Politics, so we are told, is about choice. Currently "choice" is one of those buzz words, a touchy-feely word that all politicians aspire to. But politics is also about decisions – making them.
Given limited resources, politicians must decide where to spend the money they take from us – do they pay nurses more; do they build new hospitals; do they spend more on the army; how may more police can they afford? There is inexhaustible demand and limited supply, and a case can be made for every claim. Thus, politics is also a question of priorities.
It is in this context that today’s news that "Most British rivers will fail new EU water purity rules" is particularly aggravating. According to the Guardian despite £12bn spending by water companies on sewage and storm water treatment works over 14 years, 95 percent of British rivers will fail to meet new European standards for water quality if further work is not done.
However, it is not that our rivers have suddenly suffered a catastrophic decline in standards. In fact, since the privatisation of water companies in 1990, there has been a dramatic improvement in the quality of water in rivers, with fish returning to areas which had been dead for 100 years. No, the reason why most rivers will "fail" is because the EU has moved the goal posts and refined the definition of water purity.
In its new water framework directive, (2000/60/EC), instead of just using chemical content and dissolved oxygen as a way of measuring the health of rivers, the EU is demanding much higher standards of river management, including maintaining water flows and diversity of life, and the removal of hormone disrupting substances which are turning thousands of male fish into females. Furthermore, the directive also applies to lakes, estuaries and coastal and ground waters which were previously not measured.
Although the new rules do not come into force until 2015, the new targets are so stringent that work must start now in order to reach them. But, from a review of the literature, it appears that no one has any idea how much it will cost. The DEFRA website merely discusses methodologies for determining costs and the consultation on this does not close until December of this year.
Some estimates, however, suggest £16 billion - on top of the £12 bn already spent - although that is likely to be on the conservative side. And, if we do not meet the standards, we will be exposed to fines from the EU.
According to the Telegraph, Sir John Harman, the Environment Agency’s chairman, said it was not clear how many rivers would have to fail and by how much for Britain to incur fines from the EU. "We don't yet know how high the bar will be set," he said.
Now all of this is fine and dandy, and I am sure the bunny-huggers are delighted, but compared with all the other demands on the public purse, this surely cannot be the highest priority in the land. What we have is queue-jumping, the Commission staking its claim to expenditure, over and above anything that our domestic politicians think are important.
Thus, Mr Blair, or Mr Howard – or even Mr Kennedy – may stand up on their conference platforms and tell their adoring audiences where their party’s priorities lie, but the truth is that the real priorities are set in Brussels. Only when we have satisfied EU demands can we spend money on schools, hospitals, police, etc., etc.
That is a measure of how far down the road we have gone, and why we cannot continue allow our government in Brussels to call the shots.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
We don’t like your friends
Both the Telegraph and the Times today run stories on the oil-for-food scandal. Interestingly, as far as I can see, the story is not covered either by the Independent or the Guardian, the respective coverage – or lack thereof – perhaps reflecting the left-right biases of the journals, and the reluctance of the left-wing to attack its darling United Nations.
The Telegraph homes in on the UN, reporting that one of its inspectors "took £60,000 Iraq bribes", while Bronwen Maddox in The Times does a more reflective piece, but nevertheless fingers the UN.
Both papers also report French and Russian – and in the case of the Times, also the Chinese – complicity in blocking attempts to bring the scheme under control, but the references are so low-key that you have a hard time spotting them.
Perhaps it is either unfashionable or just too contentious to remind people just quite how unreliable the French are as our allies, but one does feel that the media ought to be doing a better job of reminding us of the perils of relying on them, or even associating with them at all on a formal basis.
From out of left field recently came just such a reminder, not from any politician but from the unlikely figure of Harry Stonecipher, chief executive of Boeing. Better known for his rôle in the Boeing-Airbus dispute, he was in Paris recently to open the offices of his company’s French subsidiary, when he had some cautionary words for the UK.
There were concerns in the United States, he said, over the handling of military information, concerns that had prevented the United Kingdom being granted access to non-classified US defence technology. "There are some real issues in terms of how people handle data, how they distribute data, who their friends are, who they share it with." The UK itself was not considered a security threat, but there were "people who don’t like the way data is handled, where it gets passed to".
With it now common knowledge that US military technology is leaking to China via France – with the UK as a possible, if unwitting intermediary – we are beginning to see co-operation opportunities with the US being closed down.
In an attempt at damage limitation, the UK recently tightened its own defence export rules, in the hope of getting an exemption from the stringent US rules on expert of their technology, but the move failed to impress the US Congress, which, increasingly, is tending to regard the UK as a hostile power.
All this seems to be happening unnoticed by the UK media but, as we get more involved with European defence projects and get further embedded in European defence co-operation, are risking further isolation from the US. The pity of it is that this is happening not as a result of a deliberate political decision to favour either "Europe" or the US, but is the result of drift.
The concern is that technological progress is now driving the political agenda, forcing decisions to be made as to who our friends are. In the absence of our making those decisions, they are being made for us. And the criterion is very simple – people in power in the US are saying, "We don't like your friends".
The Telegraph homes in on the UN, reporting that one of its inspectors "took £60,000 Iraq bribes", while Bronwen Maddox in The Times does a more reflective piece, but nevertheless fingers the UN.
Both papers also report French and Russian – and in the case of the Times, also the Chinese – complicity in blocking attempts to bring the scheme under control, but the references are so low-key that you have a hard time spotting them.
Perhaps it is either unfashionable or just too contentious to remind people just quite how unreliable the French are as our allies, but one does feel that the media ought to be doing a better job of reminding us of the perils of relying on them, or even associating with them at all on a formal basis.
From out of left field recently came just such a reminder, not from any politician but from the unlikely figure of Harry Stonecipher, chief executive of Boeing. Better known for his rôle in the Boeing-Airbus dispute, he was in Paris recently to open the offices of his company’s French subsidiary, when he had some cautionary words for the UK.
There were concerns in the United States, he said, over the handling of military information, concerns that had prevented the United Kingdom being granted access to non-classified US defence technology. "There are some real issues in terms of how people handle data, how they distribute data, who their friends are, who they share it with." The UK itself was not considered a security threat, but there were "people who don’t like the way data is handled, where it gets passed to".
With it now common knowledge that US military technology is leaking to China via France – with the UK as a possible, if unwitting intermediary – we are beginning to see co-operation opportunities with the US being closed down.
In an attempt at damage limitation, the UK recently tightened its own defence export rules, in the hope of getting an exemption from the stringent US rules on expert of their technology, but the move failed to impress the US Congress, which, increasingly, is tending to regard the UK as a hostile power.
All this seems to be happening unnoticed by the UK media but, as we get more involved with European defence projects and get further embedded in European defence co-operation, are risking further isolation from the US. The pity of it is that this is happening not as a result of a deliberate political decision to favour either "Europe" or the US, but is the result of drift.
The concern is that technological progress is now driving the political agenda, forcing decisions to be made as to who our friends are. In the absence of our making those decisions, they are being made for us. And the criterion is very simple – people in power in the US are saying, "We don't like your friends".
Prizes galore
Prize for the most crass coverage of the Conservative Party conference – against pretty stiff competition – has to go to the Guardian, with its headline, "Howard puts Europe at top of his agenda".
For once, this is not the scourge of the sub-editors, attaching a misleading description to the copy; Michael White, the political editor and author of the piece, really believes it. "Michael Howard", he writes
For a start, anyone who listened to Howard will know that he made crime his number one issue, and spent much of his time talking about it. In his "ten words" at the end of the speech, outlining the main priorities, "Europe" was not even mentioned.
Furthermore, apart from the commitment to an early referendum, what Howard is offering is nothing new. The fishing repatriation policy was actually agreed by Hague, endorsed by IDS and carried over by Howard. The Social Chapter exclusion was Major’s policy, and has been Tory policy ever since and, if anything, Howard has watered down the commitment on foreign aid.
If White is not bad enough, however, the leader – if anything – is worse. "Mining europhobia" runs the headline, the copy writer noting that the delegates responded fervently to Howard’s references to "Europe" – "a sign of the Tory party's undiminished grassroots Europhobia."
"The big question in the conference corridors", it suggests "remains whether such pledges are enough to blunt the challenge of the UK Independence party." Sadly, it leaves the question hanging. To answer it would require a level of intelligence that the Guardian leader-writers do not possess.
For once, this is not the scourge of the sub-editors, attaching a misleading description to the copy; Michael White, the political editor and author of the piece, really believes it. "Michael Howard", he writes
...yesterday ratcheted up the Conservative campaign against European integration when he promised to set an early date for a referendum on the EU constitution on the first day of his premiership - and to "go further" in pulling back powers from Brussels.One has to note the illiteracy. "Come and join us" is a call that would be best addressed to potential defectors. If they were actually defectors, they would already have joined, and the call would be somewhat redundant. That aside, White continues:
On the day that the UK Independence party, his rival for Eurosceptic votes, saw its main financial backer return to the Tory fold, Mr Howard made no attempt to disguise his determination to thwart UKIP's boast that it is poised to "kill" the Tories. "Come and join us," he told defectors.
Promoting his "pick and mix" policy for allowing EU member states to integrate or not, as they wish, Mr Howard said yesterday that rapidly saying no to a written constitution and later to the euro would not be enough. "It's time we went further" by repatriating the social chapter, the EU fishing policy and other powers, he said.Without identifying his sources, White then asserts that "Pro-Europeans and unions expressed dismay at what they regard as pandering to the UKIP menace…", thereby either displaying his total ignorance of what has been happening, or simply pandering to the prejudices of his own readers.
For a start, anyone who listened to Howard will know that he made crime his number one issue, and spent much of his time talking about it. In his "ten words" at the end of the speech, outlining the main priorities, "Europe" was not even mentioned.
Furthermore, apart from the commitment to an early referendum, what Howard is offering is nothing new. The fishing repatriation policy was actually agreed by Hague, endorsed by IDS and carried over by Howard. The Social Chapter exclusion was Major’s policy, and has been Tory policy ever since and, if anything, Howard has watered down the commitment on foreign aid.
If White is not bad enough, however, the leader – if anything – is worse. "Mining europhobia" runs the headline, the copy writer noting that the delegates responded fervently to Howard’s references to "Europe" – "a sign of the Tory party's undiminished grassroots Europhobia."
"The big question in the conference corridors", it suggests "remains whether such pledges are enough to blunt the challenge of the UK Independence party." Sadly, it leaves the question hanging. To answer it would require a level of intelligence that the Guardian leader-writers do not possess.
Kilroy may yet surprise us
Whatever else you might think about Robert Kilroy-Silk, on the media he is a real pro. Faced with Tim Sebastian on BBC News 24’s "Hardtalk" for half and hour last night, there can be no doubt about who came out the winner.
Furthermore, Kilroy put up a credible argument as to why Roger Knapman had failed in his leadership, stating that the party had gone AWOL for three months over the summer. It should have been preparing policies and getting its spokesmen organised, so that the conference, rather than being a "celebration", could have been "the way forward".
On the matter of putting a candidate up for every seat at the general election, Kilroy also had his answer prepared. Yes, some candidates might thereby be contesting Eurosceptics, but none of them were in favour of withdrawal.
Kilroy felt that the most important issue of our time was whether we governed ourselves and, on such an important issue, he also felt it important that people were given the opportunity to express their views on the issue, which they could only do at an election. Therefore, Kilroy argued, by putting a candidate up for every seat, he was giving people a choice. "You are complaining that I am extending the democratic principle," he told Sebastian.
On the question of funding, Kilroy made it clear that there were "other prospective donors". The loss of Sykes was important but it would not affect the overall plan.
Unable to dent him on the core issues, Sebastian switched the attack to Kilroy’s view on Arabs. "Did he have any regrets at the offence he caused". Kilroy was blunt, and to the point. "In a democracy, we should not be afraid of causing offence", he said. He was not sorry for telling the truth. Try as he might, Sebastian never laid a finger on him.
It is a pity really, that Kilroy has so spectacularly mismanaged his leadership bid. His comments about UKIP going AWOL for three months are right, but it has actually been missing for much longer. Since 1999, the party has had the opportunity to develop its intellectual base, but is no further forward now than it was then. To have someoneat the helm who recognises the importance of ideas would be a singular asset to a party which still operates as a pressure group.
However, Kilroy may yet surprise us. For sure, he has made a bad start but, as I have wearily observed before, a week is a long time in politics.
Furthermore, Kilroy put up a credible argument as to why Roger Knapman had failed in his leadership, stating that the party had gone AWOL for three months over the summer. It should have been preparing policies and getting its spokesmen organised, so that the conference, rather than being a "celebration", could have been "the way forward".
On the matter of putting a candidate up for every seat at the general election, Kilroy also had his answer prepared. Yes, some candidates might thereby be contesting Eurosceptics, but none of them were in favour of withdrawal.
Kilroy felt that the most important issue of our time was whether we governed ourselves and, on such an important issue, he also felt it important that people were given the opportunity to express their views on the issue, which they could only do at an election. Therefore, Kilroy argued, by putting a candidate up for every seat, he was giving people a choice. "You are complaining that I am extending the democratic principle," he told Sebastian.
On the question of funding, Kilroy made it clear that there were "other prospective donors". The loss of Sykes was important but it would not affect the overall plan.
Unable to dent him on the core issues, Sebastian switched the attack to Kilroy’s view on Arabs. "Did he have any regrets at the offence he caused". Kilroy was blunt, and to the point. "In a democracy, we should not be afraid of causing offence", he said. He was not sorry for telling the truth. Try as he might, Sebastian never laid a finger on him.
It is a pity really, that Kilroy has so spectacularly mismanaged his leadership bid. His comments about UKIP going AWOL for three months are right, but it has actually been missing for much longer. Since 1999, the party has had the opportunity to develop its intellectual base, but is no further forward now than it was then. To have someoneat the helm who recognises the importance of ideas would be a singular asset to a party which still operates as a pressure group.
However, Kilroy may yet surprise us. For sure, he has made a bad start but, as I have wearily observed before, a week is a long time in politics.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
The Poles’ poll
Updating our Blog of 19 September, giving the then state-of-play on the EU constitution referendums, we are now getting further information on the Polish referendum.
According to the Polish News Agency PAP, president Aleksander Kwasniewski is suggesting that it should take place at the same time as a presidential vote planned for the end of 2005. "I feel personally that the constitutional treaty should be voted on during the presidential election," he says. "That way we would see which presidential candidates are supporters of a Europe united in its diversity."
Oddly enough, our own rules would exclude such a timing, as the otherwise witless Electoral Commission considers that such issues should not be confused.
Whether the Poles will be confused is another matter, but they are certain retaining – for the moment – a slight majority in favour of the project. The latest opinion poll gives 56 percent for ratifying the constitution.
According to the Polish News Agency PAP, president Aleksander Kwasniewski is suggesting that it should take place at the same time as a presidential vote planned for the end of 2005. "I feel personally that the constitutional treaty should be voted on during the presidential election," he says. "That way we would see which presidential candidates are supporters of a Europe united in its diversity."
Oddly enough, our own rules would exclude such a timing, as the otherwise witless Electoral Commission considers that such issues should not be confused.
Whether the Poles will be confused is another matter, but they are certain retaining – for the moment – a slight majority in favour of the project. The latest opinion poll gives 56 percent for ratifying the constitution.
Opportunistic, or what?
One of the easiest jibes made against Mr Howard is that he is opportunistic - as if that was a sin for an opposition leader.
However, when it comes to sheer opportunism, first prize must go to this e-mail sent by the Labour Party this evening, begging for funds. Headed: "Tory funding advantage: your help needed", it reads:
However, when it comes to sheer opportunism, first prize must go to this e-mail sent by the Labour Party this evening, begging for funds. Headed: "Tory funding advantage: your help needed", it reads:
You will have heard today that UKIP's principal right wing backer, Paul Sykes, has struck a secret deal to support the Tory Party. This confirms that after their disastrous showing in the Hartlepool by-election the Tories have given up the fight for the centre ground of British politics.Stangely, I have not been moved to donate.
Sykes' deal with John Redwood and Michael Howard shows the Conservative Party retreating to the right. With Sykes' backing they will campaign to put in place huge cuts to our schools and hospitals. They have not changed and are committed to the same damaging policies which brought us economic boom and bust and social division.
We now need your help. Sykes' backing could give the Tories the funds to undermine the work of our public services, putting in place policies which will only benefit the few. We cannot let this happen. At our conference last week we outlined the policies we will be campaigning on between now and the election. These are policies that will benefit every hard working family in Britain and ensure opportunity for everyone.
We need Labour supporters to give today to ensure the Tories do not have an overwhelming funding advantage. Even £20 or £30 will help us ensure good schools, safer streets, a fairer world and more jobs. So please go to www.labour.org.uk/supportlabour and give what you can today.
A timely reminder
Amazingly, despite the Conservative Party conference, other things continue to happen in the world. In the Washington Times today, for instance, there is another update on the oil-for-food scandal, on which there are further hearings scheduled.
It has emerged that not only did Saddam misuse the programme, creaming off something like $6 billion from the UN-supervised programme – on top of an estimated $4 billion he made from oil smuggling – but the funds were used provide arms for the Iraqi armed forces.
But what is also emerging from an investigation being carried out by Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican and chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on national security, is that the programme – flawed from the start, and obviously so – was kept in place partly through the efforts of the governments of Russia, France and China.
These three countries blocked US efforts within the United Nations to stop abuse of the program, an internal staff memorandum written at the time complaining that: "As the program developed, it became increasingly apparent the French, Russians, and Chinese had much to gain from maintaining the status quo."
The actions of the Russians and Chinese are unsurprising and, so for that matter, are the actions of the French but, at a time that the RAF was helping to police the no fly zones, and it is worth remembering that France – unlike the other two countries – was supposed to be our ally, and was our EU partner, pledged to co-operate "in a spirit of mutual solidarity" on foreign policy issues.
This serves as a timely reminder. It cannot be said too often that this is the country with which Mr Blair wants greater ties, within the framework of the EU constitution.
It has emerged that not only did Saddam misuse the programme, creaming off something like $6 billion from the UN-supervised programme – on top of an estimated $4 billion he made from oil smuggling – but the funds were used provide arms for the Iraqi armed forces.
But what is also emerging from an investigation being carried out by Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican and chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on national security, is that the programme – flawed from the start, and obviously so – was kept in place partly through the efforts of the governments of Russia, France and China.
These three countries blocked US efforts within the United Nations to stop abuse of the program, an internal staff memorandum written at the time complaining that: "As the program developed, it became increasingly apparent the French, Russians, and Chinese had much to gain from maintaining the status quo."
The actions of the Russians and Chinese are unsurprising and, so for that matter, are the actions of the French but, at a time that the RAF was helping to police the no fly zones, and it is worth remembering that France – unlike the other two countries – was supposed to be our ally, and was our EU partner, pledged to co-operate "in a spirit of mutual solidarity" on foreign policy issues.
This serves as a timely reminder. It cannot be said too often that this is the country with which Mr Blair wants greater ties, within the framework of the EU constitution.
Why it cannot work
No one disputes that Howard is sincere when he promises to return powers from the EU to the UK, as he did again in his speech today.
The problem is that, to do so, he must negotiate changes to the treaties and, for the treaties to be changed, all 25 member states must agree. In other words, if any one member state say "no", even if it is little Luxembourg or Malta, then Howard does not get his powers back.
Thus, the central question that Howard has to confront is "what will you do if they say ‘no’". No matter how sincere he might be in all other respects, until he can answer that question credibly, his promises have no substance – he simply cannot deliver.
In recent times, Howard has had two stabs at an answer. The first was in the now notorious Today interview with Jon Humphrys on 9 June.
Then, Howard invoked the name of Margaret Thatcher, and tactics during the rebate argument, his claim being that agreement on that also required unanimity. The point he misses, of course, was that the Community wanted an increase in the budget, which also required unanimity, so Thatcher was able to withhold her agreement on that until a rebate settlement had been agreed.
Humphrys didn’t buy the argument, so Howard elaborated:
Firstly, as we saw with Maastricht, the "partners" do not have to make agreements within the treaty structure. Then, John Major was opposed to the Social Chapter, which had to be agreed by unanimity, and it is widely assumed that he negotiated an opt-out. He did not.
What happened was that the other eleven partners agreed a separate protocol, outside the framework of the treaty, applicable to them but not the UK. They thus circumvented the unanimity requirement and the Social Chapter was not incorporated into the Treaty until Amsterdam, with the accession of Tony Blair.
Secondly, there is the possibility of "Enhanced Cooperation", introduced at Amsterdam. As modified at Nice, in all areas apart from foreign and security policy – where the veto still applies, any eight member states (or more) can agree to "enhancing the process of integration within the Union" by working together on policies at present not covered by the treaties, using the institutions and procedures of the Union to implement them.
Additionally, of course, two or more member states can agree to work together more closely through bilateral agreements – as have France and Germany – but, notwithstanding that, it is clear that Howard cannot threaten a brake on further integration as leverage to obtain repatriation of powers. Any theoretical veto he might have is meaningless.
On that basis, Howard’s scenario simply will not work. In the final analysis, the only certain bargaining chip he has is to threaten the withdrawal of the UK unless the Community accedes to his demands – the so-called "nuclear option". So far, he has not shown any willingness to use the nuclear option. Without it, his policy lacks credibility.
The problem is that, to do so, he must negotiate changes to the treaties and, for the treaties to be changed, all 25 member states must agree. In other words, if any one member state say "no", even if it is little Luxembourg or Malta, then Howard does not get his powers back.
Thus, the central question that Howard has to confront is "what will you do if they say ‘no’". No matter how sincere he might be in all other respects, until he can answer that question credibly, his promises have no substance – he simply cannot deliver.
In recent times, Howard has had two stabs at an answer. The first was in the now notorious Today interview with Jon Humphrys on 9 June.
Then, Howard invoked the name of Margaret Thatcher, and tactics during the rebate argument, his claim being that agreement on that also required unanimity. The point he misses, of course, was that the Community wanted an increase in the budget, which also required unanimity, so Thatcher was able to withhold her agreement on that until a rebate settlement had been agreed.
Humphrys didn’t buy the argument, so Howard elaborated:
MH: I tell you why. Because, you see that this would not be one isolated subject. I want to have a new deal in Europe. I want to have a fresh look at the whole basis on which the European Union is currently run. And I want to say to our partners, look there are those of you who want to integrate more closely. And Britain’s been saying no for some time now, and you’re fed up of our saying no, and I’m fed up of our saying no. So let’s have a new deal. If you want to integrate more closely, that’s fine. We don’t want to stop you doing what you want to do. I…To be fair, Howard then backtracked, issuing a letter from his office the following day, stating that if the fishing negotiations did not succeed,
JH: (interruption – unintelligible) …integrating more closely… it’s not the point here, that’s not what we’re talking about here.
MH: Let me finish. We don’t want to stop you doing what you want to do as long as you don’t make us do what we don’t want to do. So let’s sit down together, let’s look at the current arrangements. Where they’re working well - and there are many respects in which they are working well - that’s fine, that’s very good. We won’t disturb those. But where in the light of our experience over the many years for which the European Union has been operating, we can see that it’s not working well and it would be much better if things were restored to national control, let’s do that. Let’s not have a one-way street Europe in which the only decisions that are taken transfer yet more power from the nation states to Brussels. Let’s have a look and see that where there are things that the nation states could do much better, much more effectively, let’s sit down together and say that would be a good idea.
…British Parliament is supreme and we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring about full national and local control.But today, in his conference speech, he was back to his original line, one mirrored by Redwood. In order to repatriate powers, he said:
This is what I will do. Some of our European partners want to integrate further. I'll say to them - "fine. Britain will no longer try and stop you. But we must have something in return. We want to bring powers back from Brussels to Britain"… We want out of the social chapter, which is a threat to British jobs. We want out of the common fisheries policy, which is destroying communities. And we want more British aid to be distributed from London and less from Brussels. It's time to bring powers back to Britain.To get to this point, he makes two central assumptions. The first is that the other "European partners" do want to integrate further, to the extent that they are prepared to allow Britain to go its own way. But the second, and more tenuous, is that they need Britain’s assent in order to pursue that goal. In fact, the assumption is no so much tenuous as wrong, on two counts.
Firstly, as we saw with Maastricht, the "partners" do not have to make agreements within the treaty structure. Then, John Major was opposed to the Social Chapter, which had to be agreed by unanimity, and it is widely assumed that he negotiated an opt-out. He did not.
What happened was that the other eleven partners agreed a separate protocol, outside the framework of the treaty, applicable to them but not the UK. They thus circumvented the unanimity requirement and the Social Chapter was not incorporated into the Treaty until Amsterdam, with the accession of Tony Blair.
Secondly, there is the possibility of "Enhanced Cooperation", introduced at Amsterdam. As modified at Nice, in all areas apart from foreign and security policy – where the veto still applies, any eight member states (or more) can agree to "enhancing the process of integration within the Union" by working together on policies at present not covered by the treaties, using the institutions and procedures of the Union to implement them.
Additionally, of course, two or more member states can agree to work together more closely through bilateral agreements – as have France and Germany – but, notwithstanding that, it is clear that Howard cannot threaten a brake on further integration as leverage to obtain repatriation of powers. Any theoretical veto he might have is meaningless.
On that basis, Howard’s scenario simply will not work. In the final analysis, the only certain bargaining chip he has is to threaten the withdrawal of the UK unless the Community accedes to his demands – the so-called "nuclear option". So far, he has not shown any willingness to use the nuclear option. Without it, his policy lacks credibility.
They presume too much
According to the BBC website, "a bureaucratic blunder has left Wales off a map of Europe on the cover of a prestigious EU reference book."
The Eurostat Statistical Compendium has all the facts and figures on Europe. All EU member states, and the rest of Britain, are accurately represented on the cover - but Wales has disappeared and been replaced by the Irish Sea.
But who said it was a blunder?
The Eurostat Statistical Compendium has all the facts and figures on Europe. All EU member states, and the rest of Britain, are accurately represented on the cover - but Wales has disappeared and been replaced by the Irish Sea.
But who said it was a blunder?
The game is still afoot
They must have had fun at the Daily Telegraph last night, getting in the scoop on Sykes dropping UKIP.
Courtesy of the wonders of the internet, you can see what the intended front page story was – a preview of Howard’s conference speech for today, headed "Howard pledges to restore trust in government", not dissimilar to The Times lead: "You can trust me, Tory leader vows".
It must have been one of those delicious "hold the front page" moments when the Sykes pinned his colours to the mast, giving the Telegraph its front page "Millionaire backer drops UKIP".
As for the detail, we learn that John Redwood had been courting the elusive millionaire, but what came over in the Newsnight interview – Sykes’ pleasure that fishing powers were to be restored – did not make the print copy. This, the assembled hacks have missed one of the key points – the influence of the Common fisheries Policy on British politics, all those years after Heath dismissed them as "electorally insignificant."
What also now becomes clear is the motivation behind Nigel Farage’s motion to the UKIP conference last Saturday, in seeking approval to make deals with Eurosceptic Tory MPs. It is after all, Farage who has the closest relationship with Sykes and he must have known or suspected what the repercussions would be if his party took on an overtly anti-Tory line.
On the face of it, therefore, Kilroy has played it very badly and, while the victory was his on the day, he will be held responsible for the loss of UKIP’s most important backer.
However, Kilroy has always talked of having multiple backers to support a general election campaign and it can hardly have escaped Labour strategists that one of their best electoral assets at this time is a well-funded UKIP under the leadership of Kilroy. After all, shadow home secretary David Davis has calculated that a UKIP challenge could cost the Tories up to 50 seats.
Thus, arranging carefully laundered funding from a wealthy New Labour sympathiser, attached directly to Kilroy, would be an astute move.
Whether the UKIP rank and file would tolerate this is a moot point. But many times in this Blog, it has been pointed out that UKIP is primarily an anti-Tory rather than an anti-EU party and in calling for delegated to "kill" the Conservative Party, Kilroy was perhaps more in touch with the membership than the current leadership.
And he will have had plenty of material to work with from Howard’s conference speech today. In an address when he made tackling crime the number one priority, his answer on "Europe" was a "new approach". Yet all we got was Redwood’s plan to trade off an agreement to allow other member states to pursue further integration against their agreement to allow repatriation of certain powers: again only the Social Chapter, the CFP and "paying more aid from London rather than Brussels".
Despite Sykes’ Damascene conversion, therefore, the game is still afoot. Significantly, to achieve their abysmal fourth place in Hartlepool, the Conservatives spent £97,000 – against the little more than £5,000 spent by UKIP to achieve third. Given that UKIP can make such a little go such a long way, it would be unwise, as yet, to write off the party, or Kilroy.
Courtesy of the wonders of the internet, you can see what the intended front page story was – a preview of Howard’s conference speech for today, headed "Howard pledges to restore trust in government", not dissimilar to The Times lead: "You can trust me, Tory leader vows".
It must have been one of those delicious "hold the front page" moments when the Sykes pinned his colours to the mast, giving the Telegraph its front page "Millionaire backer drops UKIP".
As for the detail, we learn that John Redwood had been courting the elusive millionaire, but what came over in the Newsnight interview – Sykes’ pleasure that fishing powers were to be restored – did not make the print copy. This, the assembled hacks have missed one of the key points – the influence of the Common fisheries Policy on British politics, all those years after Heath dismissed them as "electorally insignificant."
What also now becomes clear is the motivation behind Nigel Farage’s motion to the UKIP conference last Saturday, in seeking approval to make deals with Eurosceptic Tory MPs. It is after all, Farage who has the closest relationship with Sykes and he must have known or suspected what the repercussions would be if his party took on an overtly anti-Tory line.
On the face of it, therefore, Kilroy has played it very badly and, while the victory was his on the day, he will be held responsible for the loss of UKIP’s most important backer.
However, Kilroy has always talked of having multiple backers to support a general election campaign and it can hardly have escaped Labour strategists that one of their best electoral assets at this time is a well-funded UKIP under the leadership of Kilroy. After all, shadow home secretary David Davis has calculated that a UKIP challenge could cost the Tories up to 50 seats.
Thus, arranging carefully laundered funding from a wealthy New Labour sympathiser, attached directly to Kilroy, would be an astute move.
Whether the UKIP rank and file would tolerate this is a moot point. But many times in this Blog, it has been pointed out that UKIP is primarily an anti-Tory rather than an anti-EU party and in calling for delegated to "kill" the Conservative Party, Kilroy was perhaps more in touch with the membership than the current leadership.
And he will have had plenty of material to work with from Howard’s conference speech today. In an address when he made tackling crime the number one priority, his answer on "Europe" was a "new approach". Yet all we got was Redwood’s plan to trade off an agreement to allow other member states to pursue further integration against their agreement to allow repatriation of certain powers: again only the Social Chapter, the CFP and "paying more aid from London rather than Brussels".
Despite Sykes’ Damascene conversion, therefore, the game is still afoot. Significantly, to achieve their abysmal fourth place in Hartlepool, the Conservatives spent £97,000 – against the little more than £5,000 spent by UKIP to achieve third. Given that UKIP can make such a little go such a long way, it would be unwise, as yet, to write off the party, or Kilroy.
A blow for UKIP
On BBC Television’s Newsnight last night, Yorkshire millionaire Paul Sykes publicly ditched UKIP and promised to back the Conservative Party, saying that he could no longer fund UKIP because it had set out to "kill" the Conservatives at the next election by fronting candidates that could unseat Eurosceptic MPs.
Sykes said that the Conservatives seemed to be coming out with "better policies" and he was very pleased to hear that the Conservatives "will be renegotiating fishing powers", along with other powers.
This is not the first time that Sykes has put his weight behind the Tories, but his move comes as a complete surprise after his backing of UKIP during the Euro-elections.
He was known to be disaffected with UKIP, demanding that Kilroy-Silk be appointed leader. But, with Kilroy’s own leadership bid running into the sand, it appears that Sykes has cut his losses and switched sides once again. However, his reaction to the comment about UKIP setting out to "kill" the Conservative party - Kilroy’s word at the party conference – suggests that he has also fallen out with Kilroy.
Whatever his motives, this is a blow for UKIP but, although the Conservatives have cause for cheer, the ever-volatile Mr Sykes still has time to change his mind again.
Sykes said that the Conservatives seemed to be coming out with "better policies" and he was very pleased to hear that the Conservatives "will be renegotiating fishing powers", along with other powers.
This is not the first time that Sykes has put his weight behind the Tories, but his move comes as a complete surprise after his backing of UKIP during the Euro-elections.
He was known to be disaffected with UKIP, demanding that Kilroy-Silk be appointed leader. But, with Kilroy’s own leadership bid running into the sand, it appears that Sykes has cut his losses and switched sides once again. However, his reaction to the comment about UKIP setting out to "kill" the Conservative party - Kilroy’s word at the party conference – suggests that he has also fallen out with Kilroy.
Whatever his motives, this is a blow for UKIP but, although the Conservatives have cause for cheer, the ever-volatile Mr Sykes still has time to change his mind again.
The la-la birds
For a close-up view of an all-too-common species in the Conservative Party, one only had to attend one of the fringe meetings yesterday hosted by The Independent, where Tory policy co-ordinator David Cameron spent five minutes offering his views on how the Conservatives are going to win the general election.
For Cameron, the winner was to emphasise "the Conservative values that the vast majority of the British public share", to turn them into Conservative polices - and to show "how we would put them in to action".
Listing crime, families, police bureaucracy and paperwork, health, education and council tax – while extolling the virtues of his Party’s "Timetable of Action", his "big idea" was the slogan "Values, policies and action".
But what was stunningly absent was any mention of that huge elephant in the room – the European Union. And that was no accident. Cameron is a so-called "moderniser" (what used to be called a "wet") and the silence reflects his and his colleagues cunning strategy on Europe. Quite simply, they are not going to talk about it.
They will talk about anything else but – police, crime, public services, live, the universe, even the weather, anything but "Europe". And if anyone else mentions the dreaded "E-word", they stick their fingers in their ears and sing very loudly, "la-la-la" until their tormentor goes away.
To sympathetic BBC reporters, they will talk grandly about being "adult", but this is not an adult response. It is akin to their drawing up in foetal positions when confronted with something they can’t deal with.
And this is how the Conservatives are going to lose the general election.
For Cameron, the winner was to emphasise "the Conservative values that the vast majority of the British public share", to turn them into Conservative polices - and to show "how we would put them in to action".
Listing crime, families, police bureaucracy and paperwork, health, education and council tax – while extolling the virtues of his Party’s "Timetable of Action", his "big idea" was the slogan "Values, policies and action".
But what was stunningly absent was any mention of that huge elephant in the room – the European Union. And that was no accident. Cameron is a so-called "moderniser" (what used to be called a "wet") and the silence reflects his and his colleagues cunning strategy on Europe. Quite simply, they are not going to talk about it.
They will talk about anything else but – police, crime, public services, live, the universe, even the weather, anything but "Europe". And if anyone else mentions the dreaded "E-word", they stick their fingers in their ears and sing very loudly, "la-la-la" until their tormentor goes away.
To sympathetic BBC reporters, they will talk grandly about being "adult", but this is not an adult response. It is akin to their drawing up in foetal positions when confronted with something they can’t deal with.
And this is how the Conservatives are going to lose the general election.
Monday, October 04, 2004
China worries
With an EU delegation planning to meet Chinese delegation in Hanoi on 8-9 October, senior US State Department officials extremely twitchy at the prospect that the EU is about to lift the arms embargo on China (background: click here and here).
This follows a statement from Shen Goufang, Chinese assistant foreign minister, on 30 September, denouncing the ban on weapon sales and urging the EU to lift it, reflecting perhaps a tougher line by the new Chinese leadership.
The Taiwanese are also getting jittery, stepping up their arguments that dropping the ban would disturb the delicate military balance in Asia and increase the threat of war with Taiwan, a conflict that could drag in the US and spark a Japanese military build-up. They also insist that the EU embargo should continue until the Chinese improve their dismal human rights record.
While protests have been held in the capital, with demonstrators holding up France's tricolor flag bearing the slogan "EU Say No to China", Lai I-chung, director of foreign policy studies at the Taiwan think-tank, says that, with advanced weaponry, China would feel emboldened and tempted to use force to achieve its goal: unification with Taiwan. "The regional balance of power will be tipped over," he said.
In the US, the House of Representatives has already launched a pre-emptive strike, approving sanctions against European companies that export critical military goods or technology to China. Now, diplomatic pressure is being intensified, with the focus on the "New Europe" countries in Eastern Europe who, the State Department believes, will be more sympathetic to the US line.
Britain which, publicly at least, is maintaining an ambivalent line, could be caught in the middle of this increasingly tense stand-off. While she does not stand to benefit greatly from an arms sales bonanza, her involvement in EU programmes such as Galileo may mean that British firms are caught up in US sanctions.
Once again, therefore, Britain is being drawn into a foreign policy dispute not of her making, all in the name of solidarity with EU member states which are pursuing their own interests. At the very least, this will create further strains on the "special relationship" with the US and, quite possibly damage our own commercial interests.
But, of course, these minor problems are nothing compared with the magnificent benefits which we gain from our membership of the EU.
This follows a statement from Shen Goufang, Chinese assistant foreign minister, on 30 September, denouncing the ban on weapon sales and urging the EU to lift it, reflecting perhaps a tougher line by the new Chinese leadership.
The Taiwanese are also getting jittery, stepping up their arguments that dropping the ban would disturb the delicate military balance in Asia and increase the threat of war with Taiwan, a conflict that could drag in the US and spark a Japanese military build-up. They also insist that the EU embargo should continue until the Chinese improve their dismal human rights record.
While protests have been held in the capital, with demonstrators holding up France's tricolor flag bearing the slogan "EU Say No to China", Lai I-chung, director of foreign policy studies at the Taiwan think-tank, says that, with advanced weaponry, China would feel emboldened and tempted to use force to achieve its goal: unification with Taiwan. "The regional balance of power will be tipped over," he said.
In the US, the House of Representatives has already launched a pre-emptive strike, approving sanctions against European companies that export critical military goods or technology to China. Now, diplomatic pressure is being intensified, with the focus on the "New Europe" countries in Eastern Europe who, the State Department believes, will be more sympathetic to the US line.
Britain which, publicly at least, is maintaining an ambivalent line, could be caught in the middle of this increasingly tense stand-off. While she does not stand to benefit greatly from an arms sales bonanza, her involvement in EU programmes such as Galileo may mean that British firms are caught up in US sanctions.
Once again, therefore, Britain is being drawn into a foreign policy dispute not of her making, all in the name of solidarity with EU member states which are pursuing their own interests. At the very least, this will create further strains on the "special relationship" with the US and, quite possibly damage our own commercial interests.
But, of course, these minor problems are nothing compared with the magnificent benefits which we gain from our membership of the EU.
It isn’t enough
In an attempt to claw back the UKIP vote, Conservative party chairman Liam Fox today committed a new Tory government to holding a snap referendum on the EU constitution, pledging that it would be held before the party’s next conference.
"We will campaign for a No vote. And we will get a No vote," he told this conference in his opening speech.
If Fox thinks that is enough, however, he is sadly mistaken. Undoubtedly, the referendum would be easier to win with a Conservative government in power but the fact that it will be held anyway – under Labour or the Conservatives – tends to diminish the force of the promise.
In any event, the Tories are possibly neglecting the fact that, for the second half of next year, the UK holds the EU presidency. This would almost certainly prevent Blair holding a referendum, but it might have a similar effect on the Tories. The logistical demands of running the presidency are such that it would be very difficult to run a campaign at the same time.
And, while a "no" campaign would be easier to win under the Tories, many believe that even then it would not be a foregone conclusion and that more time is needed to present the issues to the public. A rushed campaign might provoke a backlash, or might even favour a "yes" vote, with the pro-constitutionalists arguing that the Tories were attempting to close down the debate.
Either way, this looks like another of those ill-thought-out knee-jerk reactions from the Tories and it certainly will not be enough to bring UKIP voters back into the fold.
"We will campaign for a No vote. And we will get a No vote," he told this conference in his opening speech.
If Fox thinks that is enough, however, he is sadly mistaken. Undoubtedly, the referendum would be easier to win with a Conservative government in power but the fact that it will be held anyway – under Labour or the Conservatives – tends to diminish the force of the promise.
In any event, the Tories are possibly neglecting the fact that, for the second half of next year, the UK holds the EU presidency. This would almost certainly prevent Blair holding a referendum, but it might have a similar effect on the Tories. The logistical demands of running the presidency are such that it would be very difficult to run a campaign at the same time.
And, while a "no" campaign would be easier to win under the Tories, many believe that even then it would not be a foregone conclusion and that more time is needed to present the issues to the public. A rushed campaign might provoke a backlash, or might even favour a "yes" vote, with the pro-constitutionalists arguing that the Tories were attempting to close down the debate.
Either way, this looks like another of those ill-thought-out knee-jerk reactions from the Tories and it certainly will not be enough to bring UKIP voters back into the fold.
Clear blue water
Of the torrent of comment on and advice to the Conservatives in today’s newspapers, I think I prefer the Telegraph leader, not least the observation that "Every know-it-all thinks he has some quick fix to their problems." Touché.
But the central thesis offered by the Telegraph is one that will not be unfamiliar to readers of this Blog, which amounts to the simple fact that the Tories are not believed:
Nearly three quarters of Tory voters (71 per cent) think that the party would be more likely to increase its electoral appeal by "being much tougher in opposing the EU constitution and offering a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the EU". A mere 13 per cent disagree while 42 percent of all voters think a more Eurosceptic line would benefit the party.
Tying these two strands together, and adding our view, it has to be said that, in principle, there is not much wrong with the Tory’s current EU policy: the opposition to the euro and the constitution and, in the wake of a "no" vote on the constitution, a commitment to renegotiate the treaties with a view to repatriating significant powers.
The problem is that, as far as the latter goes, no one believes it will happen. And as long as the Tories evade the issue of what they would do if the "colleagues" say "no" to our demands for the repatriation of powers, or offer equivocal and unconvincing answers, as did Redwood last night, they will continue not to be believed.
Arguably, though, there is another dimension. The Telegraph reports that the single biggest reason given for not supporting the Tories is that "it is hard to know what the Conservatives stand for at the moment" and the very fact of the Tories actually standing up and saying something unequivocal could transform the public perception of them.
At the moment, their "lawyerly caveats" simply serve to make them sound shifty. A simple statement of principle would change all that. Imagine Howard saying, "we are committed to repatriating x, y and z powers. We are not going to take 'no' for an answer and, therefore, if elected, we will make our demands. If they are refused, we will act unilaterally. If that means that we will have to leave the EU, then so be it".
This, of course, is the "nuclear option" but, as we all know, the intention of deploying it is to avoid conflict. The very fact that one has it ensures that it will not be used. Hence, a Conservative government that makes it plain from the outset that it intends to leave the EU unless its demands are satisfied would, in theory, find the "colleagues" willing to negotiate whereas anything short of that would simply lead to a rebuff.
Alongside that, the Tories could also start making a serious case, if not for withdrawal, then for the damage that the EU is doing. In an earlier Blog we drew attention to the scourge of fly-tipping and the unreported fact the current problems were largely the result of implementing EU law.
In today’s Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports on how an "idiotic" EU directive is threatening to end crucial medical research, preventing universities and hospitals carrying out low-budget studies of medical products.
If, instead of blathering vaguely about the "benefits" of our membership of the EU, Tory politicians put their minds to a series of hard-hitting exposés of the real damage caused by our membership, a threat to withdraw unless negotiations succeeded, far from looking extreme, would appear the most natural and rational thing to do.
By this means, a political climate that has been conditioned by years of soggy propaganda about the benefits of "Europe" could be transformed. It would leave Blair and "his case for Europe" stranded, with clear blue water opening up between the Tories and Labour.
Thus, the take from this "know-it-all" is simple. We need some "clear blue water". The trust will follow.
But the central thesis offered by the Telegraph is one that will not be unfamiliar to readers of this Blog, which amounts to the simple fact that the Tories are not believed:
… the hard truth is that the Conservative Party has lost the benefit of the doubt. When UKIP says that it is against the EU Constitution, people believe it; when the Tories do, they are assumed to be electioneering. This is especially true when they add lawyerly caveats of their own - refusing, for example, to say what they will do if Brussels refuses to repatriate powers, or claiming that their commitment on inheritance tax is just an aspiration.This must be read in conjunction with Peter Riddell’s piece in The Times headed, "Supporters say a tougher line on Europe will win more votes". Data from the Populus survey shows that the Conservative leadership is being urged by a big majority of its own supporters "to take an even more sceptical approach towards Europe".
Nearly three quarters of Tory voters (71 per cent) think that the party would be more likely to increase its electoral appeal by "being much tougher in opposing the EU constitution and offering a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the EU". A mere 13 per cent disagree while 42 percent of all voters think a more Eurosceptic line would benefit the party.
Tying these two strands together, and adding our view, it has to be said that, in principle, there is not much wrong with the Tory’s current EU policy: the opposition to the euro and the constitution and, in the wake of a "no" vote on the constitution, a commitment to renegotiate the treaties with a view to repatriating significant powers.
The problem is that, as far as the latter goes, no one believes it will happen. And as long as the Tories evade the issue of what they would do if the "colleagues" say "no" to our demands for the repatriation of powers, or offer equivocal and unconvincing answers, as did Redwood last night, they will continue not to be believed.
Arguably, though, there is another dimension. The Telegraph reports that the single biggest reason given for not supporting the Tories is that "it is hard to know what the Conservatives stand for at the moment" and the very fact of the Tories actually standing up and saying something unequivocal could transform the public perception of them.
At the moment, their "lawyerly caveats" simply serve to make them sound shifty. A simple statement of principle would change all that. Imagine Howard saying, "we are committed to repatriating x, y and z powers. We are not going to take 'no' for an answer and, therefore, if elected, we will make our demands. If they are refused, we will act unilaterally. If that means that we will have to leave the EU, then so be it".
This, of course, is the "nuclear option" but, as we all know, the intention of deploying it is to avoid conflict. The very fact that one has it ensures that it will not be used. Hence, a Conservative government that makes it plain from the outset that it intends to leave the EU unless its demands are satisfied would, in theory, find the "colleagues" willing to negotiate whereas anything short of that would simply lead to a rebuff.
Alongside that, the Tories could also start making a serious case, if not for withdrawal, then for the damage that the EU is doing. In an earlier Blog we drew attention to the scourge of fly-tipping and the unreported fact the current problems were largely the result of implementing EU law.
In today’s Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports on how an "idiotic" EU directive is threatening to end crucial medical research, preventing universities and hospitals carrying out low-budget studies of medical products.
If, instead of blathering vaguely about the "benefits" of our membership of the EU, Tory politicians put their minds to a series of hard-hitting exposés of the real damage caused by our membership, a threat to withdraw unless negotiations succeeded, far from looking extreme, would appear the most natural and rational thing to do.
By this means, a political climate that has been conditioned by years of soggy propaganda about the benefits of "Europe" could be transformed. It would leave Blair and "his case for Europe" stranded, with clear blue water opening up between the Tories and Labour.
Thus, the take from this "know-it-all" is simple. We need some "clear blue water". The trust will follow.
Doom and gloom
With domestic politics suddenly coming back to life with a vengeance, the only common thread in the profusion of comment in the media is that there is no common thread. The political commentators seem to be all over the place.
At one extreme is Anthony Seldon in The Observer who argues that "Whatever the Tories do, they're doomed", which contrasts with the measured tone of yersterday's Sunday Telegraph leader which stops short of suggesting a victory for the Conservatives, but advises Howard not to panic and to be himself.
But if there is one thing which comes over clear is the message given by the Times Populus poll today which puts Labour at 35 percent, the Tories at 28 and the Lib–Dems at 25. On top of the humiliating fourth place in the Hartlepool by-election, that clearly spells "crisis" for the Conservative Party.
One of our own readers comments that the Conservatives would need a miracle to win the general, but Howard, himself, rather predictably, claims that a miracle is not necessary. On current performance, one might suggest that not even a miracle will bring the Conservatives to power.
Meanwhile, on top of the ongoing soap opera of the Blair succession, there is the sideshow of Kilroy-Silk bidding for leadership of UKIP, but this will remain a sideshow.
Kilroy has no significant power base in the party and has badly misjudged his tactics, believing that he could appeal over the heads of the current leadership, and be voted in by acclamation by a grateful membership. His grasp of the minutia of the procedural measures required to bring him to that point are minuscule, and he has already been outmanoeuvred.
Nevertheless, if we take it that UKIP is primarily the repository for the anti-Conservative vote, it does not really matter what UKIP does. It simply has to exist, and put up candidates, in order to scoop up the votes. In this – having been virtually ignored – it will now be aided by the likes of the BBC, which see in the party a useful stick with which to beat the Tories.
What matters more is what the Conservatives themselves do, and here it seems that both the media and the party are set on underplaying the "Europe" factor, determined to keep other issues to the fore. But, on the basis of just the Hartlepool vote, there are perhaps two million votes (if not more) that will be swayed by "Europe" and these are votes the Tories can ill afford to lose.
One looked with special interest, therefore, to the interview last night on the BBC Radio 4 "Westminster Hour" between Andrew Rawnsley and John Redwood, for clues as to where the Tories might be going on "Europe". Challenged with the negotiation question – as to what would happen if the "colleagues" said "no", Redwood dismissed the idea.
His view was, quite simply that they would not say no. Some of them want to go further with integration and, in the wake of the collapse of the constitution, a Conservative government would make a bargain, allowing them to go ahead in return for us getting what we want.
The argument is unconvincing, not least because – as with the social chapter – the other member states can pursue their own line while, in order for the UK to secure the repatriation of powers within the terms of the treaties, it must have the unanimous assent of all member states.
What this demonstrates, therefore, it that the Tories still have not developed a coherent policy on the European Union and, without that – expressed clearly and unambiguously, they are not going to claw back the UKIP vote.
Thus, as the Conservatives start what is probably their last conference before the general election, doom and gloom seems to be the prevailing mood, and there seems absolutely nothing substantive that would merit any change. The conference rituals will be observed, but the slide will continue.
At one extreme is Anthony Seldon in The Observer who argues that "Whatever the Tories do, they're doomed", which contrasts with the measured tone of yersterday's Sunday Telegraph leader which stops short of suggesting a victory for the Conservatives, but advises Howard not to panic and to be himself.
But if there is one thing which comes over clear is the message given by the Times Populus poll today which puts Labour at 35 percent, the Tories at 28 and the Lib–Dems at 25. On top of the humiliating fourth place in the Hartlepool by-election, that clearly spells "crisis" for the Conservative Party.
One of our own readers comments that the Conservatives would need a miracle to win the general, but Howard, himself, rather predictably, claims that a miracle is not necessary. On current performance, one might suggest that not even a miracle will bring the Conservatives to power.
Meanwhile, on top of the ongoing soap opera of the Blair succession, there is the sideshow of Kilroy-Silk bidding for leadership of UKIP, but this will remain a sideshow.
Kilroy has no significant power base in the party and has badly misjudged his tactics, believing that he could appeal over the heads of the current leadership, and be voted in by acclamation by a grateful membership. His grasp of the minutia of the procedural measures required to bring him to that point are minuscule, and he has already been outmanoeuvred.
Nevertheless, if we take it that UKIP is primarily the repository for the anti-Conservative vote, it does not really matter what UKIP does. It simply has to exist, and put up candidates, in order to scoop up the votes. In this – having been virtually ignored – it will now be aided by the likes of the BBC, which see in the party a useful stick with which to beat the Tories.
What matters more is what the Conservatives themselves do, and here it seems that both the media and the party are set on underplaying the "Europe" factor, determined to keep other issues to the fore. But, on the basis of just the Hartlepool vote, there are perhaps two million votes (if not more) that will be swayed by "Europe" and these are votes the Tories can ill afford to lose.
One looked with special interest, therefore, to the interview last night on the BBC Radio 4 "Westminster Hour" between Andrew Rawnsley and John Redwood, for clues as to where the Tories might be going on "Europe". Challenged with the negotiation question – as to what would happen if the "colleagues" said "no", Redwood dismissed the idea.
His view was, quite simply that they would not say no. Some of them want to go further with integration and, in the wake of the collapse of the constitution, a Conservative government would make a bargain, allowing them to go ahead in return for us getting what we want.
The argument is unconvincing, not least because – as with the social chapter – the other member states can pursue their own line while, in order for the UK to secure the repatriation of powers within the terms of the treaties, it must have the unanimous assent of all member states.
What this demonstrates, therefore, it that the Tories still have not developed a coherent policy on the European Union and, without that – expressed clearly and unambiguously, they are not going to claw back the UKIP vote.
Thus, as the Conservatives start what is probably their last conference before the general election, doom and gloom seems to be the prevailing mood, and there seems absolutely nothing substantive that would merit any change. The conference rituals will be observed, but the slide will continue.
The legislative process as it is and as it should be #3
We have looked at the how the legislative process is supposed to be operating in this country (and still is, in theory) and the problems that have been encountered on the domestic front. Now, here is what all our readers have been waiting for – the European dimension.
Problems on the European front:
Since the European Communities Act of 1972 the whole constitutional situation has changed, though there is a pretence among many of the subject’s students that this is not so. They continue discussing the British Constitution and the European Union (formerly known as European Community, before that the European Economic Community) separately. In the same way, the British media still insists on discussing the EU under the heading of foreign affairs.
According to the European Communities Act (and though the Act has been amended, this has always stayed in place) Article 2(2), European legislation is superior to British. Therefore, the British Parliament cannot reject or even amend the legislation as it comes. The only thing that can be done is to try to influence amendments at various earlier stages as the European legislation goes through the various procedures in Brussels (or Strasbourg).
According to legal opinion, implied repeal does not apply to any legislation that is brought in under the European Communities Act but its provisions exist by will of Parliament. At present, therefore, Parliament can repeal the superiority of EU legislation. That will change if the proposed EU Constitution is adopted.
EU legislation follows a different pattern from the British one. Instead of moving from the particular to the general, it moves from the general to the particular. Its starting point is the treaties signed at various times. It then moves through Framework Plans that, as one would expect, delineate the general framework of legislation that intends to achieve certain very general aims. One of those going through the works at the moment is the Financial Services Plan that has already produced a great deal of legislation that will affect the City (usually adversely) and will produce more.
The EU’s idea of governance is managerial rather than political. It lays down plans for legislation, for the amendment of legislation or, (a favourite one, this) consolidation of legislation for ten, fifteen, twenty years. In that period elections may or may not happen, governments may or may not change, the membership of the European Parliament may or may not alter. All that is irrelevant to the legislative plans, which grind on relentlessly.
The other aspect of the managerial process of governance is the Annual Commission Work Plan. Its name says it all. The Commission outlines its intentions for the year and proceeds to follow it up. Anything left over, will be picked up in the following year’s plan.
Given those two frameworks, the actual members of the Commission and even the much more powerful Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) are irrelevant. The general rejoicing at the supposedly free-trade Barroso Commission that is due to be anointed on November 1 was misguided.
Few British politicians understand the long-term legislative process. Nor, to be fair, could they do much about it, even if they did understand, as their own term is bound by those inconvenient things called elections. More seriously, they do not realize the importance of this as far as Britain is concerned. They assume that legislation begins at the point when a directive or a regulation is drafted or, even, in more extreme cases, when it is presented to the national parliaments. At that point they start consultations and generally raise the alarm but it is too late, as they had signed up, without realizing so, to the process that was to produce the legislation they dislike.
Forms of EU legislation
1. Directives – proposed by the Commission after a long process of discussion and consultation and passed by the Council of Ministers or, in the cases of co-decision by the Council and the European Parliament. In theory, these have to be passed by national legislatures. In fact, few of them require primary legislation and they are, therefore, put into law by Orders in Council (see above). However, as Parliament has no right to reject EU legislation (on pain of the country being taken to the ECJ and/or fined) the process means little in reality.
2. Regulations – by far the most favoured way of passing legislation, proposed by the Commission and passed by the Council of Ministers, by the Council and the European Parliament or by the Commission itself. These are directly applicable from the day they are signed or the day specified in the text. Details of implementation are left to member states but these documents are ever more detailed and there is little lee-way. In fact, what the British regulations do, whether put together by a Ministry or an Agency, such as the Food Standards Agency or the Environment Agency, is to bring previous British legislation in line with the EU one. Little else is left to do.
3. Decisions – in theory non-binding, in practice used as an additional form of EU regulation, with British ministries and agencies adjusting the existing regulatory structure to bring it into line with the new one.
We need to get from where we are, a form of unaccountable governance by management to where we want to be, a constitutional democracy with legislation conducted in the open and legislators being accountable to the people over whom they legislate. Then we can think of reducing the scope of government altogether. But first and foremost we must understand how the system works in reality.
Problems on the European front:
Since the European Communities Act of 1972 the whole constitutional situation has changed, though there is a pretence among many of the subject’s students that this is not so. They continue discussing the British Constitution and the European Union (formerly known as European Community, before that the European Economic Community) separately. In the same way, the British media still insists on discussing the EU under the heading of foreign affairs.
According to the European Communities Act (and though the Act has been amended, this has always stayed in place) Article 2(2), European legislation is superior to British. Therefore, the British Parliament cannot reject or even amend the legislation as it comes. The only thing that can be done is to try to influence amendments at various earlier stages as the European legislation goes through the various procedures in Brussels (or Strasbourg).
According to legal opinion, implied repeal does not apply to any legislation that is brought in under the European Communities Act but its provisions exist by will of Parliament. At present, therefore, Parliament can repeal the superiority of EU legislation. That will change if the proposed EU Constitution is adopted.
EU legislation follows a different pattern from the British one. Instead of moving from the particular to the general, it moves from the general to the particular. Its starting point is the treaties signed at various times. It then moves through Framework Plans that, as one would expect, delineate the general framework of legislation that intends to achieve certain very general aims. One of those going through the works at the moment is the Financial Services Plan that has already produced a great deal of legislation that will affect the City (usually adversely) and will produce more.
The EU’s idea of governance is managerial rather than political. It lays down plans for legislation, for the amendment of legislation or, (a favourite one, this) consolidation of legislation for ten, fifteen, twenty years. In that period elections may or may not happen, governments may or may not change, the membership of the European Parliament may or may not alter. All that is irrelevant to the legislative plans, which grind on relentlessly.
The other aspect of the managerial process of governance is the Annual Commission Work Plan. Its name says it all. The Commission outlines its intentions for the year and proceeds to follow it up. Anything left over, will be picked up in the following year’s plan.
Given those two frameworks, the actual members of the Commission and even the much more powerful Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) are irrelevant. The general rejoicing at the supposedly free-trade Barroso Commission that is due to be anointed on November 1 was misguided.
Few British politicians understand the long-term legislative process. Nor, to be fair, could they do much about it, even if they did understand, as their own term is bound by those inconvenient things called elections. More seriously, they do not realize the importance of this as far as Britain is concerned. They assume that legislation begins at the point when a directive or a regulation is drafted or, even, in more extreme cases, when it is presented to the national parliaments. At that point they start consultations and generally raise the alarm but it is too late, as they had signed up, without realizing so, to the process that was to produce the legislation they dislike.
Forms of EU legislation
1. Directives – proposed by the Commission after a long process of discussion and consultation and passed by the Council of Ministers or, in the cases of co-decision by the Council and the European Parliament. In theory, these have to be passed by national legislatures. In fact, few of them require primary legislation and they are, therefore, put into law by Orders in Council (see above). However, as Parliament has no right to reject EU legislation (on pain of the country being taken to the ECJ and/or fined) the process means little in reality.
2. Regulations – by far the most favoured way of passing legislation, proposed by the Commission and passed by the Council of Ministers, by the Council and the European Parliament or by the Commission itself. These are directly applicable from the day they are signed or the day specified in the text. Details of implementation are left to member states but these documents are ever more detailed and there is little lee-way. In fact, what the British regulations do, whether put together by a Ministry or an Agency, such as the Food Standards Agency or the Environment Agency, is to bring previous British legislation in line with the EU one. Little else is left to do.
3. Decisions – in theory non-binding, in practice used as an additional form of EU regulation, with British ministries and agencies adjusting the existing regulatory structure to bring it into line with the new one.
We need to get from where we are, a form of unaccountable governance by management to where we want to be, a constitutional democracy with legislation conducted in the open and legislators being accountable to the people over whom they legislate. Then we can think of reducing the scope of government altogether. But first and foremost we must understand how the system works in reality.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The legislative process as it is and as it should be #2
We have seen the theory, what is the practice?
Problems on the domestic front:
1. Over the years the House of Commons has lost its view of itself as legislator and, more importantly, as the legislative part of the constitutional structure, whose task it is to hold the executive to account and to restrain the executive’s pretensions to power. This process has been exacerbated by the unusually large majority the Labour Government has commanded since 1997, by its reluctance to deal through the House and by the obvious incompetence and political ignorance among most of that huge Labour intake.
2. The preponderance of Enabling Acts – a very large proportion of the legislation that now goes through Parliament is little more than primary legislation whose purpose it is to enable subsequent secondary legislation through Orders in Council a.k.a Statutory Instruments (see above). Examples of this are the contentious Civil Contingencies Bill, now at the Committee stage in the Lords and the Animal Welfare Bill, at present in draft form and promised to be in the Queen’s Speech on November 23.
3. An even greater preponderance of Statutory Instruments or Orders in Council. Intended to deal with reasonably straightforward administrative measures, these have become tools of complex legislation that, by being secondary, mostly go unexamined and undebated by either House. Each Enabling Act produces a raft of secondary legislation; many of the EU Directives come in as such. Around 4,000 SIs are put into place every year.
4. Poor drafting of Bills – either because of lack of attention in the relevant parts of the civil service or because of the pressure of the enormous legislative burden but Bills in the last few years have been very poorly drafted with many loopholes discovered only once they are debated. As, on top of that, the House of Commons does not exercise its necessary functions (see above), Government Bills go through to the House of Lords in a very unsatisfactory fashion. The unpaid and unelected House of Lords still considers its duty to go through a detailed analysis and discussion of each piece of legislation. The Government, too, finds at this stage that it needs to amend Bills.
There have been occasions in the last five years when over two hundred government amendments appeared at the Report stage in the Lords. During the first day of the Committee stage of the Civil Contingencies Bill, several amendments were withdrawn with a clear warning to the Government to deal with those particular issues or the amendments will be moved and the House will be divided with the amendment quite possibly passing. That would mean the usual kicking of the Bill back and forth between the two Houses in the last few hours of this Parliamentary session and the usual vociferous though ignorant cries of complaints about unelected peers, who are actually doing their job, preventing the elected House from exercising its (though, in reality, the Government’s) will.
Problems on the domestic front:
1. Over the years the House of Commons has lost its view of itself as legislator and, more importantly, as the legislative part of the constitutional structure, whose task it is to hold the executive to account and to restrain the executive’s pretensions to power. This process has been exacerbated by the unusually large majority the Labour Government has commanded since 1997, by its reluctance to deal through the House and by the obvious incompetence and political ignorance among most of that huge Labour intake.
2. The preponderance of Enabling Acts – a very large proportion of the legislation that now goes through Parliament is little more than primary legislation whose purpose it is to enable subsequent secondary legislation through Orders in Council a.k.a Statutory Instruments (see above). Examples of this are the contentious Civil Contingencies Bill, now at the Committee stage in the Lords and the Animal Welfare Bill, at present in draft form and promised to be in the Queen’s Speech on November 23.
3. An even greater preponderance of Statutory Instruments or Orders in Council. Intended to deal with reasonably straightforward administrative measures, these have become tools of complex legislation that, by being secondary, mostly go unexamined and undebated by either House. Each Enabling Act produces a raft of secondary legislation; many of the EU Directives come in as such. Around 4,000 SIs are put into place every year.
4. Poor drafting of Bills – either because of lack of attention in the relevant parts of the civil service or because of the pressure of the enormous legislative burden but Bills in the last few years have been very poorly drafted with many loopholes discovered only once they are debated. As, on top of that, the House of Commons does not exercise its necessary functions (see above), Government Bills go through to the House of Lords in a very unsatisfactory fashion. The unpaid and unelected House of Lords still considers its duty to go through a detailed analysis and discussion of each piece of legislation. The Government, too, finds at this stage that it needs to amend Bills.
There have been occasions in the last five years when over two hundred government amendments appeared at the Report stage in the Lords. During the first day of the Committee stage of the Civil Contingencies Bill, several amendments were withdrawn with a clear warning to the Government to deal with those particular issues or the amendments will be moved and the House will be divided with the amendment quite possibly passing. That would mean the usual kicking of the Bill back and forth between the two Houses in the last few hours of this Parliamentary session and the usual vociferous though ignorant cries of complaints about unelected peers, who are actually doing their job, preventing the elected House from exercising its (though, in reality, the Government’s) will.
Russia and Kyoto (again)
The Russian cabinet has approved the Kyoto Protocol and sent it to the Duma. Given the Putin party’s complete control of that body, parliamentary approval, after the President’s grudging recommendation, is assumed to be certain.
This has delighted some of the environmenalists and most of the media in the West but there are various problems. The most obvious one is with the Protocol itself, that has been widely criticized by economists and scientists as being economically expensive and environmentally doubtful. Its almost certain political purpose – to control the United States – has failed as that country has refused to sign. Other major “polluters” have also stayed away and developing countries are waiting to see what the developed ones will do. (The member states of the EU, the most vociferous organization in support of it, have not shown any alacrity in abiding by the rules, as we have pointed out before.)
In Russia itself, there has, until recently been an almost unanimous rejection of it at the top. There was no particular infighting, as some western newspapers have described the process, but a general agreement with just a few environmental groups dissenting.
There is no public acceptance of Kyoto even now but a bad-tempered, grudging assent to what is perceived as naked political blackmail on the part of the European Union. Sign this and we shall support your application to the WTO. Otherwise, forget it. You can stay out, even though China is in. The reason is, of course, that Russia with a supposed 17.4 per cent of the world’s emissions was absolutely necessary for the Protocol even to be put nominally into effect.
Andrei Illarionov, Putin’s chief economic adviser, and staunch opponent of the Protocol told the Interfax news agency:
This is a worrying thought for President Putin, whose standing inside and, to a great extent, outside Russia depends on his economic achievements.
German Gref, the economic development minister was more mealy-mouthed than Illarionov, perhaps because his own political position is less assured. He did not think that it would undermine Russia’s economic growth but neither was it going to be decisive in improving the environmental situation. Anyway, he added, falling back on that well-known Soviet phrase, it will be a “progressive step”.
None of this bodes well. Russians are ultra sensitive to slights from the West and they are not even bothering to hide the fact that they are unhappy at being forced into an agreement that they do not see as being beneficial to themselves by the European Union. The relationship between the two may well enter a slight cooling off period.
One wonders how far the Russians intend to comply with the Protocol’s rules. Past experience tells one that if Russia does not want to fulfil an agreement it will find a million ways of not doing so while sounding extremely self-righteous. (The EU is quite good at that, too, but the Russians are past masters.)
There is another aspect to this story, that has, so far, found its way only into the columns of the International Herald Tribune. Russia has effectively established a monopoly of energy supply to the Baltic and East European states.
Gazprom, a largely state-owned enterprise, whose CEO, Alexei Miller is one of the siloviki, the men from the security services who surround Putin, has invested $2.6 billion into joint ventures in these countries. They now control supply, sale and distribution of natural gas in the region and hope to raise its stake in the West European countries. The company supplies about 25 per cent of Western Europe’s natural gas.
In the new member states the picture is different and rather alarming: sole suppliers in Estonia, Latvial, Lithuania and Slovakia; providers of 91 per cent of Hungary’s gas, 79 per cent of Poland’s and nearly 75 per cent of the Czech Republic’s.
The European Commission has called on these countries to diversify their energy supplies but there are several obstacles. Mostly the countries lack the money to buy in any other gas. Also, by controlling the supply and then the whole chain through the various joint ventures, Gazprom has managed to block all attempts at diversification.
In the circumstances, this is likely to create a tense economic and political situation.
This has delighted some of the environmenalists and most of the media in the West but there are various problems. The most obvious one is with the Protocol itself, that has been widely criticized by economists and scientists as being economically expensive and environmentally doubtful. Its almost certain political purpose – to control the United States – has failed as that country has refused to sign. Other major “polluters” have also stayed away and developing countries are waiting to see what the developed ones will do. (The member states of the EU, the most vociferous organization in support of it, have not shown any alacrity in abiding by the rules, as we have pointed out before.)
In Russia itself, there has, until recently been an almost unanimous rejection of it at the top. There was no particular infighting, as some western newspapers have described the process, but a general agreement with just a few environmental groups dissenting.
There is no public acceptance of Kyoto even now but a bad-tempered, grudging assent to what is perceived as naked political blackmail on the part of the European Union. Sign this and we shall support your application to the WTO. Otherwise, forget it. You can stay out, even though China is in. The reason is, of course, that Russia with a supposed 17.4 per cent of the world’s emissions was absolutely necessary for the Protocol even to be put nominally into effect.
Andrei Illarionov, Putin’s chief economic adviser, and staunch opponent of the Protocol told the Interfax news agency:
“It’s a political decision, it’s a forced decision. It’s not a decision we are making with pleasure.”The treaty according to him (and many others) was based on false and, even, deceptive scientific assumptions. It will slow down Russia’s economic growth and will make it impossible to meet the President’s firmly pronounced goal of doubling Russia’s gross domestic product in the next decade.
This is a worrying thought for President Putin, whose standing inside and, to a great extent, outside Russia depends on his economic achievements.
German Gref, the economic development minister was more mealy-mouthed than Illarionov, perhaps because his own political position is less assured. He did not think that it would undermine Russia’s economic growth but neither was it going to be decisive in improving the environmental situation. Anyway, he added, falling back on that well-known Soviet phrase, it will be a “progressive step”.
None of this bodes well. Russians are ultra sensitive to slights from the West and they are not even bothering to hide the fact that they are unhappy at being forced into an agreement that they do not see as being beneficial to themselves by the European Union. The relationship between the two may well enter a slight cooling off period.
One wonders how far the Russians intend to comply with the Protocol’s rules. Past experience tells one that if Russia does not want to fulfil an agreement it will find a million ways of not doing so while sounding extremely self-righteous. (The EU is quite good at that, too, but the Russians are past masters.)
There is another aspect to this story, that has, so far, found its way only into the columns of the International Herald Tribune. Russia has effectively established a monopoly of energy supply to the Baltic and East European states.
Gazprom, a largely state-owned enterprise, whose CEO, Alexei Miller is one of the siloviki, the men from the security services who surround Putin, has invested $2.6 billion into joint ventures in these countries. They now control supply, sale and distribution of natural gas in the region and hope to raise its stake in the West European countries. The company supplies about 25 per cent of Western Europe’s natural gas.
In the new member states the picture is different and rather alarming: sole suppliers in Estonia, Latvial, Lithuania and Slovakia; providers of 91 per cent of Hungary’s gas, 79 per cent of Poland’s and nearly 75 per cent of the Czech Republic’s.
The European Commission has called on these countries to diversify their energy supplies but there are several obstacles. Mostly the countries lack the money to buy in any other gas. Also, by controlling the supply and then the whole chain through the various joint ventures, Gazprom has managed to block all attempts at diversification.
In the circumstances, this is likely to create a tense economic and political situation.
The legislative process as it is and as it should be #1
To argue our way through what is happening to our legislative process, we need to understand how it is supposed to work and why it is not working in that way. The form may have survived but the substance is no longer there.
To get a couple of misunderstandings out of the way first: legislation is not passed by the House of Commons alone; it is also important to remember, as the media rarely does that the Second Reading of a Bill in either House is not the end of the process. The Second Reading is almost invariably passed but the real work starts at Committee stage.
The Legislative Process as it should be:
1. A Bill is introduced in either House, by the Government or the Opposition or, even by an individual member. By and large a Private Member’s Bill has little chance of getting very far in the Commons, though several have gone through the Lords, where time is not decided on by the leaders of the main parties.
2. The Bill has its First Reading, which is a formality. A simple introductory speech and the Bill is laid before the House and ordered to be published.
3. The Second Reading takes place at which the general themes of support and opposition are outlined.
4. Committee stage at which amendments are moved. This stage can take place in the whole House or go off to a Select Committee, whose membership is allocated according to the proportions of party members in the House, if it is in the Commons. In the Lords, most Bills go before the Committee of the whole House, except for some that go to the Standing Committee, whose membership is decided on by agreement.
5. Amendments may or may not be moved and may or may not be accepted. Government amendments are usually accepted for obvious reasons.
6. The Bill goes to a Report stage, which is invariably before the whole House, where further amendments may be moved and voted on.
7. Third Reading, which can have more amendments, though usually it is the whole, possibly amended, Bill is debated.
8. The Bill goes to the other House, where the procedure is repeated. If there are amendments in the other place, the Bill returns to the one of origin for the amendments to be accepted or rejected as the case may be. If there are disagreements between the Houses, the Bill may pass back and forth for a while until some agreement is reached.
9. The Bill is signed by the Sovereign and becomes an Act of Parliament.
This process is known as primary legislation. Apart from this there is a bevy of Statutory Instruments, known as secondary legislation. SIs are laid before both Houses by the relevant Ministry. Affirmative Instruments have to be debated in Standing Committee in the House of Commons. Negative Instruments lie before the Houses for 40 working days, when they become law, unless somebody challenges them. In the Commons the challenge is often in the form of an Early Day Motion or a Private Member’s Debate, neither of which is likely to lead to anything. In the Lords there is a procedure, known as praying against an Order (Statutory Instrument). This may lead to a debate and even to the SI being voted out (something the Government usually tries to ignore).
To be continued
Live long and prosper
UKIP voters are "intelligent people who care desperately about democracy in Britain". So says Mr Redwood in today’s Sunday Telegraph.
But, it appears, only if they vote Conservative. They "can make a lame protest or join us", he adds, in what passes for a charm offensive aimed at wooing back disillusioned Tories.
"Hartlepool doesn't matter," he said. "By-elections are by-elections. They don't tell you what will happen in a general election. You won't find a single opinion pollster changing his polls on the basis of Hartlepool."
Redwood then tells the Telegraph:
Then, lest anyone forget the party's unprecedented success at the European elections last June, a lone bagpiper led 11 of the UKIP's Euro-MPs - billed as "our boys from Brussels" - up onto the conference stage.
No one there seems to have got the impression that it was UKIP voters that were hurting. They seem to have been listening to the wrong Vulcan.
But, it appears, only if they vote Conservative. They "can make a lame protest or join us", he adds, in what passes for a charm offensive aimed at wooing back disillusioned Tories.
"Hartlepool doesn't matter," he said. "By-elections are by-elections. They don't tell you what will happen in a general election. You won't find a single opinion pollster changing his polls on the basis of Hartlepool."
Redwood then tells the Telegraph:
"UKIP voters are hurting. They have far more Brussels government than they want. But they can either make a lame protest, which will guarantee a federalist government, or they can join us and make a difference. Of course I understand their worry about the advance of Brussels power, and I share their view that the currency is not right for Britain. I share their view that the constitution is not right for Britain. I share their view that we don't want a foreign policy directed by a European foreign affairs minister. I share their view that we don't want a European public prosecutor. I share their view that fishing would be better under British control. We agree about a great deal.Meanwhile, according to the same edition of the Sunday Telegraph, yesterday, from the stage in Bristol's Colston Hall a series of speakers joyfully reheated (sic) the trouncing of the Tories into fourth place in the Hartlepool by-election last week.
"What I don't agree with is their tactics of setting up a single-issue party and saying they want automatic unilateral withdrawal, and that of course is dishonest because they can't get elected and they won't do it and they would have to negotiate anyway," he adds.
Then, lest anyone forget the party's unprecedented success at the European elections last June, a lone bagpiper led 11 of the UKIP's Euro-MPs - billed as "our boys from Brussels" - up onto the conference stage.
No one there seems to have got the impression that it was UKIP voters that were hurting. They seem to have been listening to the wrong Vulcan.
Even the best of them have problems
Anybody who wants to know what is wrong with our mainstream newspapers could not do better than read Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s long piece in yeaterday’s Daily Telegraph, entitled Brussels feels east wind of change. Evans-Pritchard is undoubtedly the best correspondent we have in Brussels, just as he was the best in Washington in the old Clinton days. Yet he, either of his own volition or because his editor told him so, has accepted the temporarily ruling narrative of the day about the EU Commission.
The gist of the article is that the Franco-German plan to harmonize corporation tax has failed “as the young Commission team of José Manuel Barroso swept into Brussels brimming with free-marketeers from Eastern Europe”.
How nice. And what a convenient theme when that all-important referendum campaign starts. We all know the yes side will not fight over the details of the constitution but on general ideas. When the no campaigners will point with fundamental problems with the way the EU is run, they, in turn, will point to the sceptical Daily Telegraph and its equally sceptical Brussels correspondent. Look at that, they will say. Clearly, the Commission is free-trade, enlargement has worked its magic charm, it is all going our way (again!) and why don’t you just vote for the Constitution. These problems can be sorted out. Trust us.
Of course, in two years’ time the new Commission will have demonstrated or not its free-trade credentials and the argument may not work but, in the meantime, the narrative of the new broom, the new Commission, the East European free-marketeers will continue. I am sorry to see Ambrose Evans-Pritchard advancing it. He understands the place and knows better.
First of all, let me point out that this is not news. Every website and every American think-tank has tried to rejoice over the new Commission and the supposedly free-trade East European influence. Why the Telegraph had to take this long is a mystery.
Secondly, the argument about the Franco-German plan for the corporation tax wilts a little with Evans Pritchard pointing out that
Whereas Germany may well decide that if we are talking of economic development, perhaps we should talk a little about not redistributing funds and subsidizing someone else’s economy.
Danuta Hübner of Poland, told the MEPs, as the article points out, that she would fight to keep her country’s right to keep a 19 per cent corporation tax rate. She also told them, as the article prudently does not point out, that she did not think 1 per cent of GDP was a sufficient contribution to the EU budget, as it does not buy many grand EU projects.
That, incidentally, has been the supposedly free-trade Barroso’s cry. He wants more money from the member states in order to redistribute it on all sorts of new pharaonic EU projects. Not precisely what one expects to hear from an avowed free-marketeer. Incidentally, his idea of economic growth is the Lisbon process, which is supposed to define, calibrate and score entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Few people are surprised at the lack of success, given a glaring internal contradiction. You cannot regulate entrepreneurial activity or economic growth into existence.
Of course, Evans-Pritchard is an honest enough journalist to acknowledge that every new Commission arrives promising an economic revolution and each one has failed so far. This one will succeed, he avers almost confidently, until reminded of little things like the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Common Agricultural Policy. (Though one cannot help wondering which particular gremlin put in that bit about Mandelson being a known free-trader. Really? Known by whom?)
All those glowing character reviews of the new Commissioners mean nothing at the moment. The proof remains in the eating and few of them have said anything to inspire one with any real hope that they understand how economic ideas work and what freedom is about. Even Ms Kroes, the great hope of business everywhere, has done little so far but sat on a large number of corporate boards. Experience tells one that large corporations tend to be in cahoots with the regulators to drive all competition out. Then, of course, they find themselves alone with the big bad wolf but it is all too late.
Alas, I have another piece of news for all the new Commission’s drum beaters. Individual Commissioners matter very little. There may be an exception as far as the international trade negotiations go, but Mr Mandelson will be closely watched by various members of the Council of Ministers. As far as legislation goes, most of it is in the pipeline already, though sometimes the pipes are very long. Let me quote from a blog I wrote on August 19:
The majority of the financial service legislation is already being put together as part of a long-term plan to overhaul and consolidate the financial services across the Community. Individual Commissioners are but a blip on that process.
And so on. And so on. As for those rules about how many hours we can work, how long ladders can be, how many taps there are in a care home (supposing there are still care homes left), they are already in place. Do these drum beaters really think they are about to be abolished because the EU is becoming more and more stagnant economically? Do they not know what the EU’s answer is to economic stagnation? That’s right. Let us set up another process, name it after another city, create committees, produce framework plans, structural plans, score boards, then stand well back and watch it all fizzle out; and start again by trying to reactivate the process.
The gist of the article is that the Franco-German plan to harmonize corporation tax has failed “as the young Commission team of José Manuel Barroso swept into Brussels brimming with free-marketeers from Eastern Europe”.
How nice. And what a convenient theme when that all-important referendum campaign starts. We all know the yes side will not fight over the details of the constitution but on general ideas. When the no campaigners will point with fundamental problems with the way the EU is run, they, in turn, will point to the sceptical Daily Telegraph and its equally sceptical Brussels correspondent. Look at that, they will say. Clearly, the Commission is free-trade, enlargement has worked its magic charm, it is all going our way (again!) and why don’t you just vote for the Constitution. These problems can be sorted out. Trust us.
Of course, in two years’ time the new Commission will have demonstrated or not its free-trade credentials and the argument may not work but, in the meantime, the narrative of the new broom, the new Commission, the East European free-marketeers will continue. I am sorry to see Ambrose Evans-Pritchard advancing it. He understands the place and knows better.
First of all, let me point out that this is not news. Every website and every American think-tank has tried to rejoice over the new Commission and the supposedly free-trade East European influence. Why the Telegraph had to take this long is a mystery.
Secondly, the argument about the Franco-German plan for the corporation tax wilts a little with Evans Pritchard pointing out that
“[t] coup de grâce was delivered by a German socialist, Günther Verheugen, reappointed to a second term [how young is that Commission, for goodness’ sake?], this time in charge of industry and enterprise. Defying Berlin, he rubbished proposals for tax harmonization put forward by the French finance minister, Nicolas Sarkozy.”So much for a Franco-German plot. The German bit seems to have gone AWOL. It has been recognized some time ago that corporation tax will not be co-ordinated, at least not this time round and the fight has gone out of that one. There are other taxation battles to be fought and other, roundabout, ways of making sure that there is no “tax dumping”. And, in the end, we do have that final argument about subsidizing the new inmates … woops, sorry …. members. That is something the East Europeans also consider non-negotiable. That free-trade, they are not.
Whereas Germany may well decide that if we are talking of economic development, perhaps we should talk a little about not redistributing funds and subsidizing someone else’s economy.
Danuta Hübner of Poland, told the MEPs, as the article points out, that she would fight to keep her country’s right to keep a 19 per cent corporation tax rate. She also told them, as the article prudently does not point out, that she did not think 1 per cent of GDP was a sufficient contribution to the EU budget, as it does not buy many grand EU projects.
That, incidentally, has been the supposedly free-trade Barroso’s cry. He wants more money from the member states in order to redistribute it on all sorts of new pharaonic EU projects. Not precisely what one expects to hear from an avowed free-marketeer. Incidentally, his idea of economic growth is the Lisbon process, which is supposed to define, calibrate and score entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Few people are surprised at the lack of success, given a glaring internal contradiction. You cannot regulate entrepreneurial activity or economic growth into existence.
Of course, Evans-Pritchard is an honest enough journalist to acknowledge that every new Commission arrives promising an economic revolution and each one has failed so far. This one will succeed, he avers almost confidently, until reminded of little things like the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Common Agricultural Policy. (Though one cannot help wondering which particular gremlin put in that bit about Mandelson being a known free-trader. Really? Known by whom?)
All those glowing character reviews of the new Commissioners mean nothing at the moment. The proof remains in the eating and few of them have said anything to inspire one with any real hope that they understand how economic ideas work and what freedom is about. Even Ms Kroes, the great hope of business everywhere, has done little so far but sat on a large number of corporate boards. Experience tells one that large corporations tend to be in cahoots with the regulators to drive all competition out. Then, of course, they find themselves alone with the big bad wolf but it is all too late.
Alas, I have another piece of news for all the new Commission’s drum beaters. Individual Commissioners matter very little. There may be an exception as far as the international trade negotiations go, but Mr Mandelson will be closely watched by various members of the Council of Ministers. As far as legislation goes, most of it is in the pipeline already, though sometimes the pipes are very long. Let me quote from a blog I wrote on August 19:
“The European Commission has announced its intention to review community legislation on labelling. This is a long term exercise, with date of completion projected for 2010.”This review will result in numerous hefty pieces of legislation that will severely and adversely affect many small and medium sized food businesses across the EU. There is nothing any individual Commissioner can do to stop the progress of the legislation.
The majority of the financial service legislation is already being put together as part of a long-term plan to overhaul and consolidate the financial services across the Community. Individual Commissioners are but a blip on that process.
And so on. And so on. As for those rules about how many hours we can work, how long ladders can be, how many taps there are in a care home (supposing there are still care homes left), they are already in place. Do these drum beaters really think they are about to be abolished because the EU is becoming more and more stagnant economically? Do they not know what the EU’s answer is to economic stagnation? That’s right. Let us set up another process, name it after another city, create committees, produce framework plans, structural plans, score boards, then stand well back and watch it all fizzle out; and start again by trying to reactivate the process.
Booker column
For his lead story this week, Booker revisits the story of the dolphins and porpoises, and the vain attempts of fisheries minister Ben Bradshaw to ban the bass pair trawling that is slaughtering upwards of 5,000 a year of these mammals.
The story has been well rehearsed in this Blog but Booker adds a detail that will have serious repercussions in the future.
"When, as is widely predicted," he writes. "Brussels introduces quotas for bass, based on the historic ‘track record’ of catches, it is France which, thanks to the vast recent hauls of its pair-trawlers, will be able to claim by far the greatest share." That is how the system works.
Booker also picks up on our story about Poland (which now has some rather interesting comments about Canadians) and also our story about the rise in price of sugar in Malta.
That story, readers will recall, was about the row that erupted when it was discovered that, instead of being able to buy sugar at the world price of 200 euros per ton, the islanders must now pay the protectionist EC price of 840 euros a ton.
Booker adds to this, recounting the official response which came from Malta’s EU commissioner Joe Borg. "In a bizarre outburst", Booker writes, "he claimed that the Maltese eat far too much sugar anyway. Mr Farrugia, he said, should read Professor Yudkin’s book Pure, White And Deadly, on the damaging effects of sugar on the human body. He should then advise his fellow citizens (10 percent of whom, according to commissioner Borg, are diabetics) to ‘applaud the government’ for reducing consumption of this dreadful stuff". Such are the benefits of the EU.
The column finishes with a bizarre PC story about the Welsh Development Agency, and another about Neil Herron’s dealings with the Electoral Commission which is so bizarre as to be surreal. For an enjoyable read, click here.
The story has been well rehearsed in this Blog but Booker adds a detail that will have serious repercussions in the future.
"When, as is widely predicted," he writes. "Brussels introduces quotas for bass, based on the historic ‘track record’ of catches, it is France which, thanks to the vast recent hauls of its pair-trawlers, will be able to claim by far the greatest share." That is how the system works.
Booker also picks up on our story about Poland (which now has some rather interesting comments about Canadians) and also our story about the rise in price of sugar in Malta.
That story, readers will recall, was about the row that erupted when it was discovered that, instead of being able to buy sugar at the world price of 200 euros per ton, the islanders must now pay the protectionist EC price of 840 euros a ton.
Booker adds to this, recounting the official response which came from Malta’s EU commissioner Joe Borg. "In a bizarre outburst", Booker writes, "he claimed that the Maltese eat far too much sugar anyway. Mr Farrugia, he said, should read Professor Yudkin’s book Pure, White And Deadly, on the damaging effects of sugar on the human body. He should then advise his fellow citizens (10 percent of whom, according to commissioner Borg, are diabetics) to ‘applaud the government’ for reducing consumption of this dreadful stuff". Such are the benefits of the EU.
The column finishes with a bizarre PC story about the Welsh Development Agency, and another about Neil Herron’s dealings with the Electoral Commission which is so bizarre as to be surreal. For an enjoyable read, click here.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
From the sublime… to the fly-tipping
It did not take long. With the Landfill Directive coming into force on 16 July – closing down nearly 190 of the 200 toxic waste tips in the country - it was only going to be a matter of time before fly-tipping hit the headlines.
That much was wearily predicted in this Blog and so it has come to pass. The front page of the Bradford Telegraph and Argus today (which boasts a higher readership in its catchment area than all the national dailies combined) proclaims: "New war on fly-tippers".
So serious has the problem become that "spy tactics are to be used in a tough new crackdown on criminals dumping scrap and dangerous waste in Bradford". Hidden cameras and secret tracking devices are to be used, while Amjad Ishaq, head of Bradford Council's ten-strong enforcement team, said the new measures were needed to catch professional fly-tippers dumping junk at some of the city's worst hot spots.
Unsurprisingly, this is just one tiny snapshot of a growing national problem with the Environment Agency confirming that large-scale tipping by gangs was on the rise across the UK. It has grown to such an extent that, according to the Agency, "people are moving out of drugs and into waste because it's profitable and people do not tend to end up in prison."
Of course, no local report would be complete without a comment from a brain-dead councillor, and one is dutifully supplied. He welcomes the spy-cameras move. "Enforcement of this nature will help alleviate and help reduce the amount of rubbish being fly-tipped in Bradford," he says. He would have common cause with Tim Yeo, Tory environment spokesman, who wants to make fly-tipping an arrestable offence.
Why can't these people get their brains round the idea that the law has created to problem, so they need to return to basic principles, and deal with the cause of the prolem, instead of stacking up more public expenditure on dealing with the symptoms of the problem?
And it is not just public expenditure. Chillingly, the newspaper also reports on the most serious recent case, when 50 tons of "deadly asbestos waste" were illegally dumped in the loading bay at Dunn Stores, in northern Bradford. "Unfortunately it was on private land so the owner had to pay to get it cleared in that instance," said Mr Ishaq. That is the devil of it. If someone tips on your land, as opposed to public land, you - the entirely innocent landowner - have to pay for its removal.
Needless to say, the Telegraph and Argus, in the style of local newspapers, does not enquire too deeply as to the root cause of the problem, but it does cite Amjad Ishaq admitting that the problem in Bradford was getting worse because of the rising cost of waste disposal. He says: "I think it is getting worse because the cost of tipping has increased, so for some businesses it is easier to fly-tip."
But nowhere is there any mention of the EU and its insanely inappropriate Landfill Directive. There is no mention of the fact that the problem hardly arose before the EU got stuck in and no criticism of the law. That is how the EU manages to get away with it, and keep claiming that it is "good for the environment".
But at least we know different.
That much was wearily predicted in this Blog and so it has come to pass. The front page of the Bradford Telegraph and Argus today (which boasts a higher readership in its catchment area than all the national dailies combined) proclaims: "New war on fly-tippers".
So serious has the problem become that "spy tactics are to be used in a tough new crackdown on criminals dumping scrap and dangerous waste in Bradford". Hidden cameras and secret tracking devices are to be used, while Amjad Ishaq, head of Bradford Council's ten-strong enforcement team, said the new measures were needed to catch professional fly-tippers dumping junk at some of the city's worst hot spots.
Unsurprisingly, this is just one tiny snapshot of a growing national problem with the Environment Agency confirming that large-scale tipping by gangs was on the rise across the UK. It has grown to such an extent that, according to the Agency, "people are moving out of drugs and into waste because it's profitable and people do not tend to end up in prison."
Of course, no local report would be complete without a comment from a brain-dead councillor, and one is dutifully supplied. He welcomes the spy-cameras move. "Enforcement of this nature will help alleviate and help reduce the amount of rubbish being fly-tipped in Bradford," he says. He would have common cause with Tim Yeo, Tory environment spokesman, who wants to make fly-tipping an arrestable offence.
Why can't these people get their brains round the idea that the law has created to problem, so they need to return to basic principles, and deal with the cause of the prolem, instead of stacking up more public expenditure on dealing with the symptoms of the problem?
And it is not just public expenditure. Chillingly, the newspaper also reports on the most serious recent case, when 50 tons of "deadly asbestos waste" were illegally dumped in the loading bay at Dunn Stores, in northern Bradford. "Unfortunately it was on private land so the owner had to pay to get it cleared in that instance," said Mr Ishaq. That is the devil of it. If someone tips on your land, as opposed to public land, you - the entirely innocent landowner - have to pay for its removal.
Needless to say, the Telegraph and Argus, in the style of local newspapers, does not enquire too deeply as to the root cause of the problem, but it does cite Amjad Ishaq admitting that the problem in Bradford was getting worse because of the rising cost of waste disposal. He says: "I think it is getting worse because the cost of tipping has increased, so for some businesses it is easier to fly-tip."
But nowhere is there any mention of the EU and its insanely inappropriate Landfill Directive. There is no mention of the fact that the problem hardly arose before the EU got stuck in and no criticism of the law. That is how the EU manages to get away with it, and keep claiming that it is "good for the environment".
But at least we know different.
No deals!
Very much confirming my thesis argued in the previous Blog – that UKIP is primarily an anti-Tory party, today its conference heavily defeated a motion put forward by the leadership that would allow electoral deals to be made to keep Eurosceptic Tory MPs in place. The motion, put by Nigel Farage and Mike Nattrass, was:
Speaking ahead of the debate, Kilroy-Silk had told the conference:
Before the arrival of Kilroy-Silk, Farage was always the darling of the conference and his defeat signals a change in the power structure in the party, especially as the principle opposer, Gerald Batten, is from the London region, centre of the opposition to Farage's grip on the party.
Kilroy’s speech was, therefore, his opening shot in a bid for the leadership of the party and, behind the scenes, a vicious power battle is being played out. But, when Farage may have been defeated in the open on his motion, he and the leadership group, known to insiders as "the cabal", have plenty of shots in the locker. Kilroy’s accession is by no means assured.
This conference resolves to fight the General Election in every Constituency in the United Kingdom, but should reserve the right, subject only to the approval of the Constituency Association in question, to reach on accommodation with the sitting member of Parliament of another party on receipt of an irrevocable undertaking that he/she will oppose further EU Integration and will support Britain's withdrawal from the European Union.Against were Gerard Batten and Laurie Boxhall.
Speaking ahead of the debate, Kilroy-Silk had told the conference:
You will be besmirched, tainted by any association with them (the Conservatives), what can they give us? You have just established yourselves as being new, fresh, honest, open and decent. Why do you want to start wheeler-dealing like they do, that is what they despise?The defeat of the motion represents a heavy defeat for the current UKIP leadership. But it also represents a personal defeat for Nigel Farage, whose brainchild this motion was.
Before the arrival of Kilroy-Silk, Farage was always the darling of the conference and his defeat signals a change in the power structure in the party, especially as the principle opposer, Gerald Batten, is from the London region, centre of the opposition to Farage's grip on the party.
Kilroy’s speech was, therefore, his opening shot in a bid for the leadership of the party and, behind the scenes, a vicious power battle is being played out. But, when Farage may have been defeated in the open on his motion, he and the leadership group, known to insiders as "the cabal", have plenty of shots in the locker. Kilroy’s accession is by no means assured.
They still don’t get it - II
In the wake of UKIP’s Euro-election triumph, I wrote a long analytical piece on the relationship between that party and the Conservatives, entitled "They still don’t get it".
My theme then was that UKIP was not so much anti-EU as anti-Conservative, the relationship being much the same as exists – even to this day - between the Yorkshire miners and Thatcher on the one hand, and Nottinghamshire miners on the other. While the Yorkshire miners hate Thatcher, they reserve their real detestation for their brother miners in Nottingham, as the "scabs" who broke the strike.
Thus, it was highly significant to hear the one pm BBC Radio 4 news which reported UKIP leaders at their conference today savaged all the main parties but "most venom was reserved for the Conservative Party". And, in response to suggestions that there should be an electoral deal with the Tories – where seats held by Conservative MPs should not be contested - Robert Kilroy-Silk launched into a tirade, proclaiming that "the Conservative Party is dying… why would you want to give to the kiss of life… what we want to do is kill it… and UKIP must replace it".
In this, Kilroy expresses the soul of UKIP. The Tories are the class traitors – the political equivalent of the Nottinghamshire miners – and it will not rest until it has seen their destruction.
That much I had occasion to discuss at my seminar yesterday, when I delivered my paper arguing that the EU was inherently corrupt, built on a tissue of lies. The only real opposition to this thesis came from a senior academic, a political scientist and advisor to the Conservative Party. His view was, if we continually attack the EU and the Conservative stance on "Europe", all we will do is ensure that the Conservatives never get re-elected. For the sake of the party and the survival of the centre-right movement in Britain, we must tone down our attacks, his preferred option being that we should push for a "reform" agenda in the EU.
In response to this, one can only observe, once again, that, "They still don’t get it". As long as both main parties are committed to handing more and more powers over to the EU, and the bulk of UK law is made in Brussels, it does not make one whit of difference which party is elected. The power has drained away to Brussels and the UKIPites would rather rob the Conservatives of the trappings of power than see them enjoy the fruits of their treachery – even if it means Labour remaining in power.
In that context, the Howard interview published in today’s Daily Telegraph does little more than demonstrate how little Howard understands the forces ranged against him.
Dragged kicking and screaming into a more Eurosceptic position in the wake of the Hartlepool disaster, he is now offering an early referendum on the constitution – in the autumn of 2005, during the UK presidency of the EU - and a commitment to bringing powers back from Brussels, although only in terms of seeking to reinstate Britain's opt-out from the social chapter; renegotiating the Common Fisheries Policy; and taking back control over international aid.
But, as always, he falls at the first fence. Asked what would happen if other EU members said "no", says the Telegraph, "Mr Howard refused to be drawn". "I don't go into negotiations expecting to fail," he said.
That, of course, is not enough – not anything like enough. Bringing forward the constitutional referendum is only window dressing and the renegotiation agenda is too limited. Furthermore, without a commitment to withdraw from the EU if the renegotiations fail, Howard is nowhere. This is not going to attract the UKIP vote, despite Howard’s fond hopes expressed in the front page story of the Telegraph.
So, as triumphal UKIPites gather today for their conference today in Bristol, perhaps it is Nicholas Soames, the Conservative defence spokesman, who has the measure of the moment. Responding to Hartlepool, he said: "It's a f****** awful result". However, he then added: "It's a disastrous result but it's only a by-election." Yes Mr Soames. And the Euro-elections were only Euro-elections. What are you going to say after the general election?
I suspect I am going to be saying, "They still don’t get it".
My theme then was that UKIP was not so much anti-EU as anti-Conservative, the relationship being much the same as exists – even to this day - between the Yorkshire miners and Thatcher on the one hand, and Nottinghamshire miners on the other. While the Yorkshire miners hate Thatcher, they reserve their real detestation for their brother miners in Nottingham, as the "scabs" who broke the strike.
Thus, it was highly significant to hear the one pm BBC Radio 4 news which reported UKIP leaders at their conference today savaged all the main parties but "most venom was reserved for the Conservative Party". And, in response to suggestions that there should be an electoral deal with the Tories – where seats held by Conservative MPs should not be contested - Robert Kilroy-Silk launched into a tirade, proclaiming that "the Conservative Party is dying… why would you want to give to the kiss of life… what we want to do is kill it… and UKIP must replace it".
In this, Kilroy expresses the soul of UKIP. The Tories are the class traitors – the political equivalent of the Nottinghamshire miners – and it will not rest until it has seen their destruction.
That much I had occasion to discuss at my seminar yesterday, when I delivered my paper arguing that the EU was inherently corrupt, built on a tissue of lies. The only real opposition to this thesis came from a senior academic, a political scientist and advisor to the Conservative Party. His view was, if we continually attack the EU and the Conservative stance on "Europe", all we will do is ensure that the Conservatives never get re-elected. For the sake of the party and the survival of the centre-right movement in Britain, we must tone down our attacks, his preferred option being that we should push for a "reform" agenda in the EU.
In response to this, one can only observe, once again, that, "They still don’t get it". As long as both main parties are committed to handing more and more powers over to the EU, and the bulk of UK law is made in Brussels, it does not make one whit of difference which party is elected. The power has drained away to Brussels and the UKIPites would rather rob the Conservatives of the trappings of power than see them enjoy the fruits of their treachery – even if it means Labour remaining in power.
In that context, the Howard interview published in today’s Daily Telegraph does little more than demonstrate how little Howard understands the forces ranged against him.
Dragged kicking and screaming into a more Eurosceptic position in the wake of the Hartlepool disaster, he is now offering an early referendum on the constitution – in the autumn of 2005, during the UK presidency of the EU - and a commitment to bringing powers back from Brussels, although only in terms of seeking to reinstate Britain's opt-out from the social chapter; renegotiating the Common Fisheries Policy; and taking back control over international aid.
But, as always, he falls at the first fence. Asked what would happen if other EU members said "no", says the Telegraph, "Mr Howard refused to be drawn". "I don't go into negotiations expecting to fail," he said.
That, of course, is not enough – not anything like enough. Bringing forward the constitutional referendum is only window dressing and the renegotiation agenda is too limited. Furthermore, without a commitment to withdraw from the EU if the renegotiations fail, Howard is nowhere. This is not going to attract the UKIP vote, despite Howard’s fond hopes expressed in the front page story of the Telegraph.
So, as triumphal UKIPites gather today for their conference today in Bristol, perhaps it is Nicholas Soames, the Conservative defence spokesman, who has the measure of the moment. Responding to Hartlepool, he said: "It's a f****** awful result". However, he then added: "It's a disastrous result but it's only a by-election." Yes Mr Soames. And the Euro-elections were only Euro-elections. What are you going to say after the general election?
I suspect I am going to be saying, "They still don’t get it".
Fifty thousand and rising
Well, we managed it. In just over five months this blog had 50,000 hits and the number is rising by leaps and bounds. Many of those are returns and many are unique hits. They come from Britain, from Continental Europe, from the United States, Australia and the Far East. (Two more as I wrote those sentences.)
Of course, you might say, this does not even begin to compete with the figures that established institutions like the Adam Smith Institute or the Heritage Foundation can show. Well, no. But we are not an established institution and we do not have staff. There are two of us, with the occasional outside contribution; we are not funded to do the blog and we do have to do day jobs and get involved in other activities. So we are quietly pleased and confident that our work will make a difference to the political discussion in this country. (Another three as I was writing that paragraph.)
We are grateful to those who comment on our blogs, positively or critically; who take the trouble to become involved in debates and discussions; who carry our blogs to other websites and blogs. Please keep doing so, because, make no mistake, we are not going to stop. (And another two, during the writing of that paragraph.)
This seems a good moment to have another reflection on the rising importance of blogs in political life and on the folly of not recognizing this.
As ever, the process has moved faster and further in the United States. We and others have commented on the role of the blogs in the humbling of the mighty and left-leaning networks, specifically CBS, and in the derailing of John Kerry’s somewhat peculiar political campaign. Our readers will, no doubt, remember that Kerry tried to campaign entirely on his achievements in Vietnam, which is an odd thing to do, as that war was thirty years ago and most people wanted to hear his opinions on the war that is going on now. Even more peculiarly, as it turns out, his memories of those three months in South-East Asia are at variance with everyone else’s, though the other non-Kerry supporting vets were not going to be given much time by the networks. So, they took to the blogs. If John Kerry does not get the presidency he has been working towards since he was about sixteen, he can thank, in part, the Swift Boat Vets (and his own arrogance, but that is another story).
With the blogs and the radio shows political discourse has changed in the United States. Depending on which side you are, it has become more balanced in that it is not run entirely by the “liberal” networks and press or has become more extremist and right-wing in that it is no longer run entirely by the “liberal” networks and press. Of course, there are left-wing blogs as well, just as there are left-wing radio shows. But the likelihood is that there are more right-wing ones for a very simple reason: they are a reaction to the established media.
This is even more true in Britain where we not only have an established media but a monopoly public broadcasting company, the BBC. We also have a far greater control of academic, artistic and intellectual life through various grants by either the state or the establishment. We do not have unlimited radio programmes or chat shows and a good deal of our radio is part of that vast carapace, the BBC. So the websites and, latterly, the blogs are the way we try to balance the discourse.
This is not yet clearly understood here. Unlike the two Conventions in the US, the party conferences have not invited any bloggers to be accredited journalists. The main stream media is still floundering in trying to understand what is going on and has reacted the way it always does to something hard and incomprehensible – ignoring or ridiculing it.
There is a widespread view that blogs are … sniff … just personal diaries on the web. Some are, of course, and these are the ones mentioned by the newspapers, who, having filled their own columns with personal reflections of “what my budgie said to me on the way to the supermarket or garden centre”, feel happiest in thinking that blogging is no different. Oh boy, are they in for a shock!
The Wall Street Journal Europe pointed out recently that it is the blogs that are producing the alternative view of what is going on in Iraq. While the main stream media, the networks and the “liberal” newspapers have concentrated almost entirely on the explosions, uprisings and rebellions, blogs and websites have explained that 15 out of 18 provinces are peacefully rebuilding their lives and that in a number of places local elections have been taking place in the full view of … anyone who cared to have a look. (That, clearly, does not include the NGOs who have no desire to get out of Baghdad or Basra, just in case someone doubts their neutrality.)
Then the article adds:
This is not the first time the web has come into its own as an alternative to established sources of information. During the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic the lone but ever stronger voice of warmwell.com provided a welcome antidote to the mindless and badly argued propaganda for endless slaughter of healthy animals and destruction of people’s livelihoods from MAFF/DEFRA and other organizations around that ministry. Warmwell, run by one astonishing person, Mary Critchley, has become an indispensable part of the debate about animal health and welfare and the treatment of epidemics as well as the behaviour of various officials. That the debate is so wide is largely thanks to Mary’s indefatigable efforts. These days, few people would think of writing or saying anything on the subject without informing warmwell about it.
Since then technology has moved on and the blogs have been taking over, widening the political debate, yanking the established organizations into the twenty-first century. There are, of course, europhile blogs around (I think) but many of them are eurosceptic, liberal in the true sense of the word or libertarian for the same reason that most bloggers are right-wing in America. We are bypassing the control of a particular mindset that has been established over our media.
Well, on to the next fifty thousand. Please, keep reading us, commenting, arguing and telling others.
Of course, you might say, this does not even begin to compete with the figures that established institutions like the Adam Smith Institute or the Heritage Foundation can show. Well, no. But we are not an established institution and we do not have staff. There are two of us, with the occasional outside contribution; we are not funded to do the blog and we do have to do day jobs and get involved in other activities. So we are quietly pleased and confident that our work will make a difference to the political discussion in this country. (Another three as I was writing that paragraph.)
We are grateful to those who comment on our blogs, positively or critically; who take the trouble to become involved in debates and discussions; who carry our blogs to other websites and blogs. Please keep doing so, because, make no mistake, we are not going to stop. (And another two, during the writing of that paragraph.)
This seems a good moment to have another reflection on the rising importance of blogs in political life and on the folly of not recognizing this.
As ever, the process has moved faster and further in the United States. We and others have commented on the role of the blogs in the humbling of the mighty and left-leaning networks, specifically CBS, and in the derailing of John Kerry’s somewhat peculiar political campaign. Our readers will, no doubt, remember that Kerry tried to campaign entirely on his achievements in Vietnam, which is an odd thing to do, as that war was thirty years ago and most people wanted to hear his opinions on the war that is going on now. Even more peculiarly, as it turns out, his memories of those three months in South-East Asia are at variance with everyone else’s, though the other non-Kerry supporting vets were not going to be given much time by the networks. So, they took to the blogs. If John Kerry does not get the presidency he has been working towards since he was about sixteen, he can thank, in part, the Swift Boat Vets (and his own arrogance, but that is another story).
With the blogs and the radio shows political discourse has changed in the United States. Depending on which side you are, it has become more balanced in that it is not run entirely by the “liberal” networks and press or has become more extremist and right-wing in that it is no longer run entirely by the “liberal” networks and press. Of course, there are left-wing blogs as well, just as there are left-wing radio shows. But the likelihood is that there are more right-wing ones for a very simple reason: they are a reaction to the established media.
This is even more true in Britain where we not only have an established media but a monopoly public broadcasting company, the BBC. We also have a far greater control of academic, artistic and intellectual life through various grants by either the state or the establishment. We do not have unlimited radio programmes or chat shows and a good deal of our radio is part of that vast carapace, the BBC. So the websites and, latterly, the blogs are the way we try to balance the discourse.
This is not yet clearly understood here. Unlike the two Conventions in the US, the party conferences have not invited any bloggers to be accredited journalists. The main stream media is still floundering in trying to understand what is going on and has reacted the way it always does to something hard and incomprehensible – ignoring or ridiculing it.
There is a widespread view that blogs are … sniff … just personal diaries on the web. Some are, of course, and these are the ones mentioned by the newspapers, who, having filled their own columns with personal reflections of “what my budgie said to me on the way to the supermarket or garden centre”, feel happiest in thinking that blogging is no different. Oh boy, are they in for a shock!
The Wall Street Journal Europe pointed out recently that it is the blogs that are producing the alternative view of what is going on in Iraq. While the main stream media, the networks and the “liberal” newspapers have concentrated almost entirely on the explosions, uprisings and rebellions, blogs and websites have explained that 15 out of 18 provinces are peacefully rebuilding their lives and that in a number of places local elections have been taking place in the full view of … anyone who cared to have a look. (That, clearly, does not include the NGOs who have no desire to get out of Baghdad or Basra, just in case someone doubts their neutrality.)
Then the article adds:
“Iraq already has good bloggers offering alternative content. They include: Iraqthemodel.com; Healingiraq.com; Hammorabi.com; and Messopotamian.blogspot.com. Ahman al-Rikaby founded and runs Radio Dijla, the first all-talk call-in radio show in Iraq (mirroring radio’s emergence as a political force in the U.S.)”The alternative Iraqi story is important here, too. But it becomes part of a larger narrative, in which the blogs play a huge part. The mainstream media in Britain is terminally frivolous and when it tries to make serious comments it is anti-American either on the left or on the right. It is also terminally convinced of the essential goodness of international organizations. For that reason it has not covered in any depth the food-for-oil scandal. That would not fit into the accepted narrative with its evidence of corruption at the heart of the UN. It is left to the blogs to correct both the mindless anti-Americanism and the equally mindless pro-United Nationism. (Blimey. Ten more hits as I was writing this piece.)
This is not the first time the web has come into its own as an alternative to established sources of information. During the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic the lone but ever stronger voice of warmwell.com provided a welcome antidote to the mindless and badly argued propaganda for endless slaughter of healthy animals and destruction of people’s livelihoods from MAFF/DEFRA and other organizations around that ministry. Warmwell, run by one astonishing person, Mary Critchley, has become an indispensable part of the debate about animal health and welfare and the treatment of epidemics as well as the behaviour of various officials. That the debate is so wide is largely thanks to Mary’s indefatigable efforts. These days, few people would think of writing or saying anything on the subject without informing warmwell about it.
Since then technology has moved on and the blogs have been taking over, widening the political debate, yanking the established organizations into the twenty-first century. There are, of course, europhile blogs around (I think) but many of them are eurosceptic, liberal in the true sense of the word or libertarian for the same reason that most bloggers are right-wing in America. We are bypassing the control of a particular mindset that has been established over our media.
Well, on to the next fifty thousand. Please, keep reading us, commenting, arguing and telling others.
What are we going to do about the Tories?
So, Labour kept the seat and the Tories came fourth (and didn't multiply), after UKIP. But while the drama was being played out in Hartlepool, I was ensconced in a hotel in the South East, attending a private seminar on political corruption – and therefore out of Blogging range. My thanks to my colleague for keeping the Blog going.
That leaves the political question of what next. The broadcast media haw had it go and later today we will see what the broadsheets have to say. But my more or less immediate response is that we are now in uncharted territory.
Traditionally, by-elections are natural events for voters to register a protest and than certainly happened. With the Lib-Dims scoring 10,719 votes to Labour’s 12,752, there were protests aplenty.
But what, I believe, made Hartlepool different was that there was not one protest vote but two. Largely, the Lib-Dim vote was a protest against the government, but the other protest vote was against the official opposition – and that went to UKIP. Thus, I do not think that people were voting for UKIP, as such, but against the Tories.
Politically, this is probably unique, and I suspect it is a direct reaction to Howard’s response to the Euro-elections, when he made the rather incautious statement that the then UKIP voters would come back to the fold for the next elections. I remember at the time hearing some UKIP voters saying to the effect, that, "we’ve kicked him once, and if he isn’t going to take any notice of us, we’ll have to do it again". The voters of Hartlepool – or some of them – have indeed kicked him again.
All the indications are that this could happen again in the general election, which puts Howard and his party in a dire position. It is becoming very clear that, until he commits to withdrawal from the EU – even if it is as a precursor to renegotiation – he is not going to recover the Eurosceptic vote.
But, so the perceived wisdom goes, if he makes the concession to the Eurosceptics, he will loose the centre, and go down for a different reason. Altogether it looks like a lose-lose situation – the Toriers are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
That leaves the political question of what next. The broadcast media haw had it go and later today we will see what the broadsheets have to say. But my more or less immediate response is that we are now in uncharted territory.
Traditionally, by-elections are natural events for voters to register a protest and than certainly happened. With the Lib-Dims scoring 10,719 votes to Labour’s 12,752, there were protests aplenty.
But what, I believe, made Hartlepool different was that there was not one protest vote but two. Largely, the Lib-Dim vote was a protest against the government, but the other protest vote was against the official opposition – and that went to UKIP. Thus, I do not think that people were voting for UKIP, as such, but against the Tories.
Politically, this is probably unique, and I suspect it is a direct reaction to Howard’s response to the Euro-elections, when he made the rather incautious statement that the then UKIP voters would come back to the fold for the next elections. I remember at the time hearing some UKIP voters saying to the effect, that, "we’ve kicked him once, and if he isn’t going to take any notice of us, we’ll have to do it again". The voters of Hartlepool – or some of them – have indeed kicked him again.
All the indications are that this could happen again in the general election, which puts Howard and his party in a dire position. It is becoming very clear that, until he commits to withdrawal from the EU – even if it is as a precursor to renegotiation – he is not going to recover the Eurosceptic vote.
But, so the perceived wisdom goes, if he makes the concession to the Eurosceptics, he will loose the centre, and go down for a different reason. Altogether it looks like a lose-lose situation – the Toriers are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Asylum camps in North Africa are to go ahead ... probably
Now that the European Commission, as opposed to member states has proposed it, the idea has been accepted at The Hague: there will be five asylum camps in Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Algeria and Mauritania, all countries with dubious records in human rights, but let that pass.
The “pilot projects” will be funded by the Commission and the Dutch Presidency, which implies that they will start before the end of the year. The UN High Commission for Refugees, having expressed some disquiet at the idea, will, after all, participate. The present High Commissioner happens to be Ruud Lubbers, a former Dutch Foreign Minister.
The UK suggestion that refugees from other parts of the EU should be repatriated to their countries of origin has been dropped. These camps are for those who have not yet made their way across the various borders, barriers and past the Italian gunships.
Some problems remain. Libya, to name the most obvious one, has not signed the International Convention on Refugees, so it is not clear how Colonel Gaddafi, even in his newly acquired good-guy mode will interpret what to do about asylum seekers.
While the funding has been agreed on, the policing and administering have not. Nor is it clear whose jurisdiction will apply to the camps or how and by whom will the asylum processing procedures be carried out.
Other problems that have not been discussed at all are to do with the refugees’ willingness to go into these dubious camps and past experience of inefficiently administered UN ones in places like Rwanda
The “pilot projects” will be funded by the Commission and the Dutch Presidency, which implies that they will start before the end of the year. The UN High Commission for Refugees, having expressed some disquiet at the idea, will, after all, participate. The present High Commissioner happens to be Ruud Lubbers, a former Dutch Foreign Minister.
The UK suggestion that refugees from other parts of the EU should be repatriated to their countries of origin has been dropped. These camps are for those who have not yet made their way across the various borders, barriers and past the Italian gunships.
Some problems remain. Libya, to name the most obvious one, has not signed the International Convention on Refugees, so it is not clear how Colonel Gaddafi, even in his newly acquired good-guy mode will interpret what to do about asylum seekers.
While the funding has been agreed on, the policing and administering have not. Nor is it clear whose jurisdiction will apply to the camps or how and by whom will the asylum processing procedures be carried out.
Other problems that have not been discussed at all are to do with the refugees’ willingness to go into these dubious camps and past experience of inefficiently administered UN ones in places like Rwanda
London House missed this one
When questioned by the leader of the UKIP group in the London Assembly a couple of weeks ago about the £600,000 plus a year London House in Brussels, its director pompously explained that its existence was necessary not just to pay her a handsome salary but also to lobby for the interests of Londoners. Why cannot London’s elected MEPs do that? Ah well, she said condescendingly, in Brussels decision are affected through a network of organizations and meetings. Pork barrel politics, in other words.
However, when challenged to produce a single example of successful lobbying by London House, she could mention the rather nebulous business of taxi drivers not having to comply with the Working Hours Directive. As they are self-employed, they probably would not have had to comply anyway, but just in case, credit for this amazing achievement is claimed by London House, the Transport Department, the Licensed Cabdrivers’ Association, old uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
One of the partners in London House is Transport for London, who, presumably, uses some of the funds acquired from the congestions charge for a few jollies in Brussels, as its ability to find out what is going to go wrong and stop it seems strictly limited.
For some time TfL and the Mayor of London have had a plan to calibrate charges for heavy goods vehicles over the Thames Gateway Bridge. Vehicles from neighbouring boroughs will pay less than those from far away. Now we find that they are not allowed to do so. The EU says that there can be no differentiation between the various HGVs as this would go against the rules of the single market.
One can argue whichever way one likes over the question of local against long-distance traffic. But one thing is clear. Neither London House nor TfL, which maintains an expensive presence there, managed to spot that one coming or to lobby against it. I am sure there will be nice Christmas parties, though.
However, when challenged to produce a single example of successful lobbying by London House, she could mention the rather nebulous business of taxi drivers not having to comply with the Working Hours Directive. As they are self-employed, they probably would not have had to comply anyway, but just in case, credit for this amazing achievement is claimed by London House, the Transport Department, the Licensed Cabdrivers’ Association, old uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
One of the partners in London House is Transport for London, who, presumably, uses some of the funds acquired from the congestions charge for a few jollies in Brussels, as its ability to find out what is going to go wrong and stop it seems strictly limited.
For some time TfL and the Mayor of London have had a plan to calibrate charges for heavy goods vehicles over the Thames Gateway Bridge. Vehicles from neighbouring boroughs will pay less than those from far away. Now we find that they are not allowed to do so. The EU says that there can be no differentiation between the various HGVs as this would go against the rules of the single market.
One can argue whichever way one likes over the question of local against long-distance traffic. But one thing is clear. Neither London House nor TfL, which maintains an expensive presence there, managed to spot that one coming or to lobby against it. I am sure there will be nice Christmas parties, though.
Oops, her again
I had hoped not to have to write about Nickel Neelie Kroes for a little while but it seems that the (former) Board Lady is in trouble again. My goodness, they have not even become Commissioners properly. What will it be like in the next five years?
Ms Kroes was attacked during the hearing by her compatriot Paul van Buitenen, the erstwhile whistleblower who had helped to bring the Santer Commission to the resignation point and now an MEP. He accused her of accepting money and putting it into a slush fund. She rejected the accusations and he could not produce any direct proof. Still, he is not going to leave the subject alone. Luckily the three main groupings said that they were satisfied with Ms Kroes’s performance.
They were not, as we have already reported, quite so satisfied with the Greek Stavros Dimas who is taking on the Environment portfolio. There were a few problems with some of the other new Commissioners. Danuta Hübner, for instance, has insisted that the EU’s cohesion will suffer if the budget will be capped at 1 per cent. There was always going to be a problem if the Commissioner for Regional Policy was going to be from one of the new member states. They are unlikely to be satisfied with the meagre pickings they have been allowed so far.
Vladimir Spidla said that he thought that the EC Gender Institute – what an extraordinary concept that is – should be located in one of the new states, though it is not clear why or, indeed, why there should be such an institution. But he refused to answer any questions on the treatment of women in Turkey, possibly because Turkey is not yet a member nor likely to be for a while.
Other questioning sessions seem to have gone as expected. No big surprises, not little ones either.
Meanwhile, the incoming Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel has also been having financial difficulties. It transpires that her replies had been incomplete when she submitted a list of her financial interests to the Danish Parliament. Just as she seems to have forgotten that her husband owns a large farm and is the beneficiary of CAP funds, so it seems to have slipped her mind that she held shares in banking and sugar businesses. Apparently, she has now sold her sugar shares to avoid any conflict of interests, and in any case, the Danish Parliament cannot sanction people for not replying fully to a voluntary questionaire, especially not after they had gone to become EU Commissioners. As the bard said it: “It was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.”
Ms Kroes was attacked during the hearing by her compatriot Paul van Buitenen, the erstwhile whistleblower who had helped to bring the Santer Commission to the resignation point and now an MEP. He accused her of accepting money and putting it into a slush fund. She rejected the accusations and he could not produce any direct proof. Still, he is not going to leave the subject alone. Luckily the three main groupings said that they were satisfied with Ms Kroes’s performance.
They were not, as we have already reported, quite so satisfied with the Greek Stavros Dimas who is taking on the Environment portfolio. There were a few problems with some of the other new Commissioners. Danuta Hübner, for instance, has insisted that the EU’s cohesion will suffer if the budget will be capped at 1 per cent. There was always going to be a problem if the Commissioner for Regional Policy was going to be from one of the new member states. They are unlikely to be satisfied with the meagre pickings they have been allowed so far.
Vladimir Spidla said that he thought that the EC Gender Institute – what an extraordinary concept that is – should be located in one of the new states, though it is not clear why or, indeed, why there should be such an institution. But he refused to answer any questions on the treatment of women in Turkey, possibly because Turkey is not yet a member nor likely to be for a while.
Other questioning sessions seem to have gone as expected. No big surprises, not little ones either.
Meanwhile, the incoming Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel has also been having financial difficulties. It transpires that her replies had been incomplete when she submitted a list of her financial interests to the Danish Parliament. Just as she seems to have forgotten that her husband owns a large farm and is the beneficiary of CAP funds, so it seems to have slipped her mind that she held shares in banking and sugar businesses. Apparently, she has now sold her sugar shares to avoid any conflict of interests, and in any case, the Danish Parliament cannot sanction people for not replying fully to a voluntary questionaire, especially not after they had gone to become EU Commissioners. As the bard said it: “It was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)