we can say we knew when it started and who was at the helm. After Black Wednesday, we now have Brown Thursday.

COMMENT THREAD

The last vestiges of power

A cruel farce is about to play out today and tomorrow as Gordon Brown goes through the motions at the European Council of trying to rescue the City of London from destructive EU financial regulations … and fails.

Nevertheless, The Guardian is keeping up the pretence that our prime minister still has any power, telling us that he is "to resist European attempts to exert greater controls over the City of London."

However, even this europhile newspaper acknowledges the scale of the forces up against him, noting that the other big European states – namely France – are backing the EU moves. Particularly damaging is the plan to establishing a new system of pan-European regulators and supervisors, with last-resort authority to dictate bank bailout orders to national governments.

Already though, as we reported recently the writing was on the wall and now Ambrose Evans-Pritchard cuts through the cant and tells it as it is.

The UK is "powerless" to stop EU regulation, his piece is headed, revealing that a "senior French official" has confirmed Gordon Brown is "almost powerless" to stop the creation of EU financial regulatory machinery – a move that will open the way for a transfer of control over the City from London to Brussels.

The senior French official turns out to be a key aide to president Sarkozy who is predicting that: "There will be a pincer movement on Britain." To aid them in their endeavours, the "colleagues" are citing Obama's recent "financial reforms", which bear an uncanny resemblance to the EU moves.

The French in particular believes that Obama has undermined British resistance and will argue that the EU must come into line with the Americans, otherwise – in the terms of the favourite mantra Britain will be "isolated within Europe".

All this of course is largely for show. Britain cannot veto the proposals because EU they are framed under single market provisions which only need QMV to get through. It is reckoned that the UK will struggle to put together a blocking minority.

Thus, Britain will cave in – not that it has any option – leaving only a face-saving formula to be paraded by the likes of The Guardian as the last vestiges of power dribble away.

COMMENT THREAD

Who cares … spins

Our government will be meeting in full plenary session tomorrow and Friday, in a meeting which will agree policy directions over a wide range of issues that will directly affect our prosperity and freedoms.

We refer, as always, to the European Council meeting in Brussels, this one being the last major event of the Czech EU presidency.

High on the agenda will be the stitch-up on the constitutional Lisbon treaty, when the "colleagues" will be agreeing a form of words which will give the appearance of addressing the concerns of the Irish over the treaty without in any way changing the legal substance.

The strategy follows much the same format as the 1992 Edinbugh Agreement, masterminded by John Major and his gifted Foreign Office officials, then used as a mechanism for overcoming the Danish resistance to the Maastricht treaty.

As outlined by the veteran (now ex) Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde, what are now being called the "Irish assurances" will alter not one single comma in the Lisbon document. They will simply form an annex to the treaty which will have no legal status whatsoever. They can and will be ignored by the "colleagues" and – especially – by the ECJ.

The "assurances", however, will be spun furiously, invested with a meaning and importance which far transcends their actual substance, in the hope that the Irish people will roll over in October when a second referendum is held, thus clearing the way for a final ratification of the treaty.

With the current furore continuing in Iran over the presidential election there, it is easy to draw parallels. But the situations are not the same. In Iran, they rig the election to get the "right" result. In the EU they do things differently. They ignore the result and re-stage the "election" until the people get so weary – and bored - that they roll over and deliver what is required of them.

The ultimate difference though is that in Iran, the ruling élites steal the election. Here, they hold the elections and steal our governments. The one other difference, of course, is that we have not taken to the streets (yet), ready to rip the throats from the despicable bunch of thieves who are now our rulers.

COMMENT THREAD

Disabled …

Such is our humiliating lack of power as a nation, at the hands of Brussels, that no one wants to know any more. The details are hidden in the financial pages, while the British politicians prattle and political journalists play their games in the entertainment section.

Humiliation it is though, charted by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard as he tells us that Britain has been unable to block plans for an EU regulatory machinery with binding legal powers.

At the epicentre of what has amounted to a craven climbdown is the British reluctance to agree EU financial regulatory authorities with oversight powers over national agencies, with supreme arbitration powers awarded to the ECJ.

The FSA thus becomes a body subordinate to the EU apparatus, essentially a branch office of Brussels, carrying out local enforcement and administration on behalf of our supreme government.

The British government has consistently opposed this development but, since it comes under the "internal market" – agreed courtesy of Margaret Thatcher – new legislation is decided by qualified majority vote (QMV) – and we have been outvoted.

All of this has been so much of a pattern that no one can be in the least surprised. The EU has developed this model for some time, where national agencies are set up and then, gradually brought under the control of an EU central agency, thus to rule us as a Vichyite construct, giving it a local address to fool the natives into believing we are still in charge of our own destiny.

Thus, the financial turmoil of past months is turning out to be one of those "beneficial crises", facilitating yet another power grab by Brussels. In time, this one will destroy the City, substantially undermining attempts at economic recovery.

Soon, when you go onto the DirectGov site which is the portal to UK government services, we will see – in classic computer style – but a single word: "disabled". We are not quite there yet, but this takes us a whole lot closer.

COMMENT THREAD