The Commission is not happy

The Commission, in the shape of its spokesman, Amadeu Altafaj, is not happy with the Dutch government. How could they act in such an non-communautaire fashion by releasing the results of the exit polls, which, everyone assumes, are probably accurate?

It is no good saying, as the Dutch government does, that they have "national legislation which requires authorities to release partial results as soon as they are available", stamped his foot, Mr Altafaj. They should have overruled that legislation.

The events that took place in the Netherlands yesterday seem not to comply with the spirit of the European elections. They're supposed to go beyond the purely national aspects. If we want citizens to understand the European nature of these elections, we think it's absolutely essential that we release the results in all countries at the same time, also in order not to influence the vote in the countries which have not voted yet – and that at the moment is 25 out of the 27 member states," Mr Altafaj added.

It is actually 23 now, as Ireland and the Czech Republic voted today, but you get the point. The spirit of the European elections is not to be tampered with. Really, the man should join Libertas.eu.

COMMENT THREAD

European democracy, eh?

As the European Union member states are lumbering through the ludicrous farce of elections for the Toy Parliament, another aspect of the wondrous system heaves into view. It looks like Commission President Barroso will be re-confirmed in that position for another term, presumably because he has been such a success.

The first inkling I had of it was an article by John Palmer, who "a member of the governing board, and former political director, of the European Policy Centre". There's glory for you, as Humpty-Dumpty said.

This does not prevent Mr Palmer talking the most appalling tosh. He does not like Barroso's reappointment because it is "bad for European democracy". He seems to be under the impression that the elections for the Toy Parliament have anything to do with the choice of Commission President, in the way that a general election would have a great influence on who becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Imagine a general election where the major parties – the "Conservatives" and "Labour" – both have a reasonable chance of emerging victorious. But at the last minute, the Labour party decides to let the Tory leader have a free go at running the next government even before the votes are cast. In an equally bizarre move, the third-largest party, the "Liberals", decide that they too will not fight the election, with a candidate seeking appointment as head of the next administration.

Strange as it may seem, this is exactly the situation facing voters in the European elections this week across the 27 member states of the EU. José Manuel Barroso, the sitting conservative president of the European commission – the supra-national executive of the EU, which alone can propose new laws – has already been endorsed for another term as president by the centre-right European Peoples' party (the equivalent of the Conservatives).

Outrageous. Of course, there is the slight problem that the Commission President is picked by the various politicians behind closed doors and not elected but who is counting.

I wonder what Mr Palmer would say to a scenario in which a country voted in a free and fair referendum against a certain piece of constitutional legislation only to find that it is now required to vote again as the result they returned was the wrong one. Surely that would never happen. The fair name of European democracy would never be sullied in that way. Would it?

COMMENT THREAD

Preliminary results

While we, in this country, obediently refuse to publish even exit polls and the turn-out is still described vaguely as "low" (how low? lower than ever or just the same?) over in the Netherlands they are cheerfully announcing exit polls.

Voter turn-out there was about 40 per cent, which is normal for Euroepan elections.

On the basis of those exit polls Geert Wilders's Freedom Party is predicted to come second with 15 percent of the vote and four seats in the Toy Parliament; prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende's Christian Democrats are predicted to take five seats with 20 percent of the vote.

UPDATE: It seems the turn-out was actually 36.5 per cent down from 39.2 per cent last time.

COMMENT THREAD

Well, that's the BBC for you

Once again we doff our caps to Lord Pearson of Rannoch in recognition of his continuing battle with the BBC and his absolute determination to make that organization live up to its Charter and broadcast in a more or less balanced way on the European Union. At least, he maintains, the BBC should learn some facts.

He has once again written to Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust, with copies to all sorts of worthies who work for Auntie (the letter will be on Global Britain website very soon, I am told), in which he professed himself to be in despair over the BBC's coverage of the European election.

The final straw, as he explained, was an interview with David Cameron on the Today Programme yesterday, 2 June. In it the Boy-King explained that once the Conservatives sweep into the European Parliament and form their new group, they will be able to introduce all sorts of reforms. Nobody, in particular not Jim Naughtie, pointed out to him that any change of that kind requires an IGC and a unanimous agreement from all 27 members.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen of the Conservative Party, Libertas.eu, Open Europe and the Taxpayers' Alliance reforming the European Union in the opposite direction from the one it is going, that is ever closer union, is not possible. Which part of it is so hard to understand.

Anyway, just in case our readers are interested, here is the transcript of the relevant section:

JN: On, more or less, the eve of an election, let me just ask you a couple of things about Europe, since we’re having a Euro Election.

DC: Well, we're having an election, why not?

JN: Absolutely. Now look, you lead a party which is pretty well Eurosceptic these days. You're leading the main centre-right grouping in the European Parliament, and you think very clearly, that the Lisbon Treaty goes too far. Now, if you come to power and that Treaty has been ratified – the process hasn’t been completed yet – will you try to renegotiate it, or will you accept it?

DC: Well, what we’ve said is we will not let matters rest, because . . . .

JN: And I'm asking you what that means.

DC: Well, I'm going to answer. What I mean by that is too much power would have been passed from Brussels to Westminster, and we want some of that power back. Now, I don't want to go into every last detail of what happens if a series of things happen. If there isn't an early election, if the Irish vote "yes" in a second referendum, if the Poles decide to ratify this treaty, if the Czechs decide to ratify this treaty. That is four "ifs". I would rather than focusing on all those "ifs" focus on the hear and now, and today we are publishing a bill that could go through parliament right now to allow us to hold the referendum on the European Constitution that everyone promised, particularly the prime minister, and we can hold it on the same day as the Irish referendum. Now I know that, of course, my opponents would love me to focus on what happens if all of those things happen subsequently. Well actually, I’m not going to.

JN: Well ...

DC: I'm going to focus on the here and now, because on Thursday people can go into those voting booths, vote Conservative and pile the pressure on Gordon Brown to hold a referendum.

JN: Well ... well ...

DC: And I don't want to let him off the hook.

JN: Okay, that's a fair enough political point, but people have a right to know what you’d do if Mr Brown doesn’t ring you up and say, "oh, I think you're right, we're going to have an election tomorrow". If you go in, on the crucial part of Britain's relationship with the outside world, they will need to know how you deal with a piece of legislation that has been ratified, and the unravelling of which would mean, in the view of many people in your own party as well as outside, effectively challenging our membership of the EU.

DC: Well it isn't that, I mean every treaty is an effective renegotiation, and if we had a Conservative government we'd be going into those sorts of negotiations with a list of powers we’d want to have returned to the UK, because we think that we believe in being members of the European Union, but we want it to be about more ...

JN: How do you ...

DC: (continues) trade and cooperation, rather than this endless process of building a superstate. And one of the reasons, in fact the main reason for leaving the EPP and forming this new group, is that it will bring to European politics I centre-right group of parties that are committed to reform in Europe and change in Europe. It won’t just be the British Conservatives, it will be other parties ...

JN: (speaking over) You describe the Latvian Fatherland and Freedom Party as centre-right?

DC: We've announced the two major parties that we’re going to be linking with. That is Law and Justice in Poland and the Czech ODS parties, that are parties of government, that are centre-right parties and that with us share the view that Europe needs to be reformed.

JN: Well, I ...

DC: We ought to be dispersing power more widely, that we want a Europe about trade and cooperation, not about creating a superstate.

JN: Do you think that if you became prime minister, at some point, you would have a referendum on "in or out"?

DC: No, I don't think that's right, because I don’t want us to ...

JN: You wouldn't want one?

DC: Well, I don't want us to leave the European Union.

JN: How deep is your commitment?

DC: Well, I thought that if being a member of the European Union was against the national interest, I would argue for us to come out.

JN: Can you see any circumstances in which it would be?

DC: Right now, I can't. I think we're right to be in this organisation, we want to be fighting to change it, and we're now going to have some partners to help us in that fight . . .

JN: What if you fail to change the Lisbon Treaty? Would you think that that made it not right.

DC: I don't go into things in life thinking I'm going to fail. I think ...

JN: But there's no evidence that anybody else would be with you on that.

DC: Well, I don't accept that at all. Britain is a strong member of the European Union, and has a lot to bring, is an important trading partner. There's a very big negotiation coming up on the future funding of the European Union, and I don't want to see us increasing the funding at all, and it gives us enormous leverage in terms of making sure we get a good deal for Britain, and we build the sort of European Union that, not just the British Conservatives, but other parties in Europe want to see as well.

JN: David Cameron, thank you very much.

DC: Thank you.

As I said, that's the BBC for you. And the Conservative Party.

COMMENT THREAD

Politics as usual?

As one would expect Libertas has been making much of the embarrassment that is afflicting our legislators, real and pretend ones. Should Libertas.eu be elected to the Toy European Parliament, they tell us solemnly, they will publish all their expenses on their website, thus ensuring complete transparency. This is part of their "Stamp out Sleaze" campaign that they launched yesterday to little public interest, the latter being entirely focused on details of MPs' spending.

Well, that is very nice, though I can imagine various ingenious ways of making sure that transparent expenses do not mean quite what they say. But there is another problem: Libertas.eu also boasts of the many existing euro- and national politicians they have acquired en route to putting up 550 candidates across Europe. Or as the Former British Soldier, Robin Matthews is supposed to have stated in today's press release:

Six months ago, Libertas didn't exist. Today it is fielding many times more candidates than any other party in Europe.

Since no other party in Europe is quite as much in favour of European integration as Libertas.eu is, that means very little. But what of those politicians who have allegedly joined them?

For instance, every press release tells us proudly in the Notes for Editors that "in Latvia we have a former Prime Minister as the lead candidate". Quite true, the lead candidate for the single region of Latvia, Guntars Krasts, was briefly the Prime Minister from August 1997 to November 1998 (well, maybe not that briefly by Latvian standards) but since 2004 he has been a member of the Toy Parliament. Try as I might, I can find no evidence that he has declared his expenses in detail in the last five years. Perhaps I am looking at the wrong sites.

Another rant on EUReferendum2.

UPDATE: Three press releases this morning (May 14) and they all attack UKIP, particularly the track record of their MEPs. Apparently, they do not turn up for votes, or some of them do not. Curious. Do Libertas really think that they can take votes away from UKIP, having made it quite clear that they are a "pro-european party"? Why not go for the Conservatives, whose ideas are not dissimilar? And what of those sitting MEPs who are intending to stand under the Libertas name? What of their voting record? Of course, there aren't any in Britain.

COMMENT THREAD

Chasing their own tails

Did you know that "Europe" has not just been the most successful peace process ever (Denmark not having invaded Holland for some time) but has alos advanced the cause of democracy eastward and "removed the shackles of communism"? You did not? I thought everyone knew that. After all, that is what we were told by the Former British Soldier, Robin Matthews, who is also leader of Libertas in the UK (though, obviously not of Libertas.uk) and a prospective candidate for the Toy Parliament in the South-West.

He was introducing the London list- six prospective candidates, all people, as he explained after giving a ringing endorsement to the European project, which has, alas, gone astray, with experience in life and enthusiasm. Apparently, knowledge of anything to do with the EU or the Toy Parliament or, even, of basic history is not required. In fact, it might be a disadvantage. You wouldn't want the regional candidates to know more than the UK leader.

More on that launch with a dire prediction about any possibility of continuing sanity in the author over on EUReferendum2. Enjoy.

This might make it more entertaining

Another twist is being added to the dreary saga of the European elections that are coming in June (and dreary it is despite the apparently inexhaustible supply of people with more money than sense who fund ever more parties for the event).

EUObserver reported yesterday that

The Pan-African Parliament is in talks with the EU on sending monitors to the European elections in June, in a project that could see Zimbabwean politicians oversee voting in the UK.

The South Africa-based institution, which is the parliamentary wing of the African Union, agreed details of a monitoring mission with European Parliament officials last week.

Ten members of the African Parliament (MAPs) would first see how the UK conducts its election on 4 June. The delegation would then inspect the central vote-counting office in Wiesbaden, Germany. The MAPs would watch the final result with MEPs in Brussels on 7 June.

An interesting and potentially highly entertaining idea. At least no-one can accuse the African Union of supplanting existing parliamentary democracies (with the exception of South Africa itself and one or two other countries, like Ghana).

There is, we are told a double aim:

The main goal of the project is to learn lessons ahead of a potential pan-African election some time in the future. But the mission would also produce a final report on EU democratic standards.

Excellent. Can't wait for that report from Zimbabwean or Nigerian or Sudanese politicians.

Just one question: who is paying for all this? (As if I didn't know.)

COMMENT THREAD

A few thoughts on the Wheeler saga

The Conservative Party has every right to eject him. Well, it has every right to eject anyone, really and, generally speaking, funding another party and calling on voters to support it even in the less than important European election, is not tolerated by a political party. I have no problems with that.

The boss has already written about Mr Wheeler's action, opinions and various reactions to it. Let me just add that both of us know well that Mr Wheeler's eurosceptic views are strongly held and of long standing. He is not a johnny-come-lately or a publicity hound as he is being accused by bloggers and journalists who ought to recall the old adage about stones and glass houses.

Mr Wheeler has expressed a great deal of anger about the deleterious effect of the EU's (and, as a consequence, Britain's) policies have had on economic and political developments in some of the world's poorest countries, all of whom are run by bloodthirsty kleptocrats whom, one way or another, the EU supports while making it as hard as possible for those countries to trade with us.

So he is, indeed, a man of principle who puts his money where his mouth is.

The most extraordinary reactions came from people on ConHome forum, Iain Dale's forum and various others who solemnly castigated all those who support UKIP or intend to vote for it as "splitting eurosceptic votes" and making it easier for the integrationist and socialist Labour and Lib-Dim parties to gain seats in the Toy Parliament.

I can only surmise that these people and they include candidates for the said Toy Parliament, have not the first idea how the EU is constituted and what its various institutions do. Neither do they have any clear knowledge of the Conservative Party's record in office as far as the EEC/EC/EU is concerned. Have they heard of the Maastricht Treaty, I wonder?

If I am wrong and the people who call for supporting "the only mainstream eurosceptic party" (I kid you not) do know all that I have listed in the previous paragraph then they are being more than economical with the actualité.

Either way, it is time to reverse that call. We need to call on all eurosceptics and all those who are in any way dissatisfied with Britain's membership of the EU or of the way that benighted institution has developed not to split the eurosceptic vote: DO NOT vote for the Conservatives. DO NOT waste your vote on another europhiliac party, however pleasant some of the MEPs might be.

Where one goes from there, I care not, since it does not really matter who sits in the Toy Parliament. Personally I could never vote for a corporatist, old-fashioned bunch of socialists like the BNP or for old-fashioned Marxists like NO2EU. I do not consider Libertas (or whatever it will end up calling itself) or Jury Team worthy of any electoral consideration and have made that quite clear in previous postings (here and here).

I guess that leaves UKIP despite past problems. I shall rise above those.

COMMENT THREAD

Amateur hour

Another week, another party launch. Last Monday it was the turn of Jury Team, Sir Paul Judge's brainchild (though, quite honestly, I am not sure anybody's brain was much engaged in the process). This event took place in Millbank Tower, rather than One Great George Street, which was something of a mistake. The latter is a much more attractive venue and right in the heart of Westminster. The former is a rather ghastly and characterless structure some distance away from the nearest transport points.

Once again, I compared it to Kilroy-Silk's launch of Veritas and once again I had to admit that the buzz was not there. In fact, the media did not seem to be there either, which may have been the fault of the organizers. The time and place of the launch remained something of a mystery till the week-end and this was not a big enough story for journos to drop everything at 24 hours' notice.

Furthermore, it was not clear whether the event was for the media or for potential supporters, members and candidates. The questions certainly came from the group of potentials but there was, as it happens, very little time for questions. Despite assuring us over and over again that this was a new kind of politics that relied on the internet, mobile phones, social chat sites like Facebook and My Space, twitter and all other suchlike activity, Sir Paul and his co-panellists spent an inordinate amount of time explaining various aspects of the enterprise, quoting liberally from the Jury Team website.

A long posting that describes the launch and muses on what Jury Team stands for (or not) on EUReferendum2.

COMMENT THREAD

Oh goody!

Jonathan Isaby on ToryBoy Blog tells us that Lynton Crosby, known by the Conservatives as "the Wizard of Oz", has signed up to run the Libertas pan-European campaign. Actually, Mr Crosby's record is so-so. He did run four victorious campaigns for John Howard down under but, presumably, also the last non-victorious one.

The Conservative campaign of 2005 was shambolic and the defeat was far worse than it ought to have been, given the standing of the government. Boris Johnson won but, I suspect, that had more to do with Ken Livingstone than anyone else. Well, maybe Lynton Crosby helped.

On the whole, I think this is a bad move for Lynton Crosby. His presence will not solve the inherent contradictions and silliness of the whole idea of a pan-European party.

It seems, however, that sitting French MEPs are signing up to the project though whether the announcement by Frédéric Nihous, chair of CPNT (that's the huntin' and fishin' lot) and candidate for Libertas that he wants a Europe that does not belong to Brussels but to "us", meaning, one assumes French politicians is enough to cheer the rest of us on, is questionable.

COMMENT THREAD

Ferrets in a sack

Another day another party promising to put up candidates in the European Election. At the rate we are going they will have to issue handcarts for voters to get the ballot paper into the booth.

This lot is NO2EU, a pleasantly old-fashioned Marxist trade union organization though with enough sense to adapt the highly successful NO2ID name. Their slogan: "No to EU railway privatization. No to the Lisbon Treaty. Yes to Workers' Rights" reminded me of one very good reason why that 1975 referendum went the way it did - trade unions and their slogans frightened people into voting for Brussels rather than Moscow (as it was then).

They are also worried about the BNP though why I cannot imagine, given how many of their ideas are similar. Unlike other parties they are proposing an "empty chair" policy. Vote for them and, if they win, they will not take up their positions as MEPs. Fair enough but one wonders what on earth that will achieve. A few empty places in the Toy Parliament are unlikely to bring the process to a halt.

One group is getting worried about it. The Jury Team (of whose launch I am in the process of writing) has issued a statement denouncing NO2EU. [No link to the actual press release.]

Sir Paul Judge has pronounced anathema on these upstarts and, in the process, informed us that the Jury Team opposes the Lisbon Treaty. They certainly did not mention it at the launch and the two potential candidates for the Toy Parliament did not seem to have a clue about that. It seems a little illogical since their main platform, if one may call it that, is the need to change the structure of party politics; opposing the Lisbon Treaty is wandering into the content.

While we welcome another voice making the case that the major parties aren’t representing their constituents in Europe, No2EU aren’t serious about changing the status quo or they would have made a commitment to represent their voters in Brussels.

No2EU will not change British politics, or get new people involved. Indeed, they won’t even represent the people who vote for them in the European elections – so why vote for them?

The Jury Team offers a platform for people who are against the Lisbon Treaty to either stand as a candidate or vote for the candidate who supports this policy. The Jury Team offers a way of re-engaging people with politics who have been shut-out by the antics of the major parties.

The Jury Team offers the best hope for putting MEPs in Brussels who are committed to representing the opinions of the British people.

All of which proves that the gifted researchers of the Jury Team have not, as yet, had any time to investigate how the Toy Parliament is structured or what its functions are. They do not have much time.

Meanwhile, is anybody opening a book on how many parties there will be on that ballot paper on June 4?

CORRECTION: We have received a note from the Jury Team's Campaign Manager in which he rightly takes us to task (well, takes me to task) for saying that his party opposes the Lisbon Treaty. The statement does not actually say so. What they say is that they offer a platform for people who oppose the treaty just as they offer (though do not say so in this press release) a platform for those who support it. The only thing they dislike is the fact that members of the Toy Parliament do not represent their constituents. Actually, as anyone who does know about the EU could tell them, they are not supposed to represent them. They are there to promote further integration.

COMMENT THREAD

Oh yes?

It is very good to know that Members of the Toy Parliament are undismayed by the fact that some of their financial shenanigans are being investigated. To be fair, only very few MEPs need to worry as investigations are by no means widespread. In the meantime, they carry on in their unceasing labours to watch over our wellbeing.

Tremble, oh ye bloggers. The European Parliament is debating whether there should be a control on bloggers with "malicious intent" or "hidden agenda". Well, we can relax. Our agenda is not hidden. We are full of malicious intent towards the European Union and all its many minions. I wonder if they mean us. Surely not.

The report that goes into this interesting story was drafted by Estonian Socialist Marianne Mikko and was approved of in the Culture Committee. It will now go to the full plenary. By "now" I mean some time in the nearish future and if it has to wait till after the next European elections, so be it. Reports and legislation in the EU do not go out of action just because there are those piffling events – elections.

Speaking about her report, Ms Mikko told us "the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them".

Asked if she considered bloggers to be "a threat", she said "we do not see the bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace". She added, "I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why."

I find myself somewhat in agreement with Ms Mikko (if this continues I might have to consult a doctor). There are, indeed, bloggers out there who pollute the blogosphere with "too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent". Let me remind our readers of Fragrant Margot and her terminally boring blog. Should there not be a quality mark, a rather black one, awarded to this torrent of sludge?

There are other Commissars with blogs. (Incidentally, did you know that there is a Commissioner for Multilingualism? He doesn’t seem to have a blog. Perhaps he could not decide which language to write it in.) There are also blogs written by EU Representatives or, much more likely, by their talented staff, as the link above shows. For all I know there are blogs written by MEPs or their talented staff.

It seems perfectly obvious that none of these can qualify for that quality mark that Ms Mikko is yearning to issue. After all, they are not even bloggers but promoters of an official organization that, most definitely, has an agenda, though as it happens it is not hidden.

May I suggest another name for them? Clogs has already been taken or, rather, awarded by us to those corporate blogs written by journalists and politicians of many stripes that are hardly independent. So, what about comblogs as, no doubt, all these people are very communautaire. It has a satisfyingly corporatist sound.

Polish MEPs defy European Parliament

This is not a particularly new story but it is still worth blogging if for no other reason than to show that we are capable of being nice about Poles.

To start with, here is the report on UNWatch about a forthcoming event in Brussels (no, we are not talking about that demonstration) at the end of August:

Under the auspices of the UN's Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, a "Conference of Civil Society in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace" will take place on August 30-31 in Belgium. These meetings are part of a round-robin of anti-Israel gatherings organized year-round by the UN's 16-member Division for Palestinian Rights. It all dates back to 1975, when these mechanisms were installed within the UN on the same day that the General Assembly adopted its infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution. What is new, however, is the venue: the European Parliament in Brussels.

Sounds like an entirely appropriate venue. The article gives a more detailed prediction and explanation of what is likely to transpire:

What the conference will pronounce is pre-determined. Carefully pre-determined: the UN's Palestinian Division runs a tightly-controlled operation that accredits only anti-Israel NGOs and speakers. And recently they've become quite clever. Without altering the virulently anti-Israel nature of their meetings, the organizers instead seek to mask their activities — under such innocent-sounding titles as "support for Israeli-Palestinian peace." Moreover, to add credence to their cover, they invite specially approved "Israelis" — a select group of radicals who openly espouse hatred of Israel, claiming the license to do so because of their citizenship. Both tactics give conference organizers the cover they need for their allies and enablers to then use the material.

In a sense, one could write this off as another dog bites man story. UN produces a carefully orchestrated anti-Israeli conference, which will say nothing about the situation as it is in the Middle East but spend a good deal of time blathering about Israel being an apartheid state, the fence being a violation of Palestinian rights blah-blah-blah.

There will be no mention of those daily rocket attacks or of what is going on under Hamas rule in Gaza or the many violations of human rights in both Palestinian states.

So yawn and double yawn, except for the fact that some misguided individuals still think that the UN is the fount of international law and well-being and the European Parliament has any right to existence.

However, there is a twist to this story. A group of Polish MEPs, led by the redoubtable Bronislaw Geremek, who ought to have been made President of the European Parliament when the East European countries joined, have refused to attend the conference, declaring their support for Israel. Given Poland’s history, this was particularly welcome to the Israelis and, one must admit, all those who care about any possibility of democracy developing in the Middle East.

Europa 21, a Polish website reports (in English) that there is a strong move in Poland to oppose and, if possible, stop the conference taking place in the European Parliament. Gateway Pundit is following the story and gives a link to a petition to stop the conference, though why anyone should think that Members of the European Parliament are Ministers is incomprehensible.

COMMENT THREAD

What are we to make of this?

Melanie Phillips, with whom this blog does not necessarily agree every time, has published a curious story about the European Parliament that raises a few interesting issues about that august institution.

It seems that a French version of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" a well-known forgery created by Tsarist officers or, possibly, by a Russian-French journalist, published recently in Belgium, was briefly available in the European Parliament bookshop.

As our readers expect, I do not have any objections to the text being available, provided that there is a reasonable scholarly explanation of the text, its provenance and effect. However, it would appear, that this particular edition may not have had any of that.

Be that as it may, it is the follow-up that is of interest.

To counter this evil, a month ago Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi, Director of the Transatlantic Institute in Brussels, sent a copy of The Plot to all MEPs and their staff. The Plot is a graphic novel by Alan Eisner which draws upon the history of this hoax.

Up with this the European Parliament would not put.

Dr Ottolenghi was subsequently astounded to receive a letter from the European Parliament saying it was refusing to distribute the book ‘due to the nature of its content’. When he asked for an explanation, he was fobbed off with conflicting excuses: they didn’t allow advertisements, the book had religious content, it had no relevance with the Parliament’s agenda. He has now lodged an appeal with the Quaestor in charge, Astrid Lulling MEP from Luxembourg (astrid.lulling@europarl.europa.eu). But so far, she has not even acknowledged receipt of his appeal — and from the rest of the Parliament, there is only silence.

The most immediate question to be asked is what business has the European Parliament with postage addressed to members and staff. Is there an office where they steam open correspondence and censor it for any unacceptable material?

Secondly, one would like to know why a book, albeit a novel, recommended by a highly regarded scholar unacceptable while a vicious forgery can be sold in the Toy Parliament's bookshop.

COMMENT THREAD

The contradictions of Polish lustration

We wrote a few weeks ago about the new Polish law of lustration that is not only demanding that all sorts of people should fill in a form with assurances that they did not collaborate with the Communist secret police, but extended the categories of people to whom it should apply. Just to remind our readers:

The new law drastically extends the dragnet of earlier legislation, which required some 30,000 lawmakers, government ministers and judges to make sworn declarations stating whether or not they collaborated with the communist-era secret police. The expanded measures oblige some 700,000 more Poles - academics, journalists, managers of state-owned firms, school principals, diplomats and lawyers - to file such affidavits or face the sack. They will be checked by the National Remembrance Institute (IPN), which earlier this month charged former Polish president, General Wojciech Jaruzelski, with "communist crimes" for declaring martial law in 1981. Anyone found to have fudged the truth in their declaration is barred from their profession for 10 years. Failure to fill in a form could cost a refusenik their job.

“Refusenik” was the term applied to the Soviet Jews who had applied for visas to emigrate to Israel and had been refused. What goes around comes around. This seems to be the opinion of a few other people as well.

Today’s Daily Telegraph carries an article by its Berlin correspondent, which explains that one of the leading experts on Poland’s history, Professor Norman Davies (from experience I’d say he knows a good deal more about Poland than, say, Russia or, for that matter, the European Union), has lashed out against the new law.

Norman Davies, who wrote a best selling history of Europe and holds a honorary chair at the University of Krakow, is one of 700,000 people in Poland being targeted by a far-reaching new law aimed at uprooting communism's legacy in the country.

Like them he has been sent a questionnaire demanding to know the extent of any "co-operation" with Poland's communist regime, which fell in 1990. Those who fail to sign the document and return it within a month are to lose their posts, and banned from holding public office for 10 years.

Professor Davies’s attitude is quite robust:

Academics and journalists are in the firing line. This is nothing to do with winkling out collaborators. This is about showing loyalty to the Kaczynskis.

Professor Davies is not, by a long chalk, a conservative historian but he may remember Lord Acton’s famous dictum:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Of course, the Kaczinskys do not have absolute power. Far from it. But they do seem to be somewhat intoxicated with the measure of it that they do have.

Meanwhile, there have been other high-level “refuseniks”. Tadeusz Mazowiecki, Poland’s first democratic Prime Minister has refused to comply with the new vetting law, pointing out that he has, in the last decade, filed three declarations of that kind and had no intention of filing any more.

The most interesting case is that of Bronislaw Geremek, the man who ought to have been chosen to be the President of the European Parliament after the new countries’ members had taken their place.

Geremek is a noted historian and a founder of the Solidarity Movement. He was a member of the Polish Parliament after the fall of Communism and Foreign Minister from 1997 to 2000. He is now a Member of the European Parliament, elected on the Freedom Union (UW) ticket.

He is clearly worried that there is a certain retrograde possibility in this law:

A law like this reflects governance based on exploitation and the creation of conflicts. It instills a sense of unease among citizens and a feeling that they are completely dependent on those in power.

Opposition groups have asked the constitutional court to rule on the legislation and the court will start considering the issue next month. To some this may appear a little too late.

Meanwhile, there is the question of Bronislaw Geremek’s seat in the European Parliament. He may have been elected to it by the Polish people (or those of them who had bothered to vote and put a cross against his name) but the Polish government appears to think that he can be stripped of this position. On May 7 the Polish Electoral Commission will submit a motion to Marek Jurek, the Speaker of the Polish Lower House, asking him to act on the case. Jurek is hedging his bets at the moment and talking about asking for more legal expertise.

Of course, one could argue that people must obey the law and people in public position must show a good example. On the other hand, there is a long-standing political theory that says, oppressive and unjust laws can and should be opposed. That was what motivated Bronislaw Geremek in the past and motivates him now.

EU reactions have been slightly odd. The President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering said that he and the various political groups would do everything in their power to ensure that Geremek will keep his place. What that means in practical terms is unclear.

And in a rare criticism of a fellow EU member, France also came out in support of Geremek on Thursday. European Affairs Minister Catherine Colonna said in a statement she had telephoned Geremek to assure him of her "friendly support and solidarity." "A founder nation of the European Union and home to the European Parliament, France is particularly vigilant concerning the respect of the fundamental values on which European construction is based," Colonna said.

And we know how France managed to ensure that it is the home to the European Parliament for one week of the month. Still, the opportunity to have a go at a Polish government, any Polish government, must have seemed irresistible.

In the meantime, Poland is geared for its own Bronze Soldier saga, the Culture Minister having announced that it intends to take down the various Soviet era memorials including the Second World War ones. The only thing I find odd is that there are any memorials left to take down.

COMMENT THREAD

Doing the unforgiveable: criticizing tranzi officials

Back in October we reported what was promising to be a juicy scandal, the tale of Commissar Verheugen and his lady friend, Petra Erler, whom he had appointed to be chef du cabinet, giving her in the process a hefty salary rise from €9,045 to €11,579 a month (€138,948 a year).

Commissar Verheugen and Ms Erler were photographed walking round hand in hand and, at one point, wearing nothing at a nudist beach, unless you count a baseball hat as clothing.

At the time there were two theories advanced. Verheugen had taken on the job of Vice-President of the European Commission with great promises to reform the institution and to have a bonfire of red tape and regulations. (At least I think he was the one with the bonfire.)

When this did not work, he complained about obstructionism among Commission officials. As the Wall Street Journal Europe put it recently:

Mr. Verheugen announced plans in 2005 to do away with scores of economically burdensome and antiquated regulations, which he thought could help lift economic growth. When his efforts went nowhere, he gave an interview to the press blaming the failure on the opposition he'd encountered within the Brussels bureaucracy. The Commission's staff union reacted predictably, by calling on him to apologize and suggesting he resign. Not coincidentally, it was around the same time that stories of his special relationship with Ms. Erler, and of her new job, came to the attention of the press and the public.

A coincidence? Maybe. The machinery of bureaucracy does not like anyone who tries to tamper with it. Not least of the coincidental news stories were the suggestions that, in fact, it was all the other way round. Verheugen knew that the embarrassing pictures were about to surface and launched a pre-emptive attack at the bureaucrats in order to blame them for the publication.

However one looks at it, neither Commissar Verheugen nor Ms Erler have suffered. His various colleagues rushed to his defence on professional grounds with great proclamations of the need for privacy, though his behaviour had clearly undermined the Commission’s code of conduct.

Try as I might I cannot find any motions of censure in the European Parliament or calls for the Commission and Verheugen’s office, in particular, to regain its dignity by sacking the man.

The reason this old story is being rehashed by Brett Stephens in the WSJE, among others is because there are certain similarities with the ongoing Wolfowitz saga, he being the man, whom the World Bank officials did not want, whose attempts at cutting corruption they have undermined and whom they are now managing to smear quite effectively.

There are also certain differences:

“Now consider the Wolfowitz saga. Superficially, the similarities with Mr. Verheugen rest with the details of their respective scandals: a close lady friend on staff, a suspiciously generous pay raise, allegations of nepotism and conflicts of interest.

But aside from the facts that Mr. Wolfowitz is unmarried and prefers his clothes on, the substance of the cases could not be more different. Mr. Verheugen seems to have obscured the nature of his relationship with Ms. Erler; Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged his relationship with Shaha Riza before he took the job as Bank president. Mr. Verheugen sought to use the power of his office to bring Ms. Erler nearer to him; Mr. Wolfowitz sought to use the power of his to move Ms. Riza away. Ms. Erler moved into a better job; Ms. Riza was forced into a lesser one. Mr. Verheugen ignored his own code of conduct; Mr. Wolfowitz followed the instructions of his ethics committee, whose chairman later praised him for acting in a "constructive spirit."”

There is also another difference. The same people who have huffed and puffed about Verheugen, his professional achievements and the need for privacy, are demanding that Paul Wolfowitz resign, whether his is guilty of inappropriate behaviour or not, in order to restore the World Bank’s good name (in itself something of a joke).

Even the European Parliament (called completely incorrectly by Reuters and others "the European Union's legislature") has voted 332 votes to 251 to call for Wolfowitz’s resignation, though this is not, in any sense of the word, their concern.

Apparently, the resignation is necessary in order not to undermine the World Bank's anti-corruption policy. The trouble is that it is the anti-corruption policy that has brought about the President's problems.

COMMENT THREAD