The Daily Mail today offers a useful reflection of the past week’s events in the European Union.
In an editorial headed: "Still the rotten heart of Europe", it notes that: "We have just witnessed an almost surreal week in EU politics". "Where else", it asks, "but at the rotten heart of Europe could thieves prosper and honesty be punished, while MEPs ignore corruption and rage instead over a Commissioner who dares express his Christian beliefs".
The Mail, of course, is making the contrast between the sacking of Marta Andreasen and the European parliament objections to Rocco Buttiglione after his remarks on homosexuality, observing – as indeed have we in the Blog – that "nothing changes – nothing improves… the EU once again covers itself in disgrace.
I might have added to rider to this, by referring to its own page seven, where it reports on the latest adventures of Godfrey Bloom, who is accused of getting "hammered" (i.e., blind drunk – now there’s something unusual) in a restaurant and then attempting to grope a party of female rugby players whom he had invited to Brussels on the pretext of showing them round the parliament.
One cannot help but note the contrast with our previous Blog. While a Conservative MP, Owen Paterson, spends the night on a trawler to research the malign effect of the CFP, UKIP MEP Bloom spends the night in a fashionable – and expensive – restaurant, getting blind drunk and groping girls at the taxpayers’ expense, then to sleep it off in a four-star hotel.
We have recently been wondering what UKIP is doing – apart from having arguments about who is to be leader - not least after its silence when the government made a German firm preferential bidder for the supply of British Army trucks but at least we know what one MEP was doing.
Bloom is now attracting considerable hostility from the activists in his own region, Yorkshire and Humberside. Despite his willingness, according to the Mail, to shell out on £1500-worth of beer, champagne, steak and oysters in order to entertain the girls, he has been notoriously reluctant to spend even a bent ha’penny on helping his election team set up a regional office and a decent administrative infrastructure.
It now seems that UKIP has got something in common with "Brussels" – a rotten heart.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
"We are slaughtering fish…"
It was about 5.30 in the morning, perhaps ten miles off Barrow-in-Furness in the eastern part of the Irish Sea, still dark, when the haul broke the surface. In the glare of the floodlights on the stern of our vessel, the Fleetwood trawler Kiroan, the first net was hooked onto the power block – a huge hydraulic lifting arm – and skipper Philip Dell expertly pulled the bulging cod end from the water and swung it over the fish room hatch.
Philip held the bag there, suspended, so we could see thousands of tiny fish packed into the bag. Most of what we could see was small plaice, with scores of them protruding though the narrow mesh, gasping and flapping in their death throes.
An unseen hand below pulled the quick release on the end of the bag. The contents cascaded down a stainless steel chute onto the conveyor belt in the fish room, awaiting our further inspection.
We stayed on deck long enough to see the second bag plucked from the sea, its contents likewise dumped down the chute. Then I, Conservative shadow fisheries minister Owen Paterson, and the PPC for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Gavin Williams, squeezed our way along the top deck, stepping over the still taut warp cables, and made our way down the vertical ladder to watch the crew sorting the fish.
As the first batch was sorted, we watched in mounting horror as Mate, Francois Bruneel with Steve McDaid and Gary Hugman, the enormously impressive crew, threw marketable fish into red plastic bins – not unlike laundry baskets – sweeping the rest, undersize and unmarketable fish along the belt. Lubricated by a constant flow of sea water, they were flushed through a small opening in the hull, back into the sea, dead and dying, from whence they had so recently been plucked.
That was the horror. From that first, bulging net, the harvest of the sea, we estimated that at least ninety percent of the catch was dumped – or "discarded" in the clinical jargon of the trade. By far the bulk of this waste was immature plaice, thousands of baby fish, some only three or four inches long, tiny, perfect replicas of the few remaining adult fish which would be landed later that day and sold for the dinner plates of the nation.
Then came the next batch, smaller in quantity – much smaller. Good, clean adult fish, mainly prime plaice, ripe for the market, tossed swiftly into the red bins, ready for gutting and cleaning. This time the bulk of the "discards" amounted to unsaleable "dogs" – lesser spotted dogfish. These were also flushed through the hatch. Plunging into the water, each shook itself like a canine, as if indignant at their treatment, and swum swiftly away from the trawler, none the worse for their experience.
So what was happening here? Why the obscene waste from the first batch – "next year’s harvest", one of the crew observed bitterly – and so little from the second?
As we grouped in the tiny mess room after the nets had been "shot" for the second time, supping mugs of scalding tea, Skipper Dell explained. It was the nets he was forced to use. They had been specified by the EU commission in regulations under the Common Fisheries Policy, perversely – to the utter frustration of all the fishermen of Fleetwood - as a "conservation" measure, supposedly designed to aid "cod recovery" in the Irish Sea.
If you wanted logic, Dell continued, there was none – none that he and his colleagues could discern.
His vessel, a 23 metre, twin rig trawler, built in Aberdeen in 1979, had been brought round to the west coast after years of service in the North Sea, to fish for the abundant plaice in the Irish Sea, turning to quota-free prawn fishing when the plaice had gone into hiding through the winter, or when the quota had run out.
Over the magic "10 metres" in length, his and each of the seven other like vessels in the Fleetwood fleet – down from over 40 in 1994 and over 70 in 1984 – had been given a "days at sea" allocation of 22 days a month, during which they were allowed out to earn their keep, chasing ever diminishing quotas that made it harder each year to make a living, as the diminishing number of vessels testified.
But – and here the "but" is in huge capitals – in order to fish all of those 22 days, he was required to use nets with a mesh size in the cod end of 80 mm. It was this net which had scooped up all these baby fish – the slaughter of the innocent – and caused his crew to throw them away dead, back into the sea.
Skipper Dell, and all his colleagues, much preferred to use a larger mesh size – 110 mm. It was this mesh that had been used on the second net and its efficacy had been startlingly demonstrated to us when Dell had brought up the "clean" catch, devoid of the immature juveniles. Not for nothing, the Fleetwood fishermen call the larger-mesh nets "riddlers" – they "riddle" out the smaller fish and let them escape, to grow bigger, to mature and breed, before they were caught for the table.
And therein lies insanity. Dell was allowed to use the 110 mm nets. But, if he did, the EU commission imposed a penalty on him, slashing his "days at sea" to 17 days. With the desperately marginal economics of the enterprise - the Kiroan uses a ton of diesel fuel each day, when out on the grounds - his livelihood was already at risk. The enforced cut-back would exclude him from the vital prawn fishery, drive his vessel onto the beach and his crew onto the dole. To stay in business, the only legal option Dell had was to use the smaller mesh.
Standing in front of us as we sat in that tiny mess room, bracing himself against the bulkhead to counter the pitching of the boat, Dell spoke with a passion born of frustration and sheer outrage – the outrage of a professional fisherman, thirty-five years at sea – forced to do something he knew to be wrong. "It needs stopping…", he said. "We’ve been doing this for ten months, and we’re slaughtering the fish."
It is not as if he and his colleagues had not tried to stop the slaughter. In January last, he and his colleagues had bearded fisheries minister Ben Bradshaw, when to came sweeping up from London to visit the docks. Dell had asked him to explain the policy. "He couldn’t", says Dell, but had asked his aide to jot down details of the complaint. "We never heard from him again", Dell added bitterly.
The Fleetwood fishermen did not leave it there. After constant complaining, fisheries scientists from CEFAS spent a month on board the sister vessel to Kiroan, the FV Artemis, observing the effects of the different mesh sizes. They too found that the larger mesh "dramatically reduced the bulk catch, therefore reducing discarding from 80 percent plus to less than 50 percent by volume".
That the smaller volume of "discards" comprised mainly dogfish was also noted. Crucially, the scientists’ subsequent report clearly stated that "the cod recovery plan has forced them (the fishermen) to work smaller mesh and kill (especially) smaller plaice."
But that was in May and now, nearly six months later – with perhaps millions more baby fish slaughtered - nothing has been done.
It was time for the second haul. Now bright daylight, getting on for ten in the morning, with the sea mercifully calm, Dell repeated the procedure we had seen earlier and again the fish cascaded into the fish room. Again we saw the obscene waste – the senseless slaughter of thousands of immature fish.
We saw something else, as well. A lot of the fish were very muddy. What was happening, Dell told us, was that the tiny fish blocked the mesh, choking it, so that mud and sand could not be washed clear as the net was towed. This was highly dangerous, sometimes increasing the weight of the catch to such an alarming extent that hauling it out with the power-block risked overloading the machine. Three times that season, Dell had been forced to take emergency action, slashing the nets open and dumping the entire catches, to prevent the lifting arm crashing down on his crew, working on the deck below.
"It's political", Dell said after the meagre catch had been iced and stowed away. Nine, six stone boxes of fish, including six of adult plaice, were dwarfed by the cavernous hold which had a capacity for over 400.
Dell believes that the mesh size was set at 80 mm to accommodate the fleet of huge Belgian beam trawlers, sometimes as many as 40-50 at a time, which exploit the waters. They are not after plaice, but the more valuable sole. And, with a 110 mm mesh, you cannot catch sole. They can curl themselves up to swim through the larger mesh, even fish the size of a dinner plate getting clear.
So the EU commission has given in to the Belgians. Back on the dock, Dell showed us the nets they used. Not only were they 80mm, but the twine was 6mm, grotesquely thick and so rigid that you could scarcely bend it. The mesh simply does not open up under tow, "Not even sand can get through that", Dell said, bitterness again clearly evident.
With massive, 4,000 horsepower vessels (the Kiroan, itself a powerful boat, has a mere 470 horsepower), dragging huge, 12 metre beam trawls at an amazing 6-7 knots (Dell tows at 3 knots), they hoover up everything, digging up the sand and mud to get at the precious, buried sole. We’ve followed up behind them, Dell said, and everything is dead.
The ultimate irony, in the "cod protection area", is that the Belgians have a by-catch of cod, caught accidentally as they pursue the sole, 30 times larger than the entire Fleetwood quota. And when we drew the attention for the authorities to that, says Dell, they started dumping the cod overboard, so that it is not declared. They don’t even want the fish.
We left Phil Dell and his crew on the quay, but not before he confided an important secret. Unlike other skippers, "I do not normally use 80 mm nets for plaice", he told us. "I refuse to slaughter fish – we use the 110 mm nets". The trip had been a demonstration to show us what he was supposed to do. But, under the rules, in so doing, and by having both types of net on board (he uses the 80 mm nets for prawns, where no plaice swim), he is breaking the law. He could be prosecuted and heavily fined. But he is prepared to take the risk. He cannot bring himself to slaughter fish needelessly.
My admiration for this man, and his colleagues, is unbounded, matched only by my utter contempt for these mindless officials of the EU commission who dream up such devastating rules and make honest men into criminals.
To give him his due, Owen Paterson was very angry as well. We all are. Damn these people, damn them, damn them, these smug, complacent offiicals. Like the millions of fish they cause to be sent to the bottom of the sea, to rot in a carpet of putrefying waste, may they also rot - in Hell.
Philip held the bag there, suspended, so we could see thousands of tiny fish packed into the bag. Most of what we could see was small plaice, with scores of them protruding though the narrow mesh, gasping and flapping in their death throes.
An unseen hand below pulled the quick release on the end of the bag. The contents cascaded down a stainless steel chute onto the conveyor belt in the fish room, awaiting our further inspection.
We stayed on deck long enough to see the second bag plucked from the sea, its contents likewise dumped down the chute. Then I, Conservative shadow fisheries minister Owen Paterson, and the PPC for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Gavin Williams, squeezed our way along the top deck, stepping over the still taut warp cables, and made our way down the vertical ladder to watch the crew sorting the fish.
As the first batch was sorted, we watched in mounting horror as Mate, Francois Bruneel with Steve McDaid and Gary Hugman, the enormously impressive crew, threw marketable fish into red plastic bins – not unlike laundry baskets – sweeping the rest, undersize and unmarketable fish along the belt. Lubricated by a constant flow of sea water, they were flushed through a small opening in the hull, back into the sea, dead and dying, from whence they had so recently been plucked.
That was the horror. From that first, bulging net, the harvest of the sea, we estimated that at least ninety percent of the catch was dumped – or "discarded" in the clinical jargon of the trade. By far the bulk of this waste was immature plaice, thousands of baby fish, some only three or four inches long, tiny, perfect replicas of the few remaining adult fish which would be landed later that day and sold for the dinner plates of the nation.
Then came the next batch, smaller in quantity – much smaller. Good, clean adult fish, mainly prime plaice, ripe for the market, tossed swiftly into the red bins, ready for gutting and cleaning. This time the bulk of the "discards" amounted to unsaleable "dogs" – lesser spotted dogfish. These were also flushed through the hatch. Plunging into the water, each shook itself like a canine, as if indignant at their treatment, and swum swiftly away from the trawler, none the worse for their experience.
So what was happening here? Why the obscene waste from the first batch – "next year’s harvest", one of the crew observed bitterly – and so little from the second?
As we grouped in the tiny mess room after the nets had been "shot" for the second time, supping mugs of scalding tea, Skipper Dell explained. It was the nets he was forced to use. They had been specified by the EU commission in regulations under the Common Fisheries Policy, perversely – to the utter frustration of all the fishermen of Fleetwood - as a "conservation" measure, supposedly designed to aid "cod recovery" in the Irish Sea.
If you wanted logic, Dell continued, there was none – none that he and his colleagues could discern.
His vessel, a 23 metre, twin rig trawler, built in Aberdeen in 1979, had been brought round to the west coast after years of service in the North Sea, to fish for the abundant plaice in the Irish Sea, turning to quota-free prawn fishing when the plaice had gone into hiding through the winter, or when the quota had run out.
Over the magic "10 metres" in length, his and each of the seven other like vessels in the Fleetwood fleet – down from over 40 in 1994 and over 70 in 1984 – had been given a "days at sea" allocation of 22 days a month, during which they were allowed out to earn their keep, chasing ever diminishing quotas that made it harder each year to make a living, as the diminishing number of vessels testified.
But – and here the "but" is in huge capitals – in order to fish all of those 22 days, he was required to use nets with a mesh size in the cod end of 80 mm. It was this net which had scooped up all these baby fish – the slaughter of the innocent – and caused his crew to throw them away dead, back into the sea.
Skipper Dell, and all his colleagues, much preferred to use a larger mesh size – 110 mm. It was this mesh that had been used on the second net and its efficacy had been startlingly demonstrated to us when Dell had brought up the "clean" catch, devoid of the immature juveniles. Not for nothing, the Fleetwood fishermen call the larger-mesh nets "riddlers" – they "riddle" out the smaller fish and let them escape, to grow bigger, to mature and breed, before they were caught for the table.
And therein lies insanity. Dell was allowed to use the 110 mm nets. But, if he did, the EU commission imposed a penalty on him, slashing his "days at sea" to 17 days. With the desperately marginal economics of the enterprise - the Kiroan uses a ton of diesel fuel each day, when out on the grounds - his livelihood was already at risk. The enforced cut-back would exclude him from the vital prawn fishery, drive his vessel onto the beach and his crew onto the dole. To stay in business, the only legal option Dell had was to use the smaller mesh.
Standing in front of us as we sat in that tiny mess room, bracing himself against the bulkhead to counter the pitching of the boat, Dell spoke with a passion born of frustration and sheer outrage – the outrage of a professional fisherman, thirty-five years at sea – forced to do something he knew to be wrong. "It needs stopping…", he said. "We’ve been doing this for ten months, and we’re slaughtering the fish."
It is not as if he and his colleagues had not tried to stop the slaughter. In January last, he and his colleagues had bearded fisheries minister Ben Bradshaw, when to came sweeping up from London to visit the docks. Dell had asked him to explain the policy. "He couldn’t", says Dell, but had asked his aide to jot down details of the complaint. "We never heard from him again", Dell added bitterly.
The Fleetwood fishermen did not leave it there. After constant complaining, fisheries scientists from CEFAS spent a month on board the sister vessel to Kiroan, the FV Artemis, observing the effects of the different mesh sizes. They too found that the larger mesh "dramatically reduced the bulk catch, therefore reducing discarding from 80 percent plus to less than 50 percent by volume".
That the smaller volume of "discards" comprised mainly dogfish was also noted. Crucially, the scientists’ subsequent report clearly stated that "the cod recovery plan has forced them (the fishermen) to work smaller mesh and kill (especially) smaller plaice."
But that was in May and now, nearly six months later – with perhaps millions more baby fish slaughtered - nothing has been done.
It was time for the second haul. Now bright daylight, getting on for ten in the morning, with the sea mercifully calm, Dell repeated the procedure we had seen earlier and again the fish cascaded into the fish room. Again we saw the obscene waste – the senseless slaughter of thousands of immature fish.
We saw something else, as well. A lot of the fish were very muddy. What was happening, Dell told us, was that the tiny fish blocked the mesh, choking it, so that mud and sand could not be washed clear as the net was towed. This was highly dangerous, sometimes increasing the weight of the catch to such an alarming extent that hauling it out with the power-block risked overloading the machine. Three times that season, Dell had been forced to take emergency action, slashing the nets open and dumping the entire catches, to prevent the lifting arm crashing down on his crew, working on the deck below.
"It's political", Dell said after the meagre catch had been iced and stowed away. Nine, six stone boxes of fish, including six of adult plaice, were dwarfed by the cavernous hold which had a capacity for over 400.
Dell believes that the mesh size was set at 80 mm to accommodate the fleet of huge Belgian beam trawlers, sometimes as many as 40-50 at a time, which exploit the waters. They are not after plaice, but the more valuable sole. And, with a 110 mm mesh, you cannot catch sole. They can curl themselves up to swim through the larger mesh, even fish the size of a dinner plate getting clear.
So the EU commission has given in to the Belgians. Back on the dock, Dell showed us the nets they used. Not only were they 80mm, but the twine was 6mm, grotesquely thick and so rigid that you could scarcely bend it. The mesh simply does not open up under tow, "Not even sand can get through that", Dell said, bitterness again clearly evident.
With massive, 4,000 horsepower vessels (the Kiroan, itself a powerful boat, has a mere 470 horsepower), dragging huge, 12 metre beam trawls at an amazing 6-7 knots (Dell tows at 3 knots), they hoover up everything, digging up the sand and mud to get at the precious, buried sole. We’ve followed up behind them, Dell said, and everything is dead.
The ultimate irony, in the "cod protection area", is that the Belgians have a by-catch of cod, caught accidentally as they pursue the sole, 30 times larger than the entire Fleetwood quota. And when we drew the attention for the authorities to that, says Dell, they started dumping the cod overboard, so that it is not declared. They don’t even want the fish.
We left Phil Dell and his crew on the quay, but not before he confided an important secret. Unlike other skippers, "I do not normally use 80 mm nets for plaice", he told us. "I refuse to slaughter fish – we use the 110 mm nets". The trip had been a demonstration to show us what he was supposed to do. But, under the rules, in so doing, and by having both types of net on board (he uses the 80 mm nets for prawns, where no plaice swim), he is breaking the law. He could be prosecuted and heavily fined. But he is prepared to take the risk. He cannot bring himself to slaughter fish needelessly.
My admiration for this man, and his colleagues, is unbounded, matched only by my utter contempt for these mindless officials of the EU commission who dream up such devastating rules and make honest men into criminals.
To give him his due, Owen Paterson was very angry as well. We all are. Damn these people, damn them, damn them, these smug, complacent offiicals. Like the millions of fish they cause to be sent to the bottom of the sea, to rot in a carpet of putrefying waste, may they also rot - in Hell.
More on that Commons debate
Following on from my colleague’s piece about the Daily Telegraph (and aren’t we all glad that he has returned safely from the Irish Sea), it is worth pointing out that in another article on the subject of the Europol debate, Andrew Sparrow has shown that the Home Office Minister, Caroline Flint has refused to state categorically that Britain will not sign up to the five year programme at the next Summit.
She was pressed on the subject by a Tory backbencher, Nick Hawkins and by the spokesman Jonathan Djanogly, but would say stubbornly that the Tories were scaremongering and the Government did not agree with many aspects of the five year plan on the “area of freedom, justice and security”. It ought to be added that even the Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee is alarmed. Its chairman, Jimy Hood, said that all this talk of a single area of freedom, justice and security was
All Ms Flint would say, however, is:
She was pressed on the subject by a Tory backbencher, Nick Hawkins and by the spokesman Jonathan Djanogly, but would say stubbornly that the Tories were scaremongering and the Government did not agree with many aspects of the five year plan on the “area of freedom, justice and security”. It ought to be added that even the Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee is alarmed. Its chairman, Jimy Hood, said that all this talk of a single area of freedom, justice and security was
“…encouraging the notion of such an area of unitary state separate from member states. Regardless to the countless assurances from our ministers, it is not easy to be comfortable with the rhetoric from the commission throughout its proposals.”One wonders where Mr Hood has been all this time, but we shall let that pass.
All Ms Flint would say, however, is:
“There is no question of the UK signing up to a harmonised European legal system and the communication does not propose one.”Well, it proposes a public prosecutor’s office (which has already been thrown out once and has reappeared on the agenda), a common border corp and investigative powers for the Europol police force. On rather wonders what would constitute a harmonised legal system for Ms Flint. Still, it is heartening to see MPs finally, long after most other people, waking up to the dangers and a major newspaper reporting the discussions.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Europol is watching you
Cripes!! Turn my back for one minute and the newspapers are crammed with news about "Europe" – at least both the Telegraph and Times are, which is all I have had time to look at so far.
As well as stories, both these newspapers have leaders on the EU, each different but both linked by a commons theme. In this Blog I will deal briefly with the Telegraph offering and, in another Blog, with the points raised by The Times. I will then identify the linkages and broader issues in a third Blog, once I have dealt with my recent, and appalling experiences in the Irish Sea.
As to the Telegraph, then, this newspaper heads its leader with "Europol is Watching you", commenting on its own full-page spread encompassing three stories on the justice and home affairs theme. Click here, here, and here.
The brief point I want to make here is that the Telegraph seems, at last, to have discovered Tampere and the agreements made at the European Council in 1999, on extending Brussels jurisdiction into criminal justice, policing and immigration.
Five years on, however, the paper observes, "hardly anyone in Britain is aware of what is being done." One can only respond to this with a rather sour note by saying "well whose bloody fault is that then…", noting, after all, that the Telegraph is a newspaper which has the resources to make people aware of what is happening.
Better late than never, I suppose, but it is then galling to see the paper offer "Congratulations … to David Davis, the shadow home secretary, for alerting us to the menace in Parliament yesterday." "Part of his problem", it adds, is that "the scale and ambition of the Tampere agenda can make an accurate critique sound hysterical... A corpus of EU criminal law; a European police force; an EU prosecuting magistracy; a border gendarmerie; habeas corpus under threat - these things sound so outlandish that people are disinclined to believe them."
Tell us about it!!!
Despite this, the leader and all three pieces are an essential read, but take the leader conclusion with a pinch of salt: "It is often said that the Tories spend too much time talking about Europe. But, as Tampere demonstrates, the EU now affects virtually every aspect of public life in Britain."
The problem, we on this Blog would aver, is that the Tories - and the Telegraph - spend too little time talking about "the elephant in the room", and the latter rather too much time on such things as the girlfriends of English football managers. But it is, good to see that, at last, someone is beginning to wonder about the pile of foul-smelling ordure on the carpet.
As well as stories, both these newspapers have leaders on the EU, each different but both linked by a commons theme. In this Blog I will deal briefly with the Telegraph offering and, in another Blog, with the points raised by The Times. I will then identify the linkages and broader issues in a third Blog, once I have dealt with my recent, and appalling experiences in the Irish Sea.
As to the Telegraph, then, this newspaper heads its leader with "Europol is Watching you", commenting on its own full-page spread encompassing three stories on the justice and home affairs theme. Click here, here, and here.
The brief point I want to make here is that the Telegraph seems, at last, to have discovered Tampere and the agreements made at the European Council in 1999, on extending Brussels jurisdiction into criminal justice, policing and immigration.
Five years on, however, the paper observes, "hardly anyone in Britain is aware of what is being done." One can only respond to this with a rather sour note by saying "well whose bloody fault is that then…", noting, after all, that the Telegraph is a newspaper which has the resources to make people aware of what is happening.
Better late than never, I suppose, but it is then galling to see the paper offer "Congratulations … to David Davis, the shadow home secretary, for alerting us to the menace in Parliament yesterday." "Part of his problem", it adds, is that "the scale and ambition of the Tampere agenda can make an accurate critique sound hysterical... A corpus of EU criminal law; a European police force; an EU prosecuting magistracy; a border gendarmerie; habeas corpus under threat - these things sound so outlandish that people are disinclined to believe them."
Tell us about it!!!
Despite this, the leader and all three pieces are an essential read, but take the leader conclusion with a pinch of salt: "It is often said that the Tories spend too much time talking about Europe. But, as Tampere demonstrates, the EU now affects virtually every aspect of public life in Britain."
The problem, we on this Blog would aver, is that the Tories - and the Telegraph - spend too little time talking about "the elephant in the room", and the latter rather too much time on such things as the girlfriends of English football managers. But it is, good to see that, at last, someone is beginning to wonder about the pile of foul-smelling ordure on the carpet.
Report from Bournemouth No 2
These reports are coming through in a trickle, I fear, but other matters intervene. However, since they are of fringe meetings that did not see the light of day in the mainstream media, they may still be interesting to our readers.
This one is about fish, inevitably, as the subject is, apparently, high on the Conservative Party’s agenda. But first, a little background information:
Save Britain’s Fish has existed for a long time; probably almost as long as Britain’s membership of the Common Fisheries Policy. Its activity was little known and achieved even less until it was taken over by John Ashworth, engineer and conservationist, Tom Hay, fisherman and Sheryll Murray, political activist and fisherman’s wife. Between them, with some help from various other sources, they transformed the organization into something the eurosceptic movement can be proud off.
They put together a great deal of research and winkled out all kinds of information about the genesis and development of the CFP. (Believe me, it was not easy to get hold of most of that information.)
They have also run a series of very successful meetings at party conferences, explaining to delegates how the system works (or does not work, depending on your point of view). Other meetings took place in Parliament and around the country.
The party conference fringe meetings have always been among the most popular, packed to the rafters, and not only because fish and chips are invariably served afterwards.
The meeting in Bournemouth was as successful as ever. It says something for the good name of Save Britain’s Fish that people rushed away from the conference centre as soon as Michael Howard stopped speaking (or, perhaps, even before) in order to get to the meeting, some way along the promenade.
The star of the show this year was, undoubtedly, Owen Paterson, the Conservative spokesman on farming and fisheries, as he explained in detail what, in his opinion, a putative Conservative government will do to honour its manifesto promise.
Mr Paterson was in no doubt that the fisheries policy has to be reclaimed and turned into a national one. Beyond that, he refused to be specific. Having travelled round the Britain and to other fishing countries, like the United States, Canada, Iceland, the Faroes, he has accepted that policy cannot be made away from the particular locality. He envisaged a national framework, which will be decided in detail, implemented and administered locally.
His one stipulation was that everything that is caught must be landed. At present, because of the impossible rules the CFP is based on, nobody has any idea how much fish is really caught in Britain, by British or any other fishermen. Clearly, it is impossible to make policies on that kind of non-data. When some disagreement was expressed by representatives from Cornwall, Paterson replied that this argument proved the need to implement the national policy locally.
It is perhaps unfortunate that at this stage Mr Paterson could not answer the most difficult of all questions: what will happen if the other signatories of the treaty insist that no matter what sort of legislation the British Parliament passes, they have every right to go on having equal access to Community waters. That, as Rudyard Kipling said at the end of The Jungle Book, is another story.
This one is about fish, inevitably, as the subject is, apparently, high on the Conservative Party’s agenda. But first, a little background information:
Save Britain’s Fish has existed for a long time; probably almost as long as Britain’s membership of the Common Fisheries Policy. Its activity was little known and achieved even less until it was taken over by John Ashworth, engineer and conservationist, Tom Hay, fisherman and Sheryll Murray, political activist and fisherman’s wife. Between them, with some help from various other sources, they transformed the organization into something the eurosceptic movement can be proud off.
They put together a great deal of research and winkled out all kinds of information about the genesis and development of the CFP. (Believe me, it was not easy to get hold of most of that information.)
They have also run a series of very successful meetings at party conferences, explaining to delegates how the system works (or does not work, depending on your point of view). Other meetings took place in Parliament and around the country.
The party conference fringe meetings have always been among the most popular, packed to the rafters, and not only because fish and chips are invariably served afterwards.
The meeting in Bournemouth was as successful as ever. It says something for the good name of Save Britain’s Fish that people rushed away from the conference centre as soon as Michael Howard stopped speaking (or, perhaps, even before) in order to get to the meeting, some way along the promenade.
The star of the show this year was, undoubtedly, Owen Paterson, the Conservative spokesman on farming and fisheries, as he explained in detail what, in his opinion, a putative Conservative government will do to honour its manifesto promise.
Mr Paterson was in no doubt that the fisheries policy has to be reclaimed and turned into a national one. Beyond that, he refused to be specific. Having travelled round the Britain and to other fishing countries, like the United States, Canada, Iceland, the Faroes, he has accepted that policy cannot be made away from the particular locality. He envisaged a national framework, which will be decided in detail, implemented and administered locally.
His one stipulation was that everything that is caught must be landed. At present, because of the impossible rules the CFP is based on, nobody has any idea how much fish is really caught in Britain, by British or any other fishermen. Clearly, it is impossible to make policies on that kind of non-data. When some disagreement was expressed by representatives from Cornwall, Paterson replied that this argument proved the need to implement the national policy locally.
It is perhaps unfortunate that at this stage Mr Paterson could not answer the most difficult of all questions: what will happen if the other signatories of the treaty insist that no matter what sort of legislation the British Parliament passes, they have every right to go on having equal access to Community waters. That, as Rudyard Kipling said at the end of The Jungle Book, is another story.
Not us, guv
The former Greek government is denying that it massaged the figures to enter the eurozone. They merely massaged … errrm … made mistakes in … no, that can’t be right ….miscalculated the figures after they had joined EMU.
The problem revolves round defence expenditure and not, as some of us may have supposed, the fantastic and ever growing cost of the recently finished Olympic Games. The fudging that went into that will not, presumably, be discussed for a few months. But we shall get to it, worry not.
Anyway, former economy and finance minister Yiannos Papantoniou has announced that the budget for 1997-9 is absolutely above board.
Actually, it is not entirely clear whether anything could be done even if the Eurostat delegation did find any earlier malfeasance. Can a country be thrown out after all these years without the most serious repercussions across the whole eurozone area?
So what is the actual problem? Well, it seems that previously military expenses were recorded on an accrual basis – for the year in which the material was delivered, clearly a very different one from the one in which it was ordered. The new government changed that and now records payments for the year in which the payments were made (probably different from either of the previous ones).
As AFP put it :
The problem revolves round defence expenditure and not, as some of us may have supposed, the fantastic and ever growing cost of the recently finished Olympic Games. The fudging that went into that will not, presumably, be discussed for a few months. But we shall get to it, worry not.
Anyway, former economy and finance minister Yiannos Papantoniou has announced that the budget for 1997-9 is absolutely above board.
"There were no significant military orders at the time," – he said.It is the present, conservative, government that is at fault and is, not to put too fine a point on it, cooking the books, insisted Mr Papantoniou together with two of his colleagues.
"This campaign by the new government has two aims: to discredit (the socialist party) PASOK and its tenure in office and to create an alibi for abandoning its extravagant pre-election promises," PASOK [the Greek Socialist Party] economic policy coordinator Theodore Pangalos said.Greece’s post-2000 figures, recently revised, show that the 3 per cent deficit limit has been consistently breached and Eurostat, itself not without skeletons in the cupboard, has sent a delegation to investigate the 1997-9 figures. Mr Papantoniou maintains that they will find nothing that could discredit the socialist government or prove that Greece had not really qualified for the eurozone.
Actually, it is not entirely clear whether anything could be done even if the Eurostat delegation did find any earlier malfeasance. Can a country be thrown out after all these years without the most serious repercussions across the whole eurozone area?
So what is the actual problem? Well, it seems that previously military expenses were recorded on an accrual basis – for the year in which the material was delivered, clearly a very different one from the one in which it was ordered. The new government changed that and now records payments for the year in which the payments were made (probably different from either of the previous ones).
As AFP put it :
Eurostat accepts either way of calculation but, understandably, wishes that the Greeks would make up their minds."Retroactively applied to spending on a huge, 10-year armaments programme running since 1999, the bulk of which was paid for in 2000-2002, the change resulted in budget deficits exceeding the three percent deficit rule."
Bolkestein speaks out
Outgoing Internal Market Commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, the only one of that august body to vote against negotiations with Turkey, has given a choleric interview to Le Monde.
He remains opposed to Turkey’s entry because of its human rights record and thinks that the Rubicon had been crossed in Helsinki in 1999 when that country was given candidate status. (Though that had been done for no greater reason but to shut everybody up.)
Nor is Bolkestein greatly taken with the idea of a never-ending expansion. The only thing that could prevent an EU of 40 members in his opinion, is a no vote in a referendum somewhere. Since he is talking about putative applicants, a no vote is unlikely. And while we are on the subject: 40? Where does he get all those countries? Will Central Asia and North Africa suddenly become Europe?
According to Mr Bolkestein most governments and Commissioners are against Turkey’s membership and if there had been a secret vote, the result would have been very different. As it is, foreign ministers want to appear nice and nobody dares to say no. The EU will become unmanageable, he warns.
He remains opposed to Turkey’s entry because of its human rights record and thinks that the Rubicon had been crossed in Helsinki in 1999 when that country was given candidate status. (Though that had been done for no greater reason but to shut everybody up.)
Nor is Bolkestein greatly taken with the idea of a never-ending expansion. The only thing that could prevent an EU of 40 members in his opinion, is a no vote in a referendum somewhere. Since he is talking about putative applicants, a no vote is unlikely. And while we are on the subject: 40? Where does he get all those countries? Will Central Asia and North Africa suddenly become Europe?
According to Mr Bolkestein most governments and Commissioners are against Turkey’s membership and if there had been a secret vote, the result would have been very different. As it is, foreign ministers want to appear nice and nobody dares to say no. The EU will become unmanageable, he warns.
All very predictable
As we predicted in a previous posting, Marta Andreasen, the whistle-blowing chief accountant at the European Commission has now been fired after a hearing by what can only be described as a kangaroo court (a term, incidentally, that seems not to be of Australian but American origjn, first used in Texas in the 1840s).
Ms Andreasen had complained publicly of the extraordinary accounting practices in the Commission, which apparently did not involve anything so well-used as double-entry book-keeping. Her description of the European Union’s book-keeping as “Enron-style” financing has since been validated by a number of other leaked memos.
But Neil Kinnock the ougoing Commissioner, appointed to fight fraud and reform the Commission, was not going to be sidetracked by anything so mundane as the truth. Under his guidance and after a secret tribunal, Ms Andreasen was fired for unspecified crimes of breaking protocol and disloyalty.
One interesting accusation is that she had not told the truth about her previous employment, though, presumably, the European Commission could easily have found out. Ms Andreasen had been chief accountant with the OECD and was suspended in 1998 for making similar accusations about that organization’s accounting practices.
The Commission tribunal clearly chose to view this as an indication that Marta Andreasen is a troublemaker, despite the fact that her accusations as far as the Commission goes, are accurate. Might there not be another explanation: international and transnational bodies, who command vast amounts of taxpayers’ money do not feel that they have to abide by accepted rules of accounting honesty. One hopes that Ms Andreasen will now abandon her lonely crusade to bring these matters to light and find herself an accounting job with a private firm somewhere.
Ms Andreasen had complained publicly of the extraordinary accounting practices in the Commission, which apparently did not involve anything so well-used as double-entry book-keeping. Her description of the European Union’s book-keeping as “Enron-style” financing has since been validated by a number of other leaked memos.
But Neil Kinnock the ougoing Commissioner, appointed to fight fraud and reform the Commission, was not going to be sidetracked by anything so mundane as the truth. Under his guidance and after a secret tribunal, Ms Andreasen was fired for unspecified crimes of breaking protocol and disloyalty.
One interesting accusation is that she had not told the truth about her previous employment, though, presumably, the European Commission could easily have found out. Ms Andreasen had been chief accountant with the OECD and was suspended in 1998 for making similar accusations about that organization’s accounting practices.
The Commission tribunal clearly chose to view this as an indication that Marta Andreasen is a troublemaker, despite the fact that her accusations as far as the Commission goes, are accurate. Might there not be another explanation: international and transnational bodies, who command vast amounts of taxpayers’ money do not feel that they have to abide by accepted rules of accounting honesty. One hopes that Ms Andreasen will now abandon her lonely crusade to bring these matters to light and find herself an accounting job with a private firm somewhere.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Gone fishing
At midnight tonight, this Blogger will be sailing off into the darkness aboard one of the few remaining Fleetwood trawlers – heavily laden with sea-sickness pills (me, that is) - to experience personally the depredations of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.
If I survive the experience, I will be reporting my findings on this Blog sometime late Friday or early Saturday.
In the meantime, I leave the Blog, by way of my last will and testament, in the capable hands of my colleague. This means, no doubt, that the hit rate will soar – once people realise that they do not have to wade through my laborious posts to get to her material. For the time being, therefore, happy blogging. Make the most of it while you can.
If I survive the experience, I will be reporting my findings on this Blog sometime late Friday or early Saturday.
In the meantime, I leave the Blog, by way of my last will and testament, in the capable hands of my colleague. This means, no doubt, that the hit rate will soar – once people realise that they do not have to wade through my laborious posts to get to her material. For the time being, therefore, happy blogging. Make the most of it while you can.
Britain is winning?
My colleague has recently written about the soon-to-be former-external affairs commissioner, Christopher Patten, suggesting that, although we always acknowledged his knowledge and intelligence, we may well have to revise our opinions.
If we needed any more incentive to do so, that was amply provided in the print edition of The Times, with a story headed "Britain winning fight in Europe, says Patten". The text (at the time of writing) was not available on the internet, owing to a mix-up by the Times staff, who have posted the wrong story under the headline.
For those thus deprived, the essence of Patten’s claim is that "Britain is winning its way in Brussels, European integration is ‘at the end of the road’, and the Franco-German axis is seriously weakened". Furthermore, "everyone thinks it is going in our direction – everyone thinks that the constitutional treaty, for example, represents a huge achievement for British diplomacy."
"For us to propose throwing out the treaty and opening up all these arguments again is crazy," says Patten. "It does represent most of the things we are arguing for. Why are Fabius and others in France going to campaign against the treaty? Because they think it is too British".
"The process of economic and political integration is in most respects at the end of the road", he adds, then arguing of the current state of the EU, "This is very different from the original vision. I certainly believe that this is a different vision from the one which is defined by conventional Europhile rhetoric".
Thus, after more in this vein, Pattern concludes, "The main problem with the EU is not what it does, but its failure to win hearts and minds." He feels the EU is such a success – creating a single market, a single currency and co-operating on justice and environmental issues – that it will be copied around the world.
One only has to read my earlier Blog to see immediately how hollow is Patten’s claim that "The process of economic and political integration is in most respects at the end of the road". In fact, "hollow" is too much of an understatement – "laughable" might be more appropriate. If the man really believes what he is saying that he is so stupid that he should not be let out alone.
Stupid he may be, but we do not believe that anyone outside a registered institution can be that deficient. But the alternatives are either that he is lying, or that he suffers from that peculiar delusion of the "chattering classes" of having convinced himself that what he speaks and believe is the truth.
This, however, is the man who is probably going to lead the "yes" campaign on the constitution, so his remarks may also be seen in the context of his opening shots of the campaign. That would not make them any less mendacious but it does define the context.
This should give us some comfort. If the "yes" campaign is going to front as its main arguments that the constitution represents a victory for Britain, and that the process of economic and political integration is "… at the end of the road", then we are going to have a very easy time of it.
If we needed any more incentive to do so, that was amply provided in the print edition of The Times, with a story headed "Britain winning fight in Europe, says Patten". The text (at the time of writing) was not available on the internet, owing to a mix-up by the Times staff, who have posted the wrong story under the headline.
For those thus deprived, the essence of Patten’s claim is that "Britain is winning its way in Brussels, European integration is ‘at the end of the road’, and the Franco-German axis is seriously weakened". Furthermore, "everyone thinks it is going in our direction – everyone thinks that the constitutional treaty, for example, represents a huge achievement for British diplomacy."
"For us to propose throwing out the treaty and opening up all these arguments again is crazy," says Patten. "It does represent most of the things we are arguing for. Why are Fabius and others in France going to campaign against the treaty? Because they think it is too British".
"The process of economic and political integration is in most respects at the end of the road", he adds, then arguing of the current state of the EU, "This is very different from the original vision. I certainly believe that this is a different vision from the one which is defined by conventional Europhile rhetoric".
Thus, after more in this vein, Pattern concludes, "The main problem with the EU is not what it does, but its failure to win hearts and minds." He feels the EU is such a success – creating a single market, a single currency and co-operating on justice and environmental issues – that it will be copied around the world.
One only has to read my earlier Blog to see immediately how hollow is Patten’s claim that "The process of economic and political integration is in most respects at the end of the road". In fact, "hollow" is too much of an understatement – "laughable" might be more appropriate. If the man really believes what he is saying that he is so stupid that he should not be let out alone.
Stupid he may be, but we do not believe that anyone outside a registered institution can be that deficient. But the alternatives are either that he is lying, or that he suffers from that peculiar delusion of the "chattering classes" of having convinced himself that what he speaks and believe is the truth.
This, however, is the man who is probably going to lead the "yes" campaign on the constitution, so his remarks may also be seen in the context of his opening shots of the campaign. That would not make them any less mendacious but it does define the context.
This should give us some comfort. If the "yes" campaign is going to front as its main arguments that the constitution represents a victory for Britain, and that the process of economic and political integration is "… at the end of the road", then we are going to have a very easy time of it.
An incitement to mediocrity
The EU commission has started infringement procedures against France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland for alleged breaches of procurement law, accusing the four governments of favouring the computer chip maker Intel when awarding public contracts.
It seems that some government offices in each of the four countries have been specifying Intel chips, or chips that work at the same speed as Intel's technology, when ordering their computer systems. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), a rival chip maker, had complained ten months ago that the practice was anti-competitive, and the commission largely agreed.
But the substance of the commission’s case seems bizarre. "You can specify the performance you are looking for in a particular computer problem, but not a specification that can only be met by one manufacturer," says commission spokesman Jonathan Todd.
Quelle horreur! What next! Public authorities actually awarding contracts on the basis of excellence, innovation and superior performance. That would never do. What do you think we are – a competitive economy? Hence the approval of the move by AMD, whose spokesman Michael Simonoff purred, "It shows they (the commission) are committed to creating a level playing field."
Ah yes, forgot… the level playing field.
It seems that some government offices in each of the four countries have been specifying Intel chips, or chips that work at the same speed as Intel's technology, when ordering their computer systems. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), a rival chip maker, had complained ten months ago that the practice was anti-competitive, and the commission largely agreed.
But the substance of the commission’s case seems bizarre. "You can specify the performance you are looking for in a particular computer problem, but not a specification that can only be met by one manufacturer," says commission spokesman Jonathan Todd.
Quelle horreur! What next! Public authorities actually awarding contracts on the basis of excellence, innovation and superior performance. That would never do. What do you think we are – a competitive economy? Hence the approval of the move by AMD, whose spokesman Michael Simonoff purred, "It shows they (the commission) are committed to creating a level playing field."
Ah yes, forgot… the level playing field.
Who needs the constitution?
The front page of the Times business section today (print edition) proclaims: "Britain fingered as the worst for breaches of EU tax laws". The accompanying story is given a different headline in the online edition where it becomes "Breaches of EU tax law could cost UK billions". Either way, the message is clear – the UK is breaching "EU tax law".
But hang on a minute, isn't tax a matter for nation states and wasn't tax one of Blair's "red lines" during the constitutional treaty negotiations? So how come there is such a thing as "EU tax law" - apart from VAT?
Regular readers of this Blog, of course, know the answer to this, as we have dealt with this issue several times (click here) and here. Circumventing the treaties, the commission with the ECJ have gradually, insidiously widened the envelope, using "Single Market" provisions to bring taxation into the net.
But this is by no means the only area. In the field of Justice and Home affairs, we see that, through the outwardly benign mechanism of establishing a European Police College and the development of Europol, the EU is gradually harmonising the police forces in the member states.
Through the Fisheries Control Agency, the EU has designs on setting up its own inspection service equipped with its own patrol vessels and surveillance aircraft – a proto EU navy and airforce and, through the increasing allocation of research funds, the EU is developing its own space programme.
Then there is defence. We warned as recently as yesterday that integration was proceeding apace. But what is particularly chilling – and instructive - is a recently published paper by the European Policy Centre (with the support of the EU commission) entitled "ESDP: The State of Play". Its authors write:
Herein lies the great danger with the stance of the Conservative Party and the self-appointed "Vote-No" campaign on the constitution. By supporting membership of the EU, and drawing the line at the constitution, there is a danger that the resistance becomes akin to the Maginot line, a fixed and useless fortification, made redundant as the forces of integration sweep through the Ardennes. That was the problem with the "No campaign" on the euro and history is being repeated.
That, of course, leaves UKIP to raise the alarm. But, while the news percolated through that the UK government was awarding the contract for British Army trucks to a German firm, with serious consequences for defence and the US special relationship, was this "anti-EU" party raising a storm of protest? Er… silly me for even thinking that. Its MEPs were in Brussels arguing about Kilroy's leadership bid. Much more important, don't you think.
But hang on a minute, isn't tax a matter for nation states and wasn't tax one of Blair's "red lines" during the constitutional treaty negotiations? So how come there is such a thing as "EU tax law" - apart from VAT?
Regular readers of this Blog, of course, know the answer to this, as we have dealt with this issue several times (click here) and here. Circumventing the treaties, the commission with the ECJ have gradually, insidiously widened the envelope, using "Single Market" provisions to bring taxation into the net.
But this is by no means the only area. In the field of Justice and Home affairs, we see that, through the outwardly benign mechanism of establishing a European Police College and the development of Europol, the EU is gradually harmonising the police forces in the member states.
Through the Fisheries Control Agency, the EU has designs on setting up its own inspection service equipped with its own patrol vessels and surveillance aircraft – a proto EU navy and airforce and, through the increasing allocation of research funds, the EU is developing its own space programme.
Then there is defence. We warned as recently as yesterday that integration was proceeding apace. But what is particularly chilling – and instructive - is a recently published paper by the European Policy Centre (with the support of the EU commission) entitled "ESDP: The State of Play". Its authors write:
The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is beginning to move forward… The EU is moving to implement the proposals contained in the Solana EU Security Strategy (ESS), agreed last December by the European Council. In June the EU agreed a new constitutional treaty that contains far-reaching proposals for “permanent structured cooperation” in defence. Rather than waiting for the eventual full ratification of the new Constitution by the 25, the Member States have already begun to lift key defence provisions for immediate adoption…That gives the game away. Member states are not waiting for "the eventual full ratification of the new constitution" and are proceeding with political integration. To that extent, the constitution is an irrelevance. It would be nice to have it, but it is not essential. Whether it is ratified or not, the pace of integration will not slacken.
Herein lies the great danger with the stance of the Conservative Party and the self-appointed "Vote-No" campaign on the constitution. By supporting membership of the EU, and drawing the line at the constitution, there is a danger that the resistance becomes akin to the Maginot line, a fixed and useless fortification, made redundant as the forces of integration sweep through the Ardennes. That was the problem with the "No campaign" on the euro and history is being repeated.
That, of course, leaves UKIP to raise the alarm. But, while the news percolated through that the UK government was awarding the contract for British Army trucks to a German firm, with serious consequences for defence and the US special relationship, was this "anti-EU" party raising a storm of protest? Er… silly me for even thinking that. Its MEPs were in Brussels arguing about Kilroy's leadership bid. Much more important, don't you think.
Are they listening to themselves? - Part IX
Even those of us who have disagreed on most matters with Chris Patten, outgoing External Relations Commissioner and future leader of the yes campaign, have always acknowledged his knowledge and intelligence. We may well have to revise our opinions, if his introduction to a collection of essays published by Policy Exchange and entitled The Perfect Union? New Europe and the EU is anything to go by.
The pamphlet is of some interest, anyway, as it discusses the great opportunities and certain difficulties of enlargement to the east, and we shall be discussing it in the future. However, our attention was caught by Mr Patten’s following rather curious comments:
Then the comment about supplier of energy: who is supplying energy to whom? The sentence is completely incoherent. As we have already pointed out, Russia supplies a great deal of gas to Eastern Europe and is well on the way to controlling many of the new member states’ energy industry. Whether it will parlay that advantage into a better position as far as Western Europe is concerned remains to be seen.
In what way is Russia going to be “a factor for stability on the EU’s eastern border” and who is doing the destabilizing? On the whole Russia has not been a factor in stability either in Ukraine or in Georgia, not to mention the Central Asian republics. She is not interfering too much in Eastern Europe because there is no immediate pretext but it does, from time to time, bare its teeth as far as the Baltic States are concerned. One and all, Russia’s neighbours view her with apprehension. What sort of external relations did Chris Patten deal with?
Finally, and most magnificently, we must turn to those democratic, market-oriented reforms. Maybe it was in the EU’s interest to foster them, but then maybe the EU should have made that view clear to President Putin, instead of blackmailing him and his country into signing the Kyoto Protocol.
I wonder what Commissioner Patten meant about Russia’s incentive to adopt EU standards and practices.
The pamphlet is of some interest, anyway, as it discusses the great opportunities and certain difficulties of enlargement to the east, and we shall be discussing it in the future. However, our attention was caught by Mr Patten’s following rather curious comments:
“Our relationship with Russia, for example, will be greatly enriched by enlargement. We have over the years worked hard, if not always successfully, to develop a deep, strategic partnership with our largest neighbour. We have a major stake in doing so; and enlargement will increase that stake – the new EU will account for more than 50% of Russia’s external trade, and will continue to be a significant supplier of energy as we as a factor for stability on the EU’s eastern borders. Our incentive to instil democratic, market-oriented reforms in Russia, and Russia’s incentive to adopt EU standards and practices will only grow.”What is he talking about? To start with, whose largest neighbour has Russia been for the last ten years? The EU has only just extended to its borders this year and, for the moment, that is true only in the Baltic. Unless Russia, Ukraine and Belarus reunite, which seems unlikely at the moment, the latter two countries are the ones the EU has common borders with.
Then the comment about supplier of energy: who is supplying energy to whom? The sentence is completely incoherent. As we have already pointed out, Russia supplies a great deal of gas to Eastern Europe and is well on the way to controlling many of the new member states’ energy industry. Whether it will parlay that advantage into a better position as far as Western Europe is concerned remains to be seen.
In what way is Russia going to be “a factor for stability on the EU’s eastern border” and who is doing the destabilizing? On the whole Russia has not been a factor in stability either in Ukraine or in Georgia, not to mention the Central Asian republics. She is not interfering too much in Eastern Europe because there is no immediate pretext but it does, from time to time, bare its teeth as far as the Baltic States are concerned. One and all, Russia’s neighbours view her with apprehension. What sort of external relations did Chris Patten deal with?
Finally, and most magnificently, we must turn to those democratic, market-oriented reforms. Maybe it was in the EU’s interest to foster them, but then maybe the EU should have made that view clear to President Putin, instead of blackmailing him and his country into signing the Kyoto Protocol.
I wonder what Commissioner Patten meant about Russia’s incentive to adopt EU standards and practices.
A lost cause
Yesterday’s Le Figaro carried a rather sad little article. Well, I thought it was sad, though some people may laugh. Apparently, a number of French and international worthies, led by the author Maurice Druon, representing that august institution, the Académie française, have published a manifesto or an open letter to the European Council, demanding that French be nominated as the “langue juridique de l’Europe”, the legal or juridical language of Europe (by which they presumably mean the European Union).
This, as the newspaper says, is a last ditch attempt to stem the growth of English as the preferred language of that institution.
For a long time the EEC/EC/EU remained the only international body that produced its documents in French first and other languages, including English, late second. This has been changing, as, indeed, has the knowledge of French across the Continent.
Numerous researches have shown that even before the eastward enlargement English was the preferred second language in most member states. For a year or so before the actual enlargement the Institute française and other organizations spent a great deal of money trying to interest the applicant members in studying French, accepting French as the leading language and France as the leading country of Europe. This has not really worked, though I can testify that their Quatorze Juillet parties were magnificent.
In 1986, as Le Figaro points out, around 58 per cent of EU documents were first produced in the language of Molière, in 1997 around 40 per cent and now less than 30 per cent. They do, of course, get published in French, but only at the same time as in other languages. The language of Shakespeare comes first. Zut, alors. On ne peut supporter ça.
M Druon has collected signatures from outside France as well, though even Le Figaro appears to be somewhat bemused by the apparently highly important but, really, rather eclectic list: Mario Soares, former President of Portugal, Federico Mayor, former Education Minister of Spain and former Director-General of UNESCO, Suzanna Agnelli, former Italian Foreign Minister, Adrian Nastase, Prime Minister of Romania and Simeon Saxe-Coburg, Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Dora Bakyianni, Mayor of Athens, Bronislaw Geremek, former Polish Foreign Minister and the Albanian writer Ismaïl Kadare.
One fears that even such an illustrious list will not reverse the well-established trend. Surely, all these French and other dignitaries remember the failed attempt to prevent the usage of English words in the French language and the creation of franglais by law as well as the equally doomed attempt to force all French scientific conferences to conduct their sessions in French only. The latter came to nothing when French scientists protested that, should the law be passed, they would not be able to hold international conferences ever again.
This, as the newspaper says, is a last ditch attempt to stem the growth of English as the preferred language of that institution.
For a long time the EEC/EC/EU remained the only international body that produced its documents in French first and other languages, including English, late second. This has been changing, as, indeed, has the knowledge of French across the Continent.
Numerous researches have shown that even before the eastward enlargement English was the preferred second language in most member states. For a year or so before the actual enlargement the Institute française and other organizations spent a great deal of money trying to interest the applicant members in studying French, accepting French as the leading language and France as the leading country of Europe. This has not really worked, though I can testify that their Quatorze Juillet parties were magnificent.
In 1986, as Le Figaro points out, around 58 per cent of EU documents were first produced in the language of Molière, in 1997 around 40 per cent and now less than 30 per cent. They do, of course, get published in French, but only at the same time as in other languages. The language of Shakespeare comes first. Zut, alors. On ne peut supporter ça.
M Druon has collected signatures from outside France as well, though even Le Figaro appears to be somewhat bemused by the apparently highly important but, really, rather eclectic list: Mario Soares, former President of Portugal, Federico Mayor, former Education Minister of Spain and former Director-General of UNESCO, Suzanna Agnelli, former Italian Foreign Minister, Adrian Nastase, Prime Minister of Romania and Simeon Saxe-Coburg, Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Dora Bakyianni, Mayor of Athens, Bronislaw Geremek, former Polish Foreign Minister and the Albanian writer Ismaïl Kadare.
One fears that even such an illustrious list will not reverse the well-established trend. Surely, all these French and other dignitaries remember the failed attempt to prevent the usage of English words in the French language and the creation of franglais by law as well as the equally doomed attempt to force all French scientific conferences to conduct their sessions in French only. The latter came to nothing when French scientists protested that, should the law be passed, they would not be able to hold international conferences ever again.
Nothing changes
It's desk clearing time… or a pre-emptive strike. Last July we noted that the EU commission was threatening the German government with a starring role in the European Court of Justice unless it sorted out the law that made car-maker Volkswagen immune from take-overs.
At the time, we ventured that this would be a great test for (then) commission-president designate Barroso, as to whether he would see this issue though and actually make good the threat.
As it happens, though, he is not to be given the chance. With over two weeks to go before he assumes office the "pro-market" Dutch single market commissioner Frits Bolkestein has got in first and made the referral, leaving the new commission only the role of seeing through the case.
The complexities of this issue were rehearsed in our earlier Blog on the subject, with Schöder being trapped between the rock of the Länder and the hard place of the commission, unable to satisfy either.
But what is particularly interesting about yesterday’s development is the way Bolkestein has committed the Barroso commission to a course of action of which ot may or may not approve.
Theoretically, the new commission is a "new broom" that can set its own policy direction but this episode, like others – such as the announcement of spending plans up to 2007 - means that, whatever its inclinations, Barroso and his merry men and women will be passengers on the gravy train for some years to come.
That is the nature of the system. In the same way that the European parliament will be called upon to pass legislation at second and third reading that was introduced to a completely different parliament, so is the commission prisoner of a system over which it has little immediate control.
This rather puts the media prattle about the intentions of the Barroso commission in perspective. The will be different talking heads at the press conferences and new names to learn but, for the next few years at least – if not longer – there will be no real change.
At the time, we ventured that this would be a great test for (then) commission-president designate Barroso, as to whether he would see this issue though and actually make good the threat.
As it happens, though, he is not to be given the chance. With over two weeks to go before he assumes office the "pro-market" Dutch single market commissioner Frits Bolkestein has got in first and made the referral, leaving the new commission only the role of seeing through the case.
The complexities of this issue were rehearsed in our earlier Blog on the subject, with Schöder being trapped between the rock of the Länder and the hard place of the commission, unable to satisfy either.
But what is particularly interesting about yesterday’s development is the way Bolkestein has committed the Barroso commission to a course of action of which ot may or may not approve.
Theoretically, the new commission is a "new broom" that can set its own policy direction but this episode, like others – such as the announcement of spending plans up to 2007 - means that, whatever its inclinations, Barroso and his merry men and women will be passengers on the gravy train for some years to come.
That is the nature of the system. In the same way that the European parliament will be called upon to pass legislation at second and third reading that was introduced to a completely different parliament, so is the commission prisoner of a system over which it has little immediate control.
This rather puts the media prattle about the intentions of the Barroso commission in perspective. The will be different talking heads at the press conferences and new names to learn but, for the next few years at least – if not longer – there will be no real change.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
No troops, but arms galore
On top of the Germans moving in to sell its surplus tanks to Turkey on the back of the EU commission agreeing to recommend opening accession negotiations with Turkey, it appears that Herr Schröder has been busy elsewhere in his role of premier arms salesman, propelling Germany into fourth place in the world league of arms exporters, displacing Britain.
Thus runs a report in The Times today, based on figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Of course, now that the British government has decided to buy its military trucks from Germany, that will further improve Germany’s position as - in abandoning our domestic market - we will have opted out of the export market as well.
As to the German activity, The Times finds rather odd, given that the Schröder’s Social Democrats are in coalition with the pacifist Green Party.
Nevertheless, despite a German law that bars the sale of weapons to so-called "areas of tension", the SDP and the peace-loving Greens stood by while Schröder this month discussed the supply of submarines to India, and the government supplied 20 Fuchs armoured transporters to Iraq, even though the German military are kept well clear.
Schröder is also sniffing round Libya to see whether he can pick up some trade there, in the wake of the embargo being lifted there and, alongside Chirac, he is a keen proponent of lifting the arms ban on China.
Nevertheless, the bulk of German arms exports has gone to Nato countries, led by the United States, which has bought €685 million (£472 million) of guns in the past three years. Spain spent €232 million on tanks and anti-tank mortars, and Greece bought €266 million of mortars. Smaller sales have also been agreed with India and South Korea. Germany has also supplied Israel and, just to be even-handed, the United Arab Emirates.
One wonders, though, what the Greeks, as recipients of German arms, must be thinking of Schröder's enthusiasm for dealing with Turkey, when the Greek English-language newspaper Kathimerini recently reported that six formations of Turkish fighter jets entered the Athens Flight Information Region (FIR) seven times, with the twelve jets chased off by as many Greek aircraft after “simulated” dogfights, endangering – so it is claimed – civilian air traffic.
They may be less than pleased to learn that Germany, in addition to flogging tanks to the Turks, is also pushing hard for the airforce to buy up some Eurofighters. Could be interesting if the Greeks and Turks go to war again.
Thus runs a report in The Times today, based on figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Of course, now that the British government has decided to buy its military trucks from Germany, that will further improve Germany’s position as - in abandoning our domestic market - we will have opted out of the export market as well.
As to the German activity, The Times finds rather odd, given that the Schröder’s Social Democrats are in coalition with the pacifist Green Party.
Nevertheless, despite a German law that bars the sale of weapons to so-called "areas of tension", the SDP and the peace-loving Greens stood by while Schröder this month discussed the supply of submarines to India, and the government supplied 20 Fuchs armoured transporters to Iraq, even though the German military are kept well clear.
Schröder is also sniffing round Libya to see whether he can pick up some trade there, in the wake of the embargo being lifted there and, alongside Chirac, he is a keen proponent of lifting the arms ban on China.
Nevertheless, the bulk of German arms exports has gone to Nato countries, led by the United States, which has bought €685 million (£472 million) of guns in the past three years. Spain spent €232 million on tanks and anti-tank mortars, and Greece bought €266 million of mortars. Smaller sales have also been agreed with India and South Korea. Germany has also supplied Israel and, just to be even-handed, the United Arab Emirates.
One wonders, though, what the Greeks, as recipients of German arms, must be thinking of Schröder's enthusiasm for dealing with Turkey, when the Greek English-language newspaper Kathimerini recently reported that six formations of Turkish fighter jets entered the Athens Flight Information Region (FIR) seven times, with the twelve jets chased off by as many Greek aircraft after “simulated” dogfights, endangering – so it is claimed – civilian air traffic.
They may be less than pleased to learn that Germany, in addition to flogging tanks to the Turks, is also pushing hard for the airforce to buy up some Eurofighters. Could be interesting if the Greeks and Turks go to war again.
Italy fulminates
Italian politicians and the media have been upset at the treatment meted out to their Commissioner, Rocco Buttiglione, described in a previous blog. There have been all kinds of rows with those on the left maintaining that this is the direct result of Prime Minister Berlusconi’s somewhat belligerent attitude to the rest of Europe and, for that matter, the world.
Those on the right, on the other hand, see the whole row as an attack on Italy and on values that are reasonably close to those held by a very large number of people in that country, certainly by most members of the Catholic Church. Nor are Italians too keen on the notion of upstart MEPs attacking the man, known as “the Philosopher” because of this academic background.
The most apposite comment was made by the Justice Minister Roberto Castelli:
Those on the right, on the other hand, see the whole row as an attack on Italy and on values that are reasonably close to those held by a very large number of people in that country, certainly by most members of the Catholic Church. Nor are Italians too keen on the notion of upstart MEPs attacking the man, known as “the Philosopher” because of this academic background.
The most apposite comment was made by the Justice Minister Roberto Castelli:
“This decision shows the real face of Europe, a face which we don't like. It's fundamentalist, which is absolutely not on.”True. It also shows a somewhat cavalier attitude to the ideas of free speech and free opinion, ideas that are, supposedly, part of the European values, the EU boasts of upholding and promulgating. Clearly the European Parliament is no more in favour of these outdated notions than the London Assembly. Is that a coincidence?
Defence integration – by stealth?
The choice of a European supplier for British Army trucks - announced yesterday by the MoD – has such profound implications for UK defence policy that it cannot just be dismissed as a "best value" procurement decision.
Unless the MoD can come up with a very, very convincing justification for selecting MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge, there are good reasons for suspecting that there is a broader political agenda at play.
Not least, there are shades of the Sikorsky – Westland drama here, in that the choice was essentially between an American-led consortium, in Stewart and Stevenson, fronting up the British companies LDV Limited, Multidrive Limited and Lex Defence, and the European supplier MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge.
Unlike the Conservative government in 1985, however, this Labour administration has gone for the European option, making the British Army wholly reliant of German manufactured equipment.
What gets the political antenna twitching though are two separate issues. The first is the EU commission's publication of 23 September of this year the Green Paper on Defence Procurement (COM(2004) 608 final), flagged up in our earlier Blog (sleepwalking into disaster).
In this Blog, we noted that the commission stated that "the credibility of European defence policy depends on the existence and development of a European capacity and a strengthening of the industrial and technological base of the defence sector". It said it was anxious to work with the European Defence Agency to promote common, EU-wide procurement and standardisation throughout the forces of member states.
While it cannot yet be stated with any certainty that the choice of a German supplier of British Army trucks is at all influenced by this Green Paper and the commission's objective, it can be stated with certainty that it certainly does conform with the commission's objectives. On the other hand, the choice of a US-led consortium would confound the them.
The second issue of note is the recent rejection by the US congress of the ITAR waiver, whence it will be recalled that defence secretary Hoon threatened Rumsfeld that congressional opposition to the waivers "could steer London away from billions of dollars' of U.S. weapon purchases."
The waiver was vetoed on 6 October and here we are on 13 October learning that the UK has gone for a European rather than US option in selecting crucial British Army equipment.
On their own, these two issues could still, perhaps, be dismissed as coincidence, but there is another more profound factor in the wings. Long gone are the days when trucks – Army trucks, at least – were simply boxes on wheels, used to ship men and materiel. They are highly sophisticated pieces of equipment, which mesh into the whole logistics and combat system, relying on complex electronics to keep them integrated.
Surprise, surprise, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG is not just a truck manufacturer. It also produces a sophisticated electronic fleet management system, called "Telematics" which has been incorporated into the military programme, thus enabling what it calls "Network Centric Logistics".
This starts ringing alarm bells. At the forefront of modern military technology, is the concept of "digitising the battlespace", providing command and control capability throughout the force, with – in the jargon of the speciality – "a horizontally and vertically integrated digital information network that supports warfighting systems and assures command and control decision cycle superiority."
The logistic network is a central part of that capability, which will be incorporated into the British Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) which is at the heart of Hoon’s defence review, and underpins his cutting back of infantry strength.
The concept itself is based on the US Future Combat System (FCS) and the political implications of this system have been discussed in an earlier Blog.
In this respect, the crucial question for the UK, on the basis that it cannot afford to develop the system on its own, is whether it goes for European or US cooperation. If it chooses European cooperation, then it is highly unlikely that the resultant system will be compatible with the US, which will then mean that combined operations with US forces, on any scale, will effectively ruled out.
We are, therefore, in a situation where the choice of technology is actually dictating and circumscribing political choices, to the extent that we are having to choose between the US or Europe, and can no longer act in our traditional role as a bridge between the two. It has to be one or the other, and the selection of MAN Nutzfahrzeuge drags us further into the European camp.
Political issues aside, there are also profound technical issues. Although "tactical internet" and "Integrated Digital Information Networks" on the battlefield are new concepts, much of the US technology is battle-proven, having been deployed in the Iraq war, and the US Army is already deploying the technology in its "Interim Armoured Vehicle", the Stryker, with at least two brigades up and running.
For the Europeans, the concept is theoretical, with no proven experience. No European manufacturer, or armed service, has yet been able to put the technology into the field, yet we are drifting into a situation were we are being committed to participation in an untried European programme.
Furthermore, although at a relatively minor level compared to the electronic systems, with the experience of Iraq and other war zones, trucks are being fitted for optional installation of appliqué armour, to protect against mines, RPG7s and roadside bombs. And which country is world leader in armour technology? You guessed it, the Americans… and we are opting for German equipment.
All of this discounts the jobs issue, where the Stewart and Stevenson option would ensure that the vehicles were built in Britain by British workers. to say nothing of throwing away the possibility of export sales by abandoning domestic manufacturing. And, Xenophobic or not, there is the highly sensitive issue of British forces relying on German Army trucks. There are still many people around with memories of the Second World War who will feel uneasy at the prospect.
But the central issue, which has to be addressed, and addressed urgently, is whether the MAN Nutzfahrzeuge decision is politically driven, and part of an undeclared agenda which has at its heart European defence integration – by stealth. It this is the agenda, then we are putting the whole of the US special relationship at risk, with untold political consequences.
Unless the MoD can come up with a very, very convincing justification for selecting MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge, there are good reasons for suspecting that there is a broader political agenda at play.
Not least, there are shades of the Sikorsky – Westland drama here, in that the choice was essentially between an American-led consortium, in Stewart and Stevenson, fronting up the British companies LDV Limited, Multidrive Limited and Lex Defence, and the European supplier MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge.
Unlike the Conservative government in 1985, however, this Labour administration has gone for the European option, making the British Army wholly reliant of German manufactured equipment.
What gets the political antenna twitching though are two separate issues. The first is the EU commission's publication of 23 September of this year the Green Paper on Defence Procurement (COM(2004) 608 final), flagged up in our earlier Blog (sleepwalking into disaster).
In this Blog, we noted that the commission stated that "the credibility of European defence policy depends on the existence and development of a European capacity and a strengthening of the industrial and technological base of the defence sector". It said it was anxious to work with the European Defence Agency to promote common, EU-wide procurement and standardisation throughout the forces of member states.
While it cannot yet be stated with any certainty that the choice of a German supplier of British Army trucks is at all influenced by this Green Paper and the commission's objective, it can be stated with certainty that it certainly does conform with the commission's objectives. On the other hand, the choice of a US-led consortium would confound the them.
The second issue of note is the recent rejection by the US congress of the ITAR waiver, whence it will be recalled that defence secretary Hoon threatened Rumsfeld that congressional opposition to the waivers "could steer London away from billions of dollars' of U.S. weapon purchases."
The waiver was vetoed on 6 October and here we are on 13 October learning that the UK has gone for a European rather than US option in selecting crucial British Army equipment.
On their own, these two issues could still, perhaps, be dismissed as coincidence, but there is another more profound factor in the wings. Long gone are the days when trucks – Army trucks, at least – were simply boxes on wheels, used to ship men and materiel. They are highly sophisticated pieces of equipment, which mesh into the whole logistics and combat system, relying on complex electronics to keep them integrated.
Surprise, surprise, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG is not just a truck manufacturer. It also produces a sophisticated electronic fleet management system, called "Telematics" which has been incorporated into the military programme, thus enabling what it calls "Network Centric Logistics".
This starts ringing alarm bells. At the forefront of modern military technology, is the concept of "digitising the battlespace", providing command and control capability throughout the force, with – in the jargon of the speciality – "a horizontally and vertically integrated digital information network that supports warfighting systems and assures command and control decision cycle superiority."
The logistic network is a central part of that capability, which will be incorporated into the British Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) which is at the heart of Hoon’s defence review, and underpins his cutting back of infantry strength.
The concept itself is based on the US Future Combat System (FCS) and the political implications of this system have been discussed in an earlier Blog.
In this respect, the crucial question for the UK, on the basis that it cannot afford to develop the system on its own, is whether it goes for European or US cooperation. If it chooses European cooperation, then it is highly unlikely that the resultant system will be compatible with the US, which will then mean that combined operations with US forces, on any scale, will effectively ruled out.
We are, therefore, in a situation where the choice of technology is actually dictating and circumscribing political choices, to the extent that we are having to choose between the US or Europe, and can no longer act in our traditional role as a bridge between the two. It has to be one or the other, and the selection of MAN Nutzfahrzeuge drags us further into the European camp.
Political issues aside, there are also profound technical issues. Although "tactical internet" and "Integrated Digital Information Networks" on the battlefield are new concepts, much of the US technology is battle-proven, having been deployed in the Iraq war, and the US Army is already deploying the technology in its "Interim Armoured Vehicle", the Stryker, with at least two brigades up and running.
For the Europeans, the concept is theoretical, with no proven experience. No European manufacturer, or armed service, has yet been able to put the technology into the field, yet we are drifting into a situation were we are being committed to participation in an untried European programme.
Furthermore, although at a relatively minor level compared to the electronic systems, with the experience of Iraq and other war zones, trucks are being fitted for optional installation of appliqué armour, to protect against mines, RPG7s and roadside bombs. And which country is world leader in armour technology? You guessed it, the Americans… and we are opting for German equipment.
All of this discounts the jobs issue, where the Stewart and Stevenson option would ensure that the vehicles were built in Britain by British workers. to say nothing of throwing away the possibility of export sales by abandoning domestic manufacturing. And, Xenophobic or not, there is the highly sensitive issue of British forces relying on German Army trucks. There are still many people around with memories of the Second World War who will feel uneasy at the prospect.
But the central issue, which has to be addressed, and addressed urgently, is whether the MAN Nutzfahrzeuge decision is politically driven, and part of an undeclared agenda which has at its heart European defence integration – by stealth. It this is the agenda, then we are putting the whole of the US special relationship at risk, with untold political consequences.
UKIP speaks up for free speech - London Assembly votes against it
What is the London Assembly for? One struggles to explain the need for such a completely useless and unnecessary body. It cannot even control the pharaonic plans of a megalomaniac Mayor, who is equally unnecessary for London’s well-being. Given that the business of London is business, if one may misquote President Calvin Coolidge, having a severely anti-business, tax-and-regulation-mad Mayor is the height of lunacy.
Today the London Assembly had its once a month plenary meeting, which lasted from ten o’clock till lunchtime. During that Lord Coe and Ken Livingstone were questioned on the Olympic bid and turned extremely coy on the subject of financial details.
Then they had the most extraordinary debate. Apparently, one of its members, Brian Coleman, who is also the Chairman of the Assembly, had had the temerity to express his private view that the United States was right not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. It seems this wretched Protocol has now become one of the no-go areas for speech or writing. Perhaps, next time there are calls for amending the blasphemy legislation, the Kyoto Protocol should be included or, even, made the only dogma that cannot be criticized, no matter how many scientists and economists may cast doubt on it.
To start with, the Greens, supported by the Labour group put down a motion of censure, replete with various mis-statements:
The Lib-Dem group wanted to show its tolerant open-minded side. So, they put down an amendment to the motion:
However, the killer amendment was put down by Damian Hockney, leader of the UKIP group:
Still, the fact remains that the London Assembly, a fully, freely and fairly elected body (even if nobody quite knows what it is for and most people do not bother to vote) has voted against its members’ right to free speech. Will all regional assemblies have the same attitude?
Today the London Assembly had its once a month plenary meeting, which lasted from ten o’clock till lunchtime. During that Lord Coe and Ken Livingstone were questioned on the Olympic bid and turned extremely coy on the subject of financial details.
Then they had the most extraordinary debate. Apparently, one of its members, Brian Coleman, who is also the Chairman of the Assembly, had had the temerity to express his private view that the United States was right not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. It seems this wretched Protocol has now become one of the no-go areas for speech or writing. Perhaps, next time there are calls for amending the blasphemy legislation, the Kyoto Protocol should be included or, even, made the only dogma that cannot be criticized, no matter how many scientists and economists may cast doubt on it.
To start with, the Greens, supported by the Labour group put down a motion of censure, replete with various mis-statements:
“This Assembly notes the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a genuine threat and reaffirms the Assembly’s support for firm action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to tackle climate change.The Assembly, as it happens, has nothing to do with the whole argument about Kyoto but, if it wanted to do something about a reduction in supposed global warming, some unkind people have suggested, it might start by cutting back on its own emission of hot air. But then, if one passed that sort of regulation, where would that stop? How much is the UN contributing to global warming through the activity of its General Assembly and Security Council?
This Assembly condemns the statement made by the Chair of the Assembly on the website of the Enfield and Barnet United Nations Association in which he expresses support for the United States Government’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and in which he expresses doubts about the reality of global warming.
This Assembly urges the Chair of the Assembly to retract his comments.”
The Lib-Dem group wanted to show its tolerant open-minded side. So, they put down an amendment to the motion:
Delete all references to Chair of the Assembly and replace with the Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden.I am sure our readers would have noticed the subtle differences in the wording.
In second paragraph replace condemns with “disagrees with”.
Motion would then read:-
“This Assembly notes the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a genuine threat and reaffirms the Assembly’s support for firm action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to tackle climate change.
This Assembly disagrees with the statement made by the Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden on the website of the Enfield and Barnet United Nations Association in which he expresses support for the United States Government’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and in which he expresses doubts about the reality of global warming.
This Assembly urges the Assembly Member for Barnet & Camden to retract his comments.”
However, the killer amendment was put down by Damian Hockney, leader of the UKIP group:
Delete all words except "This assembly condemns..." and replace withEasy, you might think and unexceptionable. But the Assembly voted against it. To be fair, it then voted against the Lib-Dem amendment, probably because of the general dislike of the Lib-Dem tendency of trying to have their cake and eating it; it also voted against the substantive motion, because the Lib-Dems were piqued enough to vote with the Tories and UKIP.
"..any attempt to censure or to restrict the freedom of speech of its Members when speaking in a private or party capacity"
Still, the fact remains that the London Assembly, a fully, freely and fairly elected body (even if nobody quite knows what it is for and most people do not bother to vote) has voted against its members’ right to free speech. Will all regional assemblies have the same attitude?
German trucks for British Army
Without any great drama in the popular press, the MoD is currently negotiating a major contract for the supply of trucks for the British Army, worth over £1 billion.
The contract, the biggest in 25 years, covers the supply of 5,000 cargo and recovery trucks, with delivery scheduled to start in 2007. The MoD has also placed an option for further vehicles.
And who will supply these trucks? Well, it now seems that the MoD has chosen the subsidiary of the German engineering conglomerate MAN, MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge, as the preferred bidder. Negotiations will now continue on an exclusive basis.
MAN, whose activities range from truck-making to plant engineering and printing machinery, managed to overcome competition from German-U.S. auto giant DaimlerChrysler and U.S. truck makers Oshkosh and Stewart and Stevenson.
The latter firm, a Texas based operation, teamed with UK firms LDV Limited, Multidrive Limited and Lex Defence and intended to build the trucks in Birmingham, England. Max L. Lukens, President and Chief Executive Officer, expressed "disappointment" in the decision, and well he might.
With a track record of building tactical vehicles for the US Army, this company would have been ideal, not only because it is highly experienced, but also because of those links with the US Army, with which the British forces operate closely. This move can only increase the growing UK-US divide.
A serious questions now has to be asked as to why the UK, it seems, can no longer build essential equipment for its own Army, and is buying from a European source, with the concomitant loss of jobs.
The contract, the biggest in 25 years, covers the supply of 5,000 cargo and recovery trucks, with delivery scheduled to start in 2007. The MoD has also placed an option for further vehicles.
And who will supply these trucks? Well, it now seems that the MoD has chosen the subsidiary of the German engineering conglomerate MAN, MAN-Nutzfahrzeuge, as the preferred bidder. Negotiations will now continue on an exclusive basis.
MAN, whose activities range from truck-making to plant engineering and printing machinery, managed to overcome competition from German-U.S. auto giant DaimlerChrysler and U.S. truck makers Oshkosh and Stewart and Stevenson.
The latter firm, a Texas based operation, teamed with UK firms LDV Limited, Multidrive Limited and Lex Defence and intended to build the trucks in Birmingham, England. Max L. Lukens, President and Chief Executive Officer, expressed "disappointment" in the decision, and well he might.
With a track record of building tactical vehicles for the US Army, this company would have been ideal, not only because it is highly experienced, but also because of those links with the US Army, with which the British forces operate closely. This move can only increase the growing UK-US divide.
A serious questions now has to be asked as to why the UK, it seems, can no longer build essential equipment for its own Army, and is buying from a European source, with the concomitant loss of jobs.
Are we there yet?
Anyone who has ever had to take children anywhere is familiar with that constantly recurring question. The answer is usually: nearly there or just a little way to go.
The question has been in my mind on the subject of policing. Like many other people I remember the Paris police some years ago, with the flics sitting in their mobile cages, waiting for a chance to take their resentments out on those who passed them with disdain. I also remember the militiamen (or millymen, as we called them) in Moscow in the last months of the Soviet Union.
Friends and colleagues who have worked in the European Parliament have told me of the unreality of entering a building, which was cut off from the rest of the city mentally and surrounded by barbed wire and armoured vehicles physically.
Through all this I, like so many, smirked in a superior fashion and thought of our own friendly police. Not very efficient, to be sure, but superlative in crowd control and, above all, not a breed apart. Well, I smirk no longer. Are we there yet? Nearly there.
On Monday I had to walk through the corridors of Parliament in pursuit of some amendments to a piece of legislation that is going through the House of Lords and other matters. To my shock I encountered one or two armed or, at least, heavily encumbered with hardware police officers at every single door. These were not the usual friendly security officers but definitely the British equivalent of les flics. Together with the armed police inside and outside the entrances they gave the place an air of a mini-police state. As I told friends in a shocked tone, I had not encountered anything like this since those weeks in Moscow a year or so before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Are we there yet? Nearly there.
Yesterday I found that Parliament Square was completely closed off, with large numbers of police officers milling all round it. Rather wildly I thought of a plan of running tours for Londoners in the area, so they can see real live police officers in action: chatting to people, preventing them from crossing roads, telling them the time, all the things we have forgotten.
Why were they doing this? Because the Hunting Bill was having its Second Reading in the House of Lords and, who knows, there might have been a demonstration. In fact, there was not a single demonstrator. Why would there be? The House of Lords was going to have a serious debate (again) and the Countryside Alliance adopted a different strategy: that of letter writing and sending out political briefs. It seems nobody bothered to tell the police. So they poured their forces there and closed off Parliament Square for the benefit of half a dozen opponents of hunting who stood outside the Treasury, peaceably carrying placards and stuffed animals. Hardly a danger to the realm.
In the evening I listened to a talk given by Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch and newspaper proprietor, a refugee from Putin’s Russia. In reply to a question about whether Russians are ready for democracy he said that in his opinion Russians were perfectly capable of living their own lives and running their own businesses but they had not reached the next stage, being able to fight for the right to do all those things. He compared that with Britain where nearly half a million people went out on the streets to protest against the banning of foxhunting. None of the glum audience present bothered to point out the obvious fact that it did them no good at all.
Berezovsky then added that actually, the differences between the two political systems were not so great. In the West riots were greeted with rubber bullets, in Russia with real ones. In the audience we looked at each other and found it impossible to dismiss such a wild allegation with a smirk.
Are we there yet? Just a little way to go.
The question has been in my mind on the subject of policing. Like many other people I remember the Paris police some years ago, with the flics sitting in their mobile cages, waiting for a chance to take their resentments out on those who passed them with disdain. I also remember the militiamen (or millymen, as we called them) in Moscow in the last months of the Soviet Union.
Friends and colleagues who have worked in the European Parliament have told me of the unreality of entering a building, which was cut off from the rest of the city mentally and surrounded by barbed wire and armoured vehicles physically.
Through all this I, like so many, smirked in a superior fashion and thought of our own friendly police. Not very efficient, to be sure, but superlative in crowd control and, above all, not a breed apart. Well, I smirk no longer. Are we there yet? Nearly there.
On Monday I had to walk through the corridors of Parliament in pursuit of some amendments to a piece of legislation that is going through the House of Lords and other matters. To my shock I encountered one or two armed or, at least, heavily encumbered with hardware police officers at every single door. These were not the usual friendly security officers but definitely the British equivalent of les flics. Together with the armed police inside and outside the entrances they gave the place an air of a mini-police state. As I told friends in a shocked tone, I had not encountered anything like this since those weeks in Moscow a year or so before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Are we there yet? Nearly there.
Yesterday I found that Parliament Square was completely closed off, with large numbers of police officers milling all round it. Rather wildly I thought of a plan of running tours for Londoners in the area, so they can see real live police officers in action: chatting to people, preventing them from crossing roads, telling them the time, all the things we have forgotten.
Why were they doing this? Because the Hunting Bill was having its Second Reading in the House of Lords and, who knows, there might have been a demonstration. In fact, there was not a single demonstrator. Why would there be? The House of Lords was going to have a serious debate (again) and the Countryside Alliance adopted a different strategy: that of letter writing and sending out political briefs. It seems nobody bothered to tell the police. So they poured their forces there and closed off Parliament Square for the benefit of half a dozen opponents of hunting who stood outside the Treasury, peaceably carrying placards and stuffed animals. Hardly a danger to the realm.
In the evening I listened to a talk given by Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch and newspaper proprietor, a refugee from Putin’s Russia. In reply to a question about whether Russians are ready for democracy he said that in his opinion Russians were perfectly capable of living their own lives and running their own businesses but they had not reached the next stage, being able to fight for the right to do all those things. He compared that with Britain where nearly half a million people went out on the streets to protest against the banning of foxhunting. None of the glum audience present bothered to point out the obvious fact that it did them no good at all.
Berezovsky then added that actually, the differences between the two political systems were not so great. In the West riots were greeted with rubber bullets, in Russia with real ones. In the audience we looked at each other and found it impossible to dismiss such a wild allegation with a smirk.
Are we there yet? Just a little way to go.
The "bacon buttie" test
More woes for the euro, according to the The Times business section today.
Despite the extravagant claims for "price transparency" and the theory that this would push prices down, the actual prices of consumer goods in the different eurozone countries are nearly as far apart as they were at the time of the introduction of euro banknotes and coins three years ago
Advocates of the single currency had confidently predicted that the euro would overcome the difficulties consumers had in comparing prices when they were expressed in different currencies, but the Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein investment bank has blown that comfortable little fantasy apart.
Prices, it found, are still as divergent as they were when the single currency was introduced physically. Furthermore, DKW said it might take 20 years before prices in euroland had come as much into line as those in the states of America. The difference in prices across six eurozone cities was an average 14.5 per cent this year, according to DKW. The gap had narrowed only slightly from 14.9 per cent last year.
This allowed Oliver Letwin, the shadow chancellor, to crow triumphantly – with some justification: “So much for claims that the single currency would make the market far more effective. This is one more piece of evidence that it’s free trade and not the currency that matters.”
Actually, the only surprising thing is that anybody actually thought it would be any different. I could not tell you offhand how long the UK has been a single currency area - no doubt someone will tell me – but prices in Yorkshire are still very different from those in London and then, even in Yorkshire, there are substantial variations.
Employing the famous "bacon buttie" standard, a three-rasher teacake in the outskirts of Bradford will cost you £1.20 compared with £1.80 for two rashers on toast in York. In a hundred years time, no doubt, bacon butties will still be cheaper in Bradford – just supposing the Moslems haven't taken over completely, in which case they will be banned. That is the way things work.
Only a moron selling a slightly dodgy euro would ever think it could be any different.
Despite the extravagant claims for "price transparency" and the theory that this would push prices down, the actual prices of consumer goods in the different eurozone countries are nearly as far apart as they were at the time of the introduction of euro banknotes and coins three years ago
Advocates of the single currency had confidently predicted that the euro would overcome the difficulties consumers had in comparing prices when they were expressed in different currencies, but the Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein investment bank has blown that comfortable little fantasy apart.
Prices, it found, are still as divergent as they were when the single currency was introduced physically. Furthermore, DKW said it might take 20 years before prices in euroland had come as much into line as those in the states of America. The difference in prices across six eurozone cities was an average 14.5 per cent this year, according to DKW. The gap had narrowed only slightly from 14.9 per cent last year.
This allowed Oliver Letwin, the shadow chancellor, to crow triumphantly – with some justification: “So much for claims that the single currency would make the market far more effective. This is one more piece of evidence that it’s free trade and not the currency that matters.”
Actually, the only surprising thing is that anybody actually thought it would be any different. I could not tell you offhand how long the UK has been a single currency area - no doubt someone will tell me – but prices in Yorkshire are still very different from those in London and then, even in Yorkshire, there are substantial variations.
Employing the famous "bacon buttie" standard, a three-rasher teacake in the outskirts of Bradford will cost you £1.20 compared with £1.80 for two rashers on toast in York. In a hundred years time, no doubt, bacon butties will still be cheaper in Bradford – just supposing the Moslems haven't taken over completely, in which case they will be banned. That is the way things work.
Only a moron selling a slightly dodgy euro would ever think it could be any different.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
ITAR? No ta!
If I were a betting man, I would wager that not one in a hundred of our readers actually knows what ITAR stands for - not that there is any shame in that. Only with the advantage of advanced warning could I tell you what it means. However, mystery or not, ITAR is important or, to be more specific, the waiver is or, to be even more specific, the lack of one.
To clear up one part of the mystery, ITAR stands for "International Traffic in Arms Regulations". It is this legislation that governs the issue of export licences of military equipment (including dual-use technology) from the US, imposing considerable restrictions on what can be exported, and to whom, and creating horrendous red-tape and delays, even when export is permitted.
Predictably, the UK, which does considerable business with US military equipment producers, has been anxious to obtain a "waiver" under US law, which would allow a much more relaxed regime, allowing much more rapid transfer of technology and easier co-operation.
Nevertheless, the path towards the "waiver" has been long and tortuous. Clinton was not interested, and neither was Bush Snr, but his son seemed and, last year, it looked as if the UK (and Australia) were going to be successful in gaining the coveted status of exempt nations.
However, earlier this month, signs that things were amiss became public when Harry Stonecipher, CEO of Boeing openly stated that he was being prevented from sharing even non classified technology with the UK.
Now, the bad news is official. According to DefenseNews (11 October), after last-minute negotiations, at the end of a prolonged campaign spanning many years, the provision for the waiver was stripped from the 2005 Defense Authorization Act, in which it had been inserted. The President was given no choice once the both Houses of Congress had made it known they would not pass the Bill by its 8 October deadline, unless it was removed.
The deletion was a blow to the Bush administration, which had wanted to reward Blair for his support in Iraq, but it represented a victory for House conservatives who were worried that such exemptions would make it easier for critical technology to land in enemy hands.
Although proponents of the waiver had argued that such exemptions would boost trade and would help U.S. troops work better with close allies, these arguments were rejected by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, who led the campaign to block the proposal.
Cited by DefenseNews, Hunter said, "The problem is not with the leadership of Australia or Britain… (it) is the porous nature of the system in which front companies and unscrupulous individuals move technologies to people who one day may be trying to kill not only Americans on the battlefield but Brits and Aussies too."
Although nothing of this has percolated into the British media, defence secretary Hoon will have taken the rejection badly. In a stinging later last July, he told Donald Rumsfeld that congressional opposition to the waivers could steer London away from billions of dollars’ of U.S. weapon purchases.
"The waiver was important because of the increasingly globalized nature of the defence industry," one MoD official said. "Under ITAR, American and British companies are unable to have collaborative development of technology without an awful lot of red tape."
But this is more than a matter of "red-tape". In July 2003, the House of Commons Defence Committee on Defence Procurement, in its Eighth Report of Session 2002–03, put the issue in perspective when it wrote (para 54):
To clear up one part of the mystery, ITAR stands for "International Traffic in Arms Regulations". It is this legislation that governs the issue of export licences of military equipment (including dual-use technology) from the US, imposing considerable restrictions on what can be exported, and to whom, and creating horrendous red-tape and delays, even when export is permitted.
Predictably, the UK, which does considerable business with US military equipment producers, has been anxious to obtain a "waiver" under US law, which would allow a much more relaxed regime, allowing much more rapid transfer of technology and easier co-operation.
Nevertheless, the path towards the "waiver" has been long and tortuous. Clinton was not interested, and neither was Bush Snr, but his son seemed and, last year, it looked as if the UK (and Australia) were going to be successful in gaining the coveted status of exempt nations.
However, earlier this month, signs that things were amiss became public when Harry Stonecipher, CEO of Boeing openly stated that he was being prevented from sharing even non classified technology with the UK.
Now, the bad news is official. According to DefenseNews (11 October), after last-minute negotiations, at the end of a prolonged campaign spanning many years, the provision for the waiver was stripped from the 2005 Defense Authorization Act, in which it had been inserted. The President was given no choice once the both Houses of Congress had made it known they would not pass the Bill by its 8 October deadline, unless it was removed.
The deletion was a blow to the Bush administration, which had wanted to reward Blair for his support in Iraq, but it represented a victory for House conservatives who were worried that such exemptions would make it easier for critical technology to land in enemy hands.
Although proponents of the waiver had argued that such exemptions would boost trade and would help U.S. troops work better with close allies, these arguments were rejected by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, who led the campaign to block the proposal.
Cited by DefenseNews, Hunter said, "The problem is not with the leadership of Australia or Britain… (it) is the porous nature of the system in which front companies and unscrupulous individuals move technologies to people who one day may be trying to kill not only Americans on the battlefield but Brits and Aussies too."
Although nothing of this has percolated into the British media, defence secretary Hoon will have taken the rejection badly. In a stinging later last July, he told Donald Rumsfeld that congressional opposition to the waivers could steer London away from billions of dollars’ of U.S. weapon purchases.
"The waiver was important because of the increasingly globalized nature of the defence industry," one MoD official said. "Under ITAR, American and British companies are unable to have collaborative development of technology without an awful lot of red tape."
But this is more than a matter of "red-tape". In July 2003, the House of Commons Defence Committee on Defence Procurement, in its Eighth Report of Session 2002–03, put the issue in perspective when it wrote (para 54):
The importance of the waiver extends beyond its immediate procedural and legal scope, because it is a touchstone for our relations with our closest ally. A failure to implement this first modest step in bringing closer together the industrial side of that alliance has the potential to become the thin end of a damaging and undesirable wedge in the political side.John Howe, of Thales-UK, underscored this when he noted:
…what is actually being asked for is something quite modest, it is a waiver of ITAR regulations in relation to unclassified information, so it ought not to raise any heroic problems of security classification or national security at all. We are disappointed therefore about the suspicion with which some in Congress have viewed the ITAR waiver, not only because the benefits for both the US and UK remain unfulfilled, but more importantly because of the message that the delay conveys about the nature of the UK-US relationship.What that all boils down to, as reported in earlier Blogs, is that the UK-US relationship is breaking down – and not surprising as we increasingly involve ourselves with European partners which are known to have passed on US technology to potential enemies of America. Quite simply, some powerful people do not like our friends, and we are paying the price.
The road to self-government
In this week’s edition of Eurofacts, Ian Milne presents a novel piece entitled "The Road to Self-Government", sketching out the hypothetical scenario of a Britain that has just rejected membership of the EU after a referendum on 21 June 2007.
Using this as his "peg", Milne then sketches out some of the measures, in the form of a letter to the heads of states and governments of the remaining 24 members, that the then government would take to restore the UK to the status of an independent sovereign state.
Necessarily brief – giving the publishing medium – this is nevertheless precisely the sort of work that the Eurosceptic movement should be undertaking and, for that, Milne should be commended. The work is needed for two separate and distinct reasons.
The first and more immediate reason is to provide a "safety net" for the EU constitutional referendum campaign. Here, although the "no" campaigns (or most of them) will seek to ensure that only the EU constitution is put before the public, the "yes" campaign – and some factions in the "no" camp – will undoubtedly seek to present the issue as an EU "in-out" battle.
Although few people might believe this, enough doubt might be sowed for them to fear that a "no" vote might be the first step towards withdrawal and that, given an overwhelming rejection of the constitution, it could create an unstoppable momentum toward the UK leaving the EU. Fed with a diet of scare stories from the "yes" campaign, there might then be a sufficient number who would vote for the constitution, not from any conviction, but simply for fear of what might follow a rejection.
The purpose of the "safety net" therefore, is to present to the public a positive picture of the consequences of withdrawal – should that eventually happen – in order to demonstrate that, far from an event that is to be feared, the overall outcome would be beneficial. Thus, while not actively making the case for withdrawal, the argument serves to reassure voters that, if the post constitutional rejection scenario did lead to withdrawal, there would be nothing to worry about.
As to the second reason, this is essentially a longer-term requirement, addressing one of the central defects of the Eurosceptic cause, in that advocates of withdrawal have never been able to present a coherent, fully-worked out alternative to membership of the EU. This allows critics of the movement to claim that Euroscepticism is a negative philosophy, and enables them to capture the high ground with a "positive" agenda".
While some may argue that Euroscepticism does not need to address alternatives in any detail – on the basis that the alternative to committing suicide is simply not committing suicide - in the real world it must be recognised that, after thirty years of integration, we cannot simply turn the clock back to the state of play before we joined the Communities. Time has moved on, and we need to look carefully at what Britain would look like once we had regained our sovereignty, and how we made the most of our newly restored freedom to govern ourselves.
In this context, much of what Milne has to say is superficial, but we do not criticise him for that. He has offered what was called in the TV game show University Challenge "a starter for ten". It is us to us, now – all of us – to take up the baton (if you will accept the mixed metaphor) and develop Milne’s themes, and add others, to create a workable template for a post-EU Britain.
We, on this Blog, have been mildly criticised for dealing with the negative aspects of the EU – in our concentration on the EU myths – but we do not apologise for that. This work, and creating a new template, are not mutually exclusive. But we do accept that we should pick up where Milne leaves off, and add our views of what should be done in the event that the UK does leave the EU, if for no other reason than this might hasten the eventuality.
Using this as his "peg", Milne then sketches out some of the measures, in the form of a letter to the heads of states and governments of the remaining 24 members, that the then government would take to restore the UK to the status of an independent sovereign state.
Necessarily brief – giving the publishing medium – this is nevertheless precisely the sort of work that the Eurosceptic movement should be undertaking and, for that, Milne should be commended. The work is needed for two separate and distinct reasons.
The first and more immediate reason is to provide a "safety net" for the EU constitutional referendum campaign. Here, although the "no" campaigns (or most of them) will seek to ensure that only the EU constitution is put before the public, the "yes" campaign – and some factions in the "no" camp – will undoubtedly seek to present the issue as an EU "in-out" battle.
Although few people might believe this, enough doubt might be sowed for them to fear that a "no" vote might be the first step towards withdrawal and that, given an overwhelming rejection of the constitution, it could create an unstoppable momentum toward the UK leaving the EU. Fed with a diet of scare stories from the "yes" campaign, there might then be a sufficient number who would vote for the constitution, not from any conviction, but simply for fear of what might follow a rejection.
The purpose of the "safety net" therefore, is to present to the public a positive picture of the consequences of withdrawal – should that eventually happen – in order to demonstrate that, far from an event that is to be feared, the overall outcome would be beneficial. Thus, while not actively making the case for withdrawal, the argument serves to reassure voters that, if the post constitutional rejection scenario did lead to withdrawal, there would be nothing to worry about.
As to the second reason, this is essentially a longer-term requirement, addressing one of the central defects of the Eurosceptic cause, in that advocates of withdrawal have never been able to present a coherent, fully-worked out alternative to membership of the EU. This allows critics of the movement to claim that Euroscepticism is a negative philosophy, and enables them to capture the high ground with a "positive" agenda".
While some may argue that Euroscepticism does not need to address alternatives in any detail – on the basis that the alternative to committing suicide is simply not committing suicide - in the real world it must be recognised that, after thirty years of integration, we cannot simply turn the clock back to the state of play before we joined the Communities. Time has moved on, and we need to look carefully at what Britain would look like once we had regained our sovereignty, and how we made the most of our newly restored freedom to govern ourselves.
In this context, much of what Milne has to say is superficial, but we do not criticise him for that. He has offered what was called in the TV game show University Challenge "a starter for ten". It is us to us, now – all of us – to take up the baton (if you will accept the mixed metaphor) and develop Milne’s themes, and add others, to create a workable template for a post-EU Britain.
We, on this Blog, have been mildly criticised for dealing with the negative aspects of the EU – in our concentration on the EU myths – but we do not apologise for that. This work, and creating a new template, are not mutually exclusive. But we do accept that we should pick up where Milne leaves off, and add our views of what should be done in the event that the UK does leave the EU, if for no other reason than this might hasten the eventuality.
These principled Continentals
Although France has been particularly voluble in its opposition to Turkey’s entry to the EU. Germany’s Schröder has been remarkably supportive, a rather surprising stance given that the 2.5 million Turks already living in Germany are creating considerable stresses and, in a recent survey of public opinion, 57 percent opposed Turkish accession, up 6 percentage points since April.
But, as did Italy find itself enthusiastically in favour of lifting the arm embargo on Libya, with Chirac supporting China in its efforts to have its embargo lifted, so it seems that Schröder’s enthusiasm for Turkey might not be as principled as he would perhaps have us believe.
According to Deutsche Welle, barely a week after the EU commission recommended initiating membership talks with Turkey, guess what - the German government is salivating at the thought of selling several hundred of its Leopard 2 tanks, surplus to Bundeswehr requirements … to Turkey.
Somewhat giving the game away, defence minister Peter Struck said last week that the progress Turkey has made on opening negotiations to join the European Union mean arms sales should no longer be a taboo subject.
Five years ago, a proposal to sell the same tanks to Turkey provoked one of the worst conflicts within Germany's ruling coalition of Social Democrats and Greens.
At the time, the concern was about the oppression of the country's Kurdish minority but now, with Turkey having made such progress with its human rights, and on its way to becoming one of the family, it seems there is now little to prevent the German Army selling off its surplus kit at a handsome profit.
Doncha love these principled Continentals.
But, as did Italy find itself enthusiastically in favour of lifting the arm embargo on Libya, with Chirac supporting China in its efforts to have its embargo lifted, so it seems that Schröder’s enthusiasm for Turkey might not be as principled as he would perhaps have us believe.
According to Deutsche Welle, barely a week after the EU commission recommended initiating membership talks with Turkey, guess what - the German government is salivating at the thought of selling several hundred of its Leopard 2 tanks, surplus to Bundeswehr requirements … to Turkey.
Somewhat giving the game away, defence minister Peter Struck said last week that the progress Turkey has made on opening negotiations to join the European Union mean arms sales should no longer be a taboo subject.
Five years ago, a proposal to sell the same tanks to Turkey provoked one of the worst conflicts within Germany's ruling coalition of Social Democrats and Greens.
At the time, the concern was about the oppression of the country's Kurdish minority but now, with Turkey having made such progress with its human rights, and on its way to becoming one of the family, it seems there is now little to prevent the German Army selling off its surplus kit at a handsome profit.
Doncha love these principled Continentals.
Scare tactics
That is one of the few weapons they have… The EU would be plunged into a crisis which would hurt workers the most if member states reject the proposed EU constitution says Jose Manuel Durao Barroso.
"If there was a crisis in Europe (because the treaty was not ratified) the first to be hurt would be workers and their families," he told reporters on the sidelines of a conference on the future of Europe organised by a Portuguese labour confederation.
"The owners of capital can with great ease transfer their investments outside of Europe, to China, to India, to other areas. But workers and their families are not thinking of moving, they want to stay in Europe," he added.
"That is why is is necessary to rally European public opinion around a European constitution which is naturally a compromise but which offers Europe the possibility of stability and more prosperity."
Bit short on detail is this report but one wonders on what grounds Barroso bases his claim, when all the evidence to date suggests that European integration has not exactly produced unalloyed benefits for "workers and their families".
Nevertheless, this again points to the tactics that will be (are being) used to support the constitution, and suggests that the "no campaign" will have to spend some time reassuring the electorate. However, ridicule might be an equally effective weapon.
"If there was a crisis in Europe (because the treaty was not ratified) the first to be hurt would be workers and their families," he told reporters on the sidelines of a conference on the future of Europe organised by a Portuguese labour confederation.
"The owners of capital can with great ease transfer their investments outside of Europe, to China, to India, to other areas. But workers and their families are not thinking of moving, they want to stay in Europe," he added.
"That is why is is necessary to rally European public opinion around a European constitution which is naturally a compromise but which offers Europe the possibility of stability and more prosperity."
Bit short on detail is this report but one wonders on what grounds Barroso bases his claim, when all the evidence to date suggests that European integration has not exactly produced unalloyed benefits for "workers and their families".
Nevertheless, this again points to the tactics that will be (are being) used to support the constitution, and suggests that the "no campaign" will have to spend some time reassuring the electorate. However, ridicule might be an equally effective weapon.
Of pots and kettles
In the wake of the Enron and Parmalat accountancy scandals, the EU commission is planning a "crackdown" on company balance sheet reporting practices.
This, we are told, comes as part of a broader drive by the commission to improve the rights of shareholders, increase corporate transparency and limit the risk of boardroom excesses and financial scandals.
Am I the only one who think that this is a bit rich, coming from an organisation that that has not had its own accounts approved for eight years and whose chief accountant, Marta Andreason, was suspended after publicly warning that its accounting methods left it wide open to fraud?
This, we are told, comes as part of a broader drive by the commission to improve the rights of shareholders, increase corporate transparency and limit the risk of boardroom excesses and financial scandals.
Am I the only one who think that this is a bit rich, coming from an organisation that that has not had its own accounts approved for eight years and whose chief accountant, Marta Andreason, was suspended after publicly warning that its accounting methods left it wide open to fraud?
A new colonial power?
As part of the steady militarisation of the EU, in its quest to become a fully-fledged military power, the foreign ministers of the EU yesterday agreed to take over peacekeeping duties in Bosnia from NATO on 2 December.
The EU plans to insert a 7,000-strong force, code-named "Althea", which will replace the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). It will be the biggest military operation yet undertaken by the EU.
But anyone who believes that the primary role of the force is peacekeeping needs to take careful note of the EU spokesman who announced the deployment.
"It will sustain our long-term objective of a stable, viable, peaceful and multiethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina, cooperating peacefully with its neighbors and irreversibly on track towards EU membership," he said.
And if, like Croatia, the Bosnians do not want to be led "irreversibly" towards EU membership by a military force, what then? Do we get EU troops storming the parliament building or what?
The EU plans to insert a 7,000-strong force, code-named "Althea", which will replace the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). It will be the biggest military operation yet undertaken by the EU.
But anyone who believes that the primary role of the force is peacekeeping needs to take careful note of the EU spokesman who announced the deployment.
"It will sustain our long-term objective of a stable, viable, peaceful and multiethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina, cooperating peacefully with its neighbors and irreversibly on track towards EU membership," he said.
And if, like Croatia, the Bosnians do not want to be led "irreversibly" towards EU membership by a military force, what then? Do we get EU troops storming the parliament building or what?
Well, well, well
With the ink not even dry on the foreign ministers’ decision yesterday to lift the embargo on Libya and the race is on to sell Gaddafi some goodies from the arms manufacturers catalogues.
Worth $482 million in 2003, Libya’s defence budget is expected to provide rich pickings for EU member states and leading the sales rush is Italy, which was at the forefront in pushing for the lifting of the embargo.
Coincidentally, Silvio Berlusconi just happened to be in Libya on 7 October, inaugurating with Gaddafi a new Libya-Italy gas pipeline, although Berlusconi was beaten to the post by French foreign minister Michel Barnier, who arrived a day earlier, announcing that Chirac would visit by the end of the year.
Nevertheless, Italy expects to benefit most from the arms-sales bonanza, being particularly keen to sell a fleet of past patrol boats so that the Libyan navy can use to intercept illegal immigrants before they reach Italy. On top of that, Italian companies are looking to sell 42 aircraft equipped with radar, infrared sensors and high-definition TV cameras, to back up the sea patrols.
But, of course, all this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to lift the arms embargo in the first place. That was strictly and exclusively because Gaddafi has decided to renounce WMD – not that he had any in the first place. But there you go…
Worth $482 million in 2003, Libya’s defence budget is expected to provide rich pickings for EU member states and leading the sales rush is Italy, which was at the forefront in pushing for the lifting of the embargo.
Coincidentally, Silvio Berlusconi just happened to be in Libya on 7 October, inaugurating with Gaddafi a new Libya-Italy gas pipeline, although Berlusconi was beaten to the post by French foreign minister Michel Barnier, who arrived a day earlier, announcing that Chirac would visit by the end of the year.
Nevertheless, Italy expects to benefit most from the arms-sales bonanza, being particularly keen to sell a fleet of past patrol boats so that the Libyan navy can use to intercept illegal immigrants before they reach Italy. On top of that, Italian companies are looking to sell 42 aircraft equipped with radar, infrared sensors and high-definition TV cameras, to back up the sea patrols.
But, of course, all this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to lift the arms embargo in the first place. That was strictly and exclusively because Gaddafi has decided to renounce WMD – not that he had any in the first place. But there you go…
Croats cool towards the EU
According to an opinion poll done at the beginning of October, only 49 per cent of Croatians want their country to become part of the European Union. This is part of a steady trend.
The first poll on the subject was conducted in July 2000, when support for the proposal was 70 per cent. It peaked two years later, in July 2002, at 79.4 per cent and has been going down ever since, reaching 51 per cent in June and sinking below the half mark in the autumn.
Some of this is linked to the ebbing popularity of the rightist government of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) and the Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader. This year his support rating also sank below the half mark.
However, dissatisfaction with the idea of joining the European Union is not only the result of the usual East European dislike of whatever government happens to be in power. It is generally assumed that, had the poll been conducted a week or so later, the result would have been even worse.
On October 6 the EU announced that, while it intended to negotiate with Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia for membership, it reserved the right to break off those negotiations at any time, if the candidates transgressed the EU’s standards of freedom, democracy and human rights protection. It is felt by many in the Zagreb official circles that these criteria are rather broadly and flexibly defined.
Though some officials and politicians, like Foreign Minister Miomir Zuzul, shrug off the problem, pointing out that either side can always break off negotiations, others disagree. One official in the Foreign Ministry said:
Other factors that drive public support down are the rules about agricultural produce, with the Croatian farmers feeling that they will not be able to compete with cheaper EU produce (and why is it cheaper, one asks oneself) and the inevitable and already omnipresent squabbles about fisheries.
Interestingly, the trend in Croatia has been somewhat different from that in countries that have already joined. There support fell after formal negotiations started; in Croatia that development has pre-empted the official talks. They could, of course, have learnt from others’ mistakes.
It seems, that apart from Turkey, the EU is not managing to sell itself very well. In Iceland, EU membership negotiations were not even mentioned by the Prime Minister in his annual programme speech and in Norway the issue seems to be off the political agenda. But these are rich countries with plenty of resources. They can define their own terms. Croatia and the other Balkan countries are poor and desperately in need of European help and support. The EU does not give those without the one vital condition: negotiate (on our terms) to join or be cast out into the wilderness.
The first poll on the subject was conducted in July 2000, when support for the proposal was 70 per cent. It peaked two years later, in July 2002, at 79.4 per cent and has been going down ever since, reaching 51 per cent in June and sinking below the half mark in the autumn.
Some of this is linked to the ebbing popularity of the rightist government of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) and the Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader. This year his support rating also sank below the half mark.
However, dissatisfaction with the idea of joining the European Union is not only the result of the usual East European dislike of whatever government happens to be in power. It is generally assumed that, had the poll been conducted a week or so later, the result would have been even worse.
On October 6 the EU announced that, while it intended to negotiate with Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia for membership, it reserved the right to break off those negotiations at any time, if the candidates transgressed the EU’s standards of freedom, democracy and human rights protection. It is felt by many in the Zagreb official circles that these criteria are rather broadly and flexibly defined.
Though some officials and politicians, like Foreign Minister Miomir Zuzul, shrug off the problem, pointing out that either side can always break off negotiations, others disagree. One official in the Foreign Ministry said:
“This will create the impression that whenever it feels like it, Brussels can exert pressure on us, and, if we don’t let up, find an excuse to suspend negotiations, so all the sacrifices made so the country could be admitted into the EU could be in vain.”How could he possibly have thought that?
Other factors that drive public support down are the rules about agricultural produce, with the Croatian farmers feeling that they will not be able to compete with cheaper EU produce (and why is it cheaper, one asks oneself) and the inevitable and already omnipresent squabbles about fisheries.
Interestingly, the trend in Croatia has been somewhat different from that in countries that have already joined. There support fell after formal negotiations started; in Croatia that development has pre-empted the official talks. They could, of course, have learnt from others’ mistakes.
It seems, that apart from Turkey, the EU is not managing to sell itself very well. In Iceland, EU membership negotiations were not even mentioned by the Prime Minister in his annual programme speech and in Norway the issue seems to be off the political agenda. But these are rich countries with plenty of resources. They can define their own terms. Croatia and the other Balkan countries are poor and desperately in need of European help and support. The EU does not give those without the one vital condition: negotiate (on our terms) to join or be cast out into the wilderness.
The accountants are revolting
Accountants are not normally known for their rebellious nature so it comes to something when, according to the Financial Times, the UK's highest accounting authority – the Accounting Standards Board (ASB)– has told the EU to get lost over its new version of international accounting standards, and suggested British companies should ignore it.
Less than three months before listed companies across the European Union are required to harmonise accounting standards, the system is now in total confusion over recent amendments to what are known as "derivatives regulations", coded "IAS 39".
Nor does Ian Mackintosh, the ASB's new chairman, think that the problems can be resolved quickly, so there is little chance that UK companies will be able to apply the new standard in 2005, as was intended.
At the heart of the problem, it seems, is that the original proposals were changed followed intense lobbying by French banks – they who looked after Saddam Hussein’s money - which argued that the original IAS 39 proposal, based on US accounting rules, would disrupt their risk management practices.
The ASB now says that the new accounting requirements had been "seriously weakened" by the amendment, allowing member states to opt in or out of tougher requirements, leaving the ASB doubtful about its own ability to force UK companies to adopt the tougher rules.
Competing on the world stage for first prize in understatement, an EU commission spokesman said that the situation was "less than ideal". Who said the British were not having an influence?
Less than three months before listed companies across the European Union are required to harmonise accounting standards, the system is now in total confusion over recent amendments to what are known as "derivatives regulations", coded "IAS 39".
Nor does Ian Mackintosh, the ASB's new chairman, think that the problems can be resolved quickly, so there is little chance that UK companies will be able to apply the new standard in 2005, as was intended.
At the heart of the problem, it seems, is that the original proposals were changed followed intense lobbying by French banks – they who looked after Saddam Hussein’s money - which argued that the original IAS 39 proposal, based on US accounting rules, would disrupt their risk management practices.
The ASB now says that the new accounting requirements had been "seriously weakened" by the amendment, allowing member states to opt in or out of tougher requirements, leaving the ASB doubtful about its own ability to force UK companies to adopt the tougher rules.
Competing on the world stage for first prize in understatement, an EU commission spokesman said that the situation was "less than ideal". Who said the British were not having an influence?
Monday, October 11, 2004
They kept that one quiet
Normally, if an EU commissioner so much as spits, the ever-willing service de presse rushes out a release describing every monotonous detail. Not so it seems with energy commissioner Loyola de Palacio – until 1 November that is – who attended a conference on 28 September of this year and uttered what in many of the hallowed quarters of the EU would be seen as heresy.
And the nature of the heresy? Dr Loyola de Palacio say we must go nuclear.
Addressing industry representatives, NGOs and media, the commissioner emphasised that "Kyoto is a way, not the goal. The challenge of combating climate change is much more far reaching". Nuclear energy remains the only option to cut down on emissions," she maintained. "In the foreseeable future, we need nuclear power to keep emissions down." Pressed by horrified NGO representatives on nuclear safety and nuclear waste, she said that "there are risks, but they are calculable. There is no other option".
Strangely, when de Palacio decided to take legal action against Britain, earlier that month, for alleged failure to clean up the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, it was headline news. But, doing a "google" for any stories on de Palcio’s views on the need for nuclear power, not a single story showed up. They certainly kept that one quiet.
And the nature of the heresy? Dr Loyola de Palacio say we must go nuclear.
Addressing industry representatives, NGOs and media, the commissioner emphasised that "Kyoto is a way, not the goal. The challenge of combating climate change is much more far reaching". Nuclear energy remains the only option to cut down on emissions," she maintained. "In the foreseeable future, we need nuclear power to keep emissions down." Pressed by horrified NGO representatives on nuclear safety and nuclear waste, she said that "there are risks, but they are calculable. There is no other option".
Strangely, when de Palacio decided to take legal action against Britain, earlier that month, for alleged failure to clean up the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, it was headline news. But, doing a "google" for any stories on de Palcio’s views on the need for nuclear power, not a single story showed up. They certainly kept that one quiet.
One down…
And one to go… Foreign ministers of the EU member states today agreed in Luxembourg to lift the arms embargo from Libya but refused to lift the arms ban on China. In passing, they also imposed a visa ban on senior officials from Burma
Perversely, Libya gets the green light because it has forsaken its plans to produce weapons of mass destruction, and because Italy wants to supply it (at a price) with equipment to help it crack down on illegal migration. China, on the other hand, which has no intentions whatsoever of abandoning its WMD, has France straining at the leash to sell it more, having lost its valued customer in Saddam Hussein.
However, the China issue is by no means over. A fudge is on the way, with ministers working on a stronger EU code of conduct on arms exports, to replace the ban – which then means that France (and Germany) can flog the Chinese anything they want, as the code has neither statutory effect nor status in international law.
Britain, as it has been for some time, is sitting on the fence with Jack Straw telling a press conference that "We're not in any sense 'against' the lifting of the embargo, but it's got to be done with a proper and sensible way." Straw denies that he is holding back for fear of offending the US.
The more principled Nordic countries are holding out, on the grounds that the Chinese human rights record still has not improved enough, while some of the recent accession countries are responding to US lobbying.
"There was no consensus", says German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, telling reporters that the issue "will require further discussions." Thus has he proved that understatement is not the monopoly of the British.
France will have another go immediately prior to the EU-China summit, scheduled for 8 December, while the Dutch presidency has promised to "speed up work on the code of conduct," in the meantime hoping for some "positive signals on Chinese side" in respect of improvement in civil rights.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Gregory Suchan would not have been impressed. Last week, during a visit to Brussels, he observed that "you can have an improving relationship with China and still have an arms embargo." But, he said, "We're not sitting here planning on how we will spank Europe."
Well... perhaps not all of Europe.
Perversely, Libya gets the green light because it has forsaken its plans to produce weapons of mass destruction, and because Italy wants to supply it (at a price) with equipment to help it crack down on illegal migration. China, on the other hand, which has no intentions whatsoever of abandoning its WMD, has France straining at the leash to sell it more, having lost its valued customer in Saddam Hussein.
However, the China issue is by no means over. A fudge is on the way, with ministers working on a stronger EU code of conduct on arms exports, to replace the ban – which then means that France (and Germany) can flog the Chinese anything they want, as the code has neither statutory effect nor status in international law.
Britain, as it has been for some time, is sitting on the fence with Jack Straw telling a press conference that "We're not in any sense 'against' the lifting of the embargo, but it's got to be done with a proper and sensible way." Straw denies that he is holding back for fear of offending the US.
The more principled Nordic countries are holding out, on the grounds that the Chinese human rights record still has not improved enough, while some of the recent accession countries are responding to US lobbying.
"There was no consensus", says German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, telling reporters that the issue "will require further discussions." Thus has he proved that understatement is not the monopoly of the British.
France will have another go immediately prior to the EU-China summit, scheduled for 8 December, while the Dutch presidency has promised to "speed up work on the code of conduct," in the meantime hoping for some "positive signals on Chinese side" in respect of improvement in civil rights.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Gregory Suchan would not have been impressed. Last week, during a visit to Brussels, he observed that "you can have an improving relationship with China and still have an arms embargo." But, he said, "We're not sitting here planning on how we will spank Europe."
Well... perhaps not all of Europe.
Grandstanding
Rocco Buttiglione, the incoming Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, is in trouble again. His investiture hearing consisted of two parts – he was interrogated by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on Tuesday and by the Committee on Legal Affairs on Wednesday.
The second one of these seems to have gone fine but in the first session, Signor Buttiglione slipped up. He expressed the view that, as a staunch Catholic, he considers homosexuality to be a sin, hastening to add that he was not advocating that it be made illegal. There are many sins, such as accidie and gluttony, not to mention lust, that are not illegal. Similarly, there are many, too many, “crimes” such as parking offences, that are not sins in the theological sense. And that, you might think, would be that.
However, this view together with Buttiglione’s opinion on women’s place in society (somewhat similar, one gathers, to UKIP’s Godfrey Bloom’s, though perhaps more elegantly expressed) has damned him in the eyes of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
They recommended that Buttiglione be rejected by the plenary session of the European Parliament that will meet this week. Unfortunately, this is not only not binding as the BBC World Service website explained, it is completely pointless. The European Parliament cannot reject one commissioner. It is all or none. Even if they were all incensed by Signor Buttiglione’s opinions (which they will not be as some will be in agreement) they could do nothing about it as all the other commissioners passed with flying colours, having expressed all the correct opinions.
The second one of these seems to have gone fine but in the first session, Signor Buttiglione slipped up. He expressed the view that, as a staunch Catholic, he considers homosexuality to be a sin, hastening to add that he was not advocating that it be made illegal. There are many sins, such as accidie and gluttony, not to mention lust, that are not illegal. Similarly, there are many, too many, “crimes” such as parking offences, that are not sins in the theological sense. And that, you might think, would be that.
However, this view together with Buttiglione’s opinion on women’s place in society (somewhat similar, one gathers, to UKIP’s Godfrey Bloom’s, though perhaps more elegantly expressed) has damned him in the eyes of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
They recommended that Buttiglione be rejected by the plenary session of the European Parliament that will meet this week. Unfortunately, this is not only not binding as the BBC World Service website explained, it is completely pointless. The European Parliament cannot reject one commissioner. It is all or none. Even if they were all incensed by Signor Buttiglione’s opinions (which they will not be as some will be in agreement) they could do nothing about it as all the other commissioners passed with flying colours, having expressed all the correct opinions.
The French syndrome
"Talking louder than everybody else, making a little bit more noise, and thinking that by yourself you constitute a majority."
That is the view of the French, by Bernard Kouchner, a physician and former Socialist cabinet minister, as cited by the International Herald Tribune today in a piece chronicling the growing unease about the EU constitution.
According to the IHT, and others, there is now a "kind of suppressed rage" in France "about coming to terms with an expanded EU that has drawn away from France, and decided, rather incontrovertibly, not to build itself on the basis of a French social model".
In practice, the IHT reminds us, that "social model" means ten percent unemployment, high taxes, an obese state apparatus.
Le Monde is called in aid to develop IHT’s thesis, with writer Eric Le Boucher explaining that it all started when "France lost the European battle to export its social model." He argues that the French political establishment has become an anachronism for Europe in arguing for a dead-on-its-feet social program
Another leading French political commentator, Alain Duhamel, says France has now devolved into a minority voice in providing ideas for Europe's future. More harshly, the historian Nicolas Bavarez, whose vision of his country's decline has become embedded in French consciousness, describes the phase as a new one in France's isolation.
France, according to the IHT, sees two problems with the direction the EU is going. Firstly, the draft constitution is seen as "officializing" a European economic and social system "along the lines of Tony Blair's flutes-and-strings re-orchestration of Margaret Thatcher's rough-edged policies". Secondly, the EU's 25 members have turned from France's notions of "Europe puissance," code for a kind of activism that many in Europe have come to regard as meaning confrontation with the United States.
Taken together, these have created enormous stress on the French political fabric, and it has begun to tear. And while this is most evident with the Socialist party, "in reality", says the IHT, "no one across the political spectrum has any enthusiasm for the constitution, which is seen at very best as a wash for France."
However, before taking any great satisfaction in what has become known as the déclinisme of France, and claiming success for the "Anglo Saxon model", it is as well to remember that the EU commission has its own agenda.
The word "liberalisation", which causes the French such profound despair, and some British such joy, has an alternative meaning. In community terms, it is not actually the denationalisation that we think it means. It is merely the precursor to detachment of enterprises from the nation state in order to reinvent them as European "champions".
In rejecting this, therefore – would that we knew it - we might have common cause with the French. We too can fall into the trap of "talking louder than everybody else, making a little bit more noise" but, with only 13 percent of the vote on the EU Council, we are not the majority either.
That is the view of the French, by Bernard Kouchner, a physician and former Socialist cabinet minister, as cited by the International Herald Tribune today in a piece chronicling the growing unease about the EU constitution.
According to the IHT, and others, there is now a "kind of suppressed rage" in France "about coming to terms with an expanded EU that has drawn away from France, and decided, rather incontrovertibly, not to build itself on the basis of a French social model".
In practice, the IHT reminds us, that "social model" means ten percent unemployment, high taxes, an obese state apparatus.
Le Monde is called in aid to develop IHT’s thesis, with writer Eric Le Boucher explaining that it all started when "France lost the European battle to export its social model." He argues that the French political establishment has become an anachronism for Europe in arguing for a dead-on-its-feet social program
Another leading French political commentator, Alain Duhamel, says France has now devolved into a minority voice in providing ideas for Europe's future. More harshly, the historian Nicolas Bavarez, whose vision of his country's decline has become embedded in French consciousness, describes the phase as a new one in France's isolation.
France, according to the IHT, sees two problems with the direction the EU is going. Firstly, the draft constitution is seen as "officializing" a European economic and social system "along the lines of Tony Blair's flutes-and-strings re-orchestration of Margaret Thatcher's rough-edged policies". Secondly, the EU's 25 members have turned from France's notions of "Europe puissance," code for a kind of activism that many in Europe have come to regard as meaning confrontation with the United States.
Taken together, these have created enormous stress on the French political fabric, and it has begun to tear. And while this is most evident with the Socialist party, "in reality", says the IHT, "no one across the political spectrum has any enthusiasm for the constitution, which is seen at very best as a wash for France."
However, before taking any great satisfaction in what has become known as the déclinisme of France, and claiming success for the "Anglo Saxon model", it is as well to remember that the EU commission has its own agenda.
The word "liberalisation", which causes the French such profound despair, and some British such joy, has an alternative meaning. In community terms, it is not actually the denationalisation that we think it means. It is merely the precursor to detachment of enterprises from the nation state in order to reinvent them as European "champions".
In rejecting this, therefore – would that we knew it - we might have common cause with the French. We too can fall into the trap of "talking louder than everybody else, making a little bit more noise" but, with only 13 percent of the vote on the EU Council, we are not the majority either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)