You tell 'em!

James Shikwati is one of the best economists and commentators on the subject of foreign aid. He is a Kenyan who has fought tirelessly for a more sensible attitude towards Africa and among African countries.

As the self-congratulations about the supposed G8 handouts pour in, it is a good idea to re-read Mr Shikwati's different point of view given to the well-meaning (I think) and jaw-droppingly silly interviewer on Der Spiegel after the Gleneagles G8 Summit.

The interviewer's attitude seems to be "But, but, but, we want to help you. How can you not accept it?" Mr Shikwati's attitude is summed up simply in his own words: "for God's sake, please just stop".

Here is an extract:

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...

Read the whole piece. Then, if you feel like it, send it to Mr Hilary Benn, who sounds more and more like his father with every passing day.

COMMENT THREAD

Gosh, what a surprise

According to an article in the Guardian today

George Galloway's Mariam Appeal, the campaign he set up to oppose UN sanctions on Iraq, received at least £230,000 in improper donations, the Charity Commission will report today. The money came from the Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, chairman of the charity, after he paid illicit kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime in exchange for a big contract under the oil-for-food programme, according to the report.

Well, well, what a surprise. After all, there have so far been, what, three or four reports that showed money going into the Mariam Appeal from various hard to define sources but believed to be closely connected with the oil-for-food scam. Just exactly what has the Charity Commission been doing all this time?

Mind you, I am not all that impressed by the reporting. As I recall, the Mariam Appeal was set up for supposedly humanitarian purposes,

to provide medicines, medical equipment and medical assistance to the people of Iraq; to highlight the causes and results of the cancer epidemic in Iraq and to arrange for the Peter Bridie medical treatment of a number of Iraqi children outside Iraq.

Not to campaign, which is not something charities are supposed to do. It was called the Mariam Appeal after Mariam Hamza, an Iraqi child supposedly flown to Britain to receive treatment for leukemia. Her subsequent fate remains somewhat mysterious.

That Galloway and his then wife (whatever happened to her, by the way?) as well as various associates have had money paid into their accounts from the oil-for-food scam, was established by the Senate Committee under Senator Norm Coleman who may have suffered Mr Galloway's prattish behaviour at the hearing but came up with the goods some time later. Mr Galloway had promised to return after the report and reply to it before the Committee. He never did.

The Volcker Report named Mr Galloway as one of the recipients of illicit funds from Iraq, his wife being another.

There have been a couple of enquiries in the UK into the running of the Mariam Appeal (now defunct) but they came to doubtful conclusions, one of the questions being whether Mr Galloway had used any of the money to fund his travels round the world's unpleasant dictatorships.

Today's report is the third into the Mariam Appeal. The first two found that it should have been properly registered as a charity, but that its funds were largely spent on humanitarian purposes.

Not that there was a great deal of evidence, as I recall, as to what those humanitarian purposes were, exactly.

Now we have a third report, which says that the trustees should have been more vigilant about the sources of the money. Presumably, on the basis of past experience, those trustees had assumed that no charity that espouses left-wing politics was likely to be investigated at all seriously. Really, this is very bad luck, indeed.

Of course, if there were any justice those trustees would be asked to pay back the funds that the Appeal had received and spent on goodness knows what and where. The money, naturally, would have to be paid back to the people of Iraq as all the rest of the oil-for-food dosh should have been. Equally certainly, the Charities Commission is going to do absolutely nothing about it. One rather wonders about the purpose of the Charities Commission but that is another and more painful tale.

Mr Galloway is denying everything, maintaining that nobody has ever found anything wrong with the Appeal's activities whereas the accusations of improper sourcing are all completely untrue. And pigs have taken to the skies in large numbers.

COMMENT THREAD

Too true

It is not all that often that this blog finds itself in agreement with Financial Times blogs. But Tobias Buck's Brussels blog does make one very good point.

Mr Buck deals with the Verheugen and his paramour story that we covered ourselves while pointing out certain differences between it and the Paul Wolfowitz one. The main differences had to do with the fact that Mr Verheugen was secretive about the affair, had actually promoted the lady to be his chef du cabinet, is a married man and has not had to resign. Otherwise, it is all the same.

It seems that the story has resurfaced through some new pictures in Bunte magazine, which prompted the European Commission to declare

that the private life of Germany's embattled Commission Vice-President Guenter Verheugen was not comparable with the scandal over former World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz.

Indeed not. As Tobias Buck rightly points out:

In any case, Mr Verheugen has one key advantage over Mr Wolfowitz when it comes to defending his behaviour. For all his sins, the German commissioner had no hand in invading Iraq. Unless anyone comes up with a convincing theory linking Mr Verheugen to the neo-cons in the White House, his survival looks a certainty.

I am assuming this is all ironic and Mr Buck does know that there are no neo-cons in the White House. He does, doesn't he?

COMMENT THREAD

The latest betrayal

So, at last, the MoD – courtesy of the noble Lord Drayson, defence procurement minister – has finally delivered of his labours and brought forth a mighty mouse … the shortlist for the FRES contenders.

The one thing, of course, you can guarantee is that this important development in the largest single Army procurement programme in living memory – now inflated to a staggering £16 billion – will be ignored by the MSM. In so doing, it will show up its faux concern for "our boys", as it allows the Labour government to play out its latest betrayal of the Army, buying the wrong equipment for the wrong wars, at massively inflated prices in a programme that will either see the Army emasculated, or its soldiers killed – or both.

On the back of our recent discussion of this project, we will be posting a detailed analysis of Drayson's dire criminally stupid decision on this blog as soon as it is finished.

COMMENT THREAD

Priceless

There are certain things in this world which simply cannot be improved – one of them being this report in Zaman today about the EU and the Turkish Army. The prose, to use the word in the advert, is priceless:

Turkish officials on Thursday revealed a disagreement with the European Union regarding modalities of a cooperation process for enhancing defense capacities of the union within the European Security and Defense Policy, although they said this should not be characterized as "a breakdown" in military relations between the bloc and Turkey.

Somehow, you just can’t quite see that making the front page of The Sun, even though it was the main item in yesterday's Sabah daily, which reported: "Turkey's withdrawal of its troops under the command of the EU after the union did not allow Turkey's special operation brigades to join in the command and decision making policies of the unit."

Any vision of Turkish troops lining up on the ramp to board their aircraft back to Turkey, however, can quickly be dispelled. Although Turkey's Special Operation brigades, supported by warplanes and ships, will not be sent to any of the operations under the EU's coordination, Defense minister Vecdi Gönül and foreign ministry officials have made it clear that the withdrawal was "on the paper", since commitments made by Turkey have not yet materialised.

This all stems from a commitment of a full brigade by Turkey to the infamous European Rapid Reaction Force, agreed in Helsinki in 1999, but the Turks are now miffed to find it listed in the reserve, rather than as part of the active forces.

As opposed to the "paper" forces so far offered by the "colleagues", however, Turkey actually prepared to put real soldiers in the pot, hence Gönül's indignation: "We told them that we can't be placed among reserve forces. Because this brigade is [precious] and is fully equipped," he told reporters yesterday. This was backed by a foreign ministry official who emphasised that the commitment made by Turkey was "not an automatic commitment", adding, "We demand upgrading of arrangements concerning command and control."

So, putting this all together, Turkey was offering real soldiers to bolster the EU's paper army, on the basis of which it was, not unreasonably, demanding participation in the command and control process. The "colleagues" responded by relegating the Turkish contribution to the reserve and excluded Turkey from that process, whence the Turks have decided to withdraw the contribution which they had not yet actually made.

As I said: priceless.

COMMENT THREAD

Lost in space?

You can see the "colleagues" are getting a bit worried about their treasured Galileo satellite navigation system.

They've just rushed out a Eurobarometer survey telling us how much "Europeans" love the project, even though less than half of them are even aware of it. So it is that eighty percent of respondents agree on public funding to complete Galileo, despite a price tag of €2.4 billion.

What they have not been told though is that it will almost certainly cost another €1 billion a year for each year of operation – at the very least – or that it may well be used as the basis of a road charging system that will, collectively, cost them even more. Such little details need not trouble the minds of our happy "EU citizens". But then, if the questions were straight, they would not have got the answers they wanted.

As to the more important answer – whether they are going to get the money – it looks like they are going to have to wait. Although the Transport Council of 6-8 June was supposed to decide this issue, we now learn that the EU-27 transport ministers are now set to make only a short statement on the failure of the current concession contract and to ask the commission to go into more detail on the funding options.

Even though the project is already considerably delayed, the member states will then leave it to the October council to decide on its fate, when we are told they will consider how the finance will be obtained and how competences will be shared between the public and private sectors.

Here, there seems to be an even split, with the commission suggesting that the extra funds could be met from the EU budget, backed by the majority of the EU-27 and the EU parliament.

However, the three nations which collectively bankroll most of the EU budget, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, would like to see individual states contribute the extra funds to the European Space Agency (ESA), which could then finance and manage the project.

That means, of course, that the Galileo enthusiasts would have to put their money on the table, instead of getting a free ride. It will be interesting to see then how keen they remain on the project.

Behind all this, though, is a major conundrum. It is far from certain whether the EU commission has a legal basis on which it can fund the project, as there is no formal space policy written into the treaty. Are we going to see a sudden amendment to the "mini-treaty" everyone seems to be rushing to agree, or is the project going to be lost in space?

COMMENT THREAD

The games they play

Perhaps we're getting too sensitive over something about which very few people seem to care, but one does tire of the games played by the media over Iraq.

The Guardian kicks off, exploiting the death of another soldier in Iraq by using it as a "hook" to promote the views of Britain's former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.

He has "warned" that UK and military presence in Iraq is worsening security across the region said the mission was not worth the death of one more serviceman. "I personally believe that the presence of American and British and coalition forces is making things worse, not only inside Iraq but the wider region around Iraq. The arguments against staying for any greater length of time themselves strengthen with every day that passes," Meyer says.

Compare and contrast that with the views of Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister (pictured). As reported by The Times, who interviewed that man, he says the stakes are too high for Mr Brown to make a hasty and dramatic change to Britain's military strategy and warned that "any sign of weakness by the new Prime Minister would fuel the insurgency in Iraq."

But even then, The Times cannot play it straight, as it uses the interview to front a lurid headline, "Iraqi minister puts pressure on Brown not to cut and run," presenting the issue as if there were somehow any difference in view between the Iraqi and British governments. As it stands, however, Zebari is doing nothing more than reiterating the views of his prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Meanwhile, the BBC, through its daily current affairs programme, Newsnight on the back of an e-mail from an anonymous Captain, tried to make a case that the Army is suffering from low morale, a case its reporter Mark Urban had to concede was "not proven", despite spending the best part of his report suggesting otherwise.

Nowhere in the national media, though, do we hear or read the upbeat message from Brigadier James Bashall, the new UK Brigade Commander in southern Iraq. He, after all, had a message the MSM does not want us to hear, telling the Iraqis there was no question of British troops withdrawing. "My Brigade," he said, "is here to offer you support and we will stand by you."

In a parallel universe, where lives were not at stake and it did not matter so much, the distorting prism of the media would actually be comedic – it could make a pointed Monty Pythonesque sketch, showing in close relief the games the media are playing. As it is, they are selling us down the river.

COMMENT THREAD

Stresses and strains

As we remarked earlier, thank goodness we have someone to keep an eye on the serious stuff, in this case the growing stresses within the eurozone, as the different economies continue to diverge.

As always, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is on the case, describing how the European Central Bank has raised interest rates a quarter point to four percent "amid ever louder grumbling in France over the strength of the euro and a bare-knuckle fight between north and south over the pace of tightening."

Centre stage is ECB bank president Jean-Claude Trichet (pictured), who is blandly reassuring everyone (in public at least) that monetary policy was "still on the accommodative side", but refusing to give any detail on future moves.

The main fault line is the interest rate, which has doubled since December 2005, which Ambrose tells us is a key factor driving the euro to record highs. And, while a resurgent Germany can take the strain, most of the "Club Med" bloc is losing export share - including France.

This is behind the bellicose statements from Sarkozy, backed by Prodi, who want more political control over the euro, purportedly to counter "currency manipulation" by Asian powers.

Interestingly, Ambrose cites Simon Derrick, a strategist at the Bank of New York. Derrick says the moves go beyond political rhetoric. "Sarkozy and Prodi are not going to let go of this. There's a groundswell of feeling that Europe is being taken for a ride by the rest of the world, and they're not going to put up with it any more," he says.

Demonstrating how the parties are shaping up for a battle, Stephen Lewis, a strategist at Insinger de Beaufort, is also brought into comment. He says that the Bank of France is looking for arguments to temper rising rates going forward. And, in a chilling phrase – for those who understand community rhetoric – he adds, "We're nearing the limits of consensus." Now that really is serious.

Needless to say, Trichet insists that there are "no divisions" on the ECB's governing council. But then he would, wouldn't he – even though, as Ambrose points out, the real divisions are growing by the day. In France, there has been a collapse of competitiveness, with the loss of 20 percent of the export market in six years. Meanwhile, Germany has slashed its budget deficit to 0.6 percent of GDP.

The word "unsustainable" comes to mind.

COMMENT THREAD

Money talks

It was at the end of May that we covered a report retailing concerns expressed by the International VAT Association (IVA). They were worried that proposed simplification of EU VAT rules for cross-border trading of services would undermine the battle against fraud, already costing billions of pounds a year.

Well, the one thing about the VAT system is that any changes must be agreed unanimously by all 27 member states. One country alone can block a proposal and, this time, one was enough – nearly the smallest member state in the community, the Duchy of Luxembourg.

This was the outcome of the Ecofin meeting just concluded – conveniently in Luxembourg. To the disgust of EU taxation and customs commissioner Laszlo Kovacs, the country's prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker (pictured), is refusing an agreement – although this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fraud problem. In fact, it is because Luxembourg is the major beneficiary of the current rules, standing to lose at least €300 million in revenue each year if they change.

By way of background, VAT is the sales tax system which, when it was launched in April 1967, was recommended to members because – in the words of the recital to the First VAT Directive - "…a system of value added tax achieves the highest degree of simplicity…".

Such was that "highest degree of simplicity", however, that it has now been replaced by the VAT Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC). And to ensure it was made even simpler, that Directive since has been further amended by Directives 80/368/EEC, 84/386/EEC, 89/465/EEC, 91/680/EEC, 92/77/EEC, 92/111/EEC, 94/4/EC, 94/5/EC, 94/76/EC, 95/7/EC, 96/42/EC, 98/80/EC, 1999/49/EC, 1999/59/EC, 1999/85/EC, 2000/17/EC, 2000/65/EC, 2001/4/EC, 2001/115/EC, 2002/38/EC, 2002/93/EC, 2003/92/EC, 2004/7/EC, 2004/14/EC, 2004/66/EC, 2005/92/EC, 2006/18/EC, 2006/69/EC and 2006/98/EC.

This list, as you will fully appreciate, omits the accompanying EU Regulations and, of course, the full list of the other simplifying proposals in the pipeline - all to make the VAT system even simpler of course.

However, for the EU commission, mere perfection is never enough. So, intent on giving the system an even higher-than-highest degree of simplicity, on 29 October 2004, it published a proposal for yet another directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC.

This was to provide for "detailed rules for the refund of value added tax ... to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country but established in another Member State."

So simple is this proposition that it scarce needs any explanation but for those who have difficulty keeping up with the crystal clarity of the Commission's thinking, this simply allows for VAT on supplies of services between VAT registered persons ("business to business") to be applied in the purchaser's country rather than in the supplying country. Furthermore, it was also intended to reduce the administrative burden on businesses by harmonising VAT rules currently applicable to services supplied to businesses and private individuals.

The proposal has special application to electronic services, like internet, telecommunications systems, satellite and media services where cross-border trading is the norm. But it was also one fraught with danger, making it easier for criminals to milk the system.

As it happens, though, Luxembourg – at 15 percent - has kept its service tax at one of the lowest levels in the EU, well below neighbouring Germany, which recently raised its to 19 percent. This has been a deliberate ploy to attract lucrative service businesses. The tax advantages have attracted iTunes, Skype, eBay, Amazon.com, AOL and other big internet companies to set up shop in the Dutchy. The government is not anxious to see them go.

Thus, even when the ultra communautaire Luxembourg is involved, national interest will always prevail. "We have not made ourselves extremely popular in Europe," says prime minister Juncker, but he then adds: "Here, an essential interest of Luxembourg was at stake and therefore today I had no other possibility than to say no."

Kovacs is now looking to an end of year deadline to reach a compromise with Luxembourg, adding that he was optimistic that it would be done. Optimistic he might be but there is big money at stake – and money talks.

COMMENT THREAD

Book burning averted

One should be grateful for the existence of Poland. What other country can provide us with quite so much entertainment in quite such a short period of time?

The latest news, as reported by Der Spiegel is a fight about literary syllabus in schools. Well, yes, now that you ask, there are countries and quite a few of them, where children have a literary syllabus in schools. Amazing, isn’t it?

Last week Roman Giertych, the Education Minister, announced that numerous classics of world literature (yes, m’lud, they are studied in schools in various countries) would be dumped in favour of well-approved, morally sound and, above all, Catholic writers.

Thus “the works of Goethe, Dostoyevsky, Kafka and the Polish-born Josef Conrad were to be dumped in favor of nationalist or Catholic authors like Henryk Sienkiewicz and the late Pope John Paul II. The aim was to instill patriotism in Polish youngsters.”

Other candidates for the scrap heap were modernist writers, including Polish ones, such as Witold Gombrowicz and Stanislaw Witkiewicz. Someone should tell the Education Minister about modern European history. After all, we have been here before and, actually, not that long ago. June 6 is a good day to remember what it was that so many, including the Poles (whose lives are now being offered up in sacrifice for the square root of the voting numbers in the European Council), fought for.

There was an immediate outcry in Poland and Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski in a rare attack of sanity, went on radio to announce that this may have been a joke but was in very poor taste. The classics, he insisted, will stay on the Polish school syllabus. Children will go on reading Goethe, Dostoyevsky, Kafka and Josef Conrad.

I wonder if we might persuade the Poles to come over to this country to put together a literary syllabus for our schools that would include the classics of Britain and the world.

At war with his own paper?

A bullish piece written last Saturday by Thomas Harding in The Telegraph about the activities of our soldiers in Afghanistan went some way towards redressing the balance of media coverage, but for one thing – the "stand first" added to the report after it had been filed. This read:

In one year, the Afghanistan war has claimed the lives of 51 British soldiers - the latest this week. But as our forces secretly begin their biggest ever offensive, morale is at an all-time low. Thomas Harding, the only journalist with the troops, delivers an exclusive despatch.

Yesterday, however, the letters column carried a rebuttal from Brigadier John Lorimer, the commander of British Forces in Helmand: "…morale among my soldiers is not … 'at an all-time low'. I cannot see how anyone deduced this from your correspondent's dispatch. Quite to the contrary, morale is very high," he wrote.

Then, today, Harding comes back with a stonking piece in which he reports that, in what many officers regard as all-out war, the Anglians (with whom Harding is embedded) have accounted for 600 Taliban dead since April. He then adds:

Soldiers fighting on the front line are mostly teenagers experiencing combat for the first time. While many admitted they were initially afraid, all are now combat veterans whose morale remains high.

That is borne out by units which have returned from Afghanistan and those who are in the frame to be deployed in the theatre. There is very active competition between these units, all of whom are anxious to get out there and "get stuck in". That, after all, is why most soldiers join the Army.

It is relatively rare, however, for a newspaper to get caught out by its own correspondent. But, despite its determination to present the negative view of a campaign that is, in fact, doing better than expected, The Daily Telegraph's agenda is rather nicely exposed.

COMMENT THREAD

A world safe for cretins?

Although claimed as rescued by our coterie of self-serving Conservative MEPs who saw an opportunity to take credit for a small victory which justified their miserable (if expensive) existence, another small, craft business has been consigned to the dustbin of history - by the very same EU parliament which houses these dregs of humanity.

We are talking here about that minuscule trade which makes and repairs mercury barometers, the demise of which has been recorded by The Daily Telegraph today, which adds a trenchant if ultimately useless leader, despairing at this turn of events.

In the grander scheme of things, the demise of a small, obscure trade matters not a bit, except that they join the ranks of small farmers, fishermen, slaughterhouse owners and many others, driven out of business by an unthinking, unseeing and totally mindless bureaucracy. Given time, it will eventually destroy every iota of individual enterprise and variety which, collectively makes us different, all in the name of that vacuous political experiment, the European Union, aimed at preventing Germany going to war with France - or vice versa.

Yet, as our piece before this one gives witness, it was the free enterprise of the New World which returned our freedoms, not the stultifying, mind-numbing bureaucracy of the Old, which now seems to consider the abolition of individuality and freedom as its main aim in life.

One wonders if, when the troops stormed the beaches of Omaha, Utah, Gold, Juno and Sword, this day 63 years ago, they had been told they were making the world safe for cretins in Strasbourg to ban mercury barometers, they would have bothered.

COMMENT THREAD

Overlord

It is somehow fitting that, while we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the 6-Day War, we should also note in passing the 63rd year since the invasion of France on 6 June 1944. But for a quirk of the weather, it would of course have been the day before, in which case we would have been celebrating both anniversaries together.

Anyhow, it gives me an opportunity to post one of my all-time favourite historical photographs, this one from the US National Archives. Oddly, although it must be one of the American beaches, it is not identified in the caption. My money is on Omaha.

It would be otiose for me to add anything to the millions of words that must have been written about this event, as indeed I felt more constrained than my colleague in writing anything original about the 6-Day War. Both, in their own ways, were unique events. The world will never see the like of either of them again.

That, in itself, gives one pause for thought, especially viewed against the pretensions of the latter-day "Europeans" and their ambitions for a "European defence identity". They should remind themselves - frequently - that their current prosperity and freedom rests with the endeavours of those on this day, who gave their lives. And, it cannot be said to often, many of them were American.

COMMENT THREAD

More on those six days

That war and its aftermath were so important that several postings are justified as is a certain amount of personal reminiscing.

A year or so before the war my class was taken to see the Masada exhibition in the Royal Festival Hall. The major excavations had been completed and the stupendous exhibition travelled to various places and everywhere the history of the fortress whose defendants committed suicide rather than surrender to the besieging Romans captured many people’s imagination.

When, in the spring of 1967 the tension around Israel started to build up, it seemed like Masada was with us again. A small country was surrounded by much bigger enemies who were determined to destroy it. Not just defeat it in war or take over some territory but to destroy it.

This was most clearly expressed by the then Foreign Minister, Anwar Sadat, who spoke of sweeping every Israeli man, woman and child into the sea. Recently uncovered documents show plans that the Egyptians and the Jordanians had for the massacre of Jews in captured Israeli cities. This is not surprising if one looks at the history of various places such as Nablus, which is not quite as straightforward as some of those writing about it would like to make it out.

A longish piece on the subject is here.

COMMENT THREAD

Just thought you would like to know

The above chart shows our current estimated "contributions" to the European Union (less rebates), up until 2013 - courtesy of Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who asked the question in the Lords.

At just over £10 billion, this year's payment is nearly a third of the defence budget.

COMMENT THREAD

Crying in vain

A commentary on Michael Yon's latest post, and much more, here.

COMMENT THREAD

Six days that changed the world

Forty years ago today, in a short, efficient and decisive blow, approximately 300 Egyptian aircraft, including bombers, fighters and helicopters, were destroyed in less than 2 hours. The main air threat against Israel was eliminated and the Israel Defence Forces achieved air supremacy when Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi aircraft attacked targets in Israel. Once it was clear that King Hussein, the Jordanian leader, had chosen to undertake a military campaign on the Jerusalem front, the Israel Air Force turned to the Jordanian airfields in Amman and Mafrak and destroyed a large part of the Jordanian Air Force.

When the confrontation was further extended on the same day over Syria and Iraq, Israeli aircraft continued their combat against these countries and also destroyed their aircraft. Airfields attacked in Syria included Damascus, Damir and Seikel. In Iraq, the H-3 airfield in the vicinity of the Jordanian border was attacked.

Before the end of the first day of fighting, the air forces of the participating Arab states had been destroyed, thereby determining the fate of the entire war. Israeli armoured forces could then fight the battle under "clear skies", and air force pilots were free to provide support to IDF ground forces in all the sectors, the breakthrough and transportation axes without leaving the rear of the State of Israel in danger of air attack. Israel Air Force losses in the fateful day of the battle were a total of 20 aircraft. Twelve pilots were killed, five were wounded and four captured.

COMMENT THREAD

President Putin speaks again

There seems to be a lot of kerfuffle around because President Putin has made some more hard-sounding statements in preparation to the G-8 meeting this week-end in Germany. His target, if one may use that expression, is the proposed missile defence system, which is likely to include several former Soviet colonies, with the Czech Republic standing first in line.

As Pravda reports, the testing of new missiles to overcome or destroy the NATO defence systems has begun. Then again, it is fairly useless to ask Pravda whether they have been successful. Just like old times, really.

As President Putin knows all too well, this is a defence shield, not rockets. Therefore, it is, at the very least, disingenuous of him to talk about Russia seeing this as an offensive act. Nor do I find myself particularly impressed by his threats of another Cold War (for most of us that started some time ago) or of pointing Russian missiles at Europe. Were they every pointed anywhere else? Well, I assume there must be some pointing at China but apart from that?

The big questions are how good are those missiles still and how stable. In other words, would they get off the ground and are they leaking nuclear material?

Of these, the second is a far greater danger to all, especially the people of Russia. In the first flush of Russia’s friendship with the West there were several projects to decommission nuclear instalments in the former Soviet Union and to make them safe. The plans came to very little.

In fact, the famous Court of Auditors report about corruption in ECHO and other Commission institutions that eventually led to the resignation (for a couple of hours) of the Santer Commission, used the Russian and Ukrainian decommissioning programme as one of the examples. The money had disappeared even before it arrived in Russia. Any amount that may have made its way there from other sources was never accounted for.

Interestingly enough, Putin was supposed to have promised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he would tone down the anti-Western rhetoric, though possibly she merely demanded that he stop referring to the United States as a Nazi state. (That sort of thing is done only by left-wing bloggers such as the various contributors to the Daily Kos.)

Clearly, Putin does not see fit to tone down his rhetoric as far as the West in general is concerned. Prime Minister Blair has expressed disquiet, pointing out that the West needs Russia in a more constructive mood. President Sarkozy is promising that he will have a "frank" discussion with President Putin this week-end. Let us hope that they will have a press conference afterwards.

Meanwhile RIA News has reported [link in Russian] that the demonstration by “The Other Russia” for June 11 (day before Russia Day) will not be allowed to go down the Tverskaya (one of Moscow’s main streets, known in the Soviet period as Gorky Street.) They will be allowed to hold a meeting but not to march.

So, as we have said before, Putin continues to whip up fear and hatred in his own country. Russia, according to the Putin doctrine is surrounded by enemies who wish to destroy her, presumably by moving bronze soldiers around and building defence shields against such countries as North Korea and Iran. They want to undermine Russia’s faith in herself and her destiny by asking for the extradition of people accused of murder and – this is the crunch point – by supporting oppositional forces who are, by definition, traitors to the government.

With parliamentary and presidential elections coming up, the ever stronger sound of that old slogan, “La Patrie en Danger” is becoming more and more sinister.

COMMENT THREAD

Taken to the cleaners

The EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF (as opposed to its pro-fraud offices), and the Brussels prosecutor's office have begun an investigation into allegations that EU bureaucrats faked contracts with cleaners to pocket EU funds after Belgian media reported that commission employees had drafted fake contracts with a Belgian cleaning contractor to syphon off money.

According to IHT, citing OLAF spokesman Alessandro Buttice, a contract signed with the Belgian firm between 2003 and 2007 "may have been executed in an irregular manner." The company, which has not been named, had been contracted to clean all EU commission buildings.

It is unclear how much money is involved, but the commission is said to have had a budget for cleaning services of between €30-40 million over the past five years.

Anyhow, it makes a change for the EU to be taken to the cleaners. That is a fate normally reserved for us mere "citizens".

COMMENT THREAD

The hyperventilation continues

Following the weekend, when assorted hacks were trying to make out that Gordon Brown is poised to pull our troops from Basra, The Daily Mail continues the process today, with a piece headed: "We'll be out by 2008, British military chiefs tell the Iraqis".

But, while the Sunday Telegraph had it that we would be out by next May, the Mail has shortened the timescale, telling us that "British military chiefs" have drawn up plans to withdraw from the two remaining bases in southern Iraq by the end of this year. Furthermore, "the Daily Mail has learned" that this timetable "is set out in an official letter to the Iraqi government in Baghdad."

Building on this unsubstantiated assertion (by whom was the letter sent, to whom, for instance?), The Mail then tells us that "the plan" represents a far faster withdrawal than expected and will put British ministers on a collision course with Washington, where the UK's presence as a loyal ally in the controversial war in Iraq remains highly valued.

Then turning assertion and speculation into fact, we are gravely informed that, "the planned withdrawal from the base will therefore mark a major watershed, heralding an end to Britain's responsibility for security in the war-torn and volatile Basra province," and "…will leave British ministers open to charges of an ignominious retreat."

Only towards the end of the piece does the paper deign to print the now routine denial from "a spokesman" from the MoD who says: "Our policy on withdrawal from Iraq has not changed. Military planners routinely look at a range of options, and as we have always said, any withdrawal requires the conditions on the ground to be right."

But that does not stop the leader writer letting rip, revealing the Mail's real agenda with the heading: "This is a defeat for Blair, not our troops". Says the anonymous writer, "Now, it seems, virtually all British troops are to be pulled out from their bases in southern Iraq by the end of the year. This is no disgrace for them, for they could not have performed with more courage or skill in the cauldron of Basra."

It cites Dannatt, from his interview in the Mail last October, saying "our presence in Iraq, far from helping the security situation, is exacerbating it," and then, having convinced itself that Brown is indeed set on removing our troops, declares: "The correct decision has been taken … The verdict of history will surely be that our forces remained this long purely to save Mr Blair's face."

We do, however, get a far more measured piece this morning from Michael Evans in The Times, who tells us that "military commanders have been considering options to present to Gordon Brown when he becomes Prime Minister on June 27." He then tells us that "senior Ministry of Defence sources emphasised that the military was drawing up a number of options, but considered it 'wholly unlikely' that most British troops could be withdrawn in such a short timescale."

Also on the case is The Independent which also simply talks of "military chiefs" having drawn up plans to speed up the withdrawal of the vast majority of British troops from Iraq within 12 months. But it also concludes with the legend that the MoD had said that its policy on withdrawal from Iraq was unchanged and that it was still considering a number of options.

To give its due, The Guardian put this legend up front in its version of the story, with "government sources" stressing that the proposal was one of several options which the MoD was developing to present to Gordon Brown when he takes over as prime minister later this month.

There is, however, an alternative view. One newspaper blares the headline, "Five more years in Iraq, say defence papers", telling us that British troops will remain in Iraq for at least another five years. This is based on "a confidential planning document" drawn up by defence chiefs called the Operational Tour Plot. According to the newspaper, this reveals that troops will be serving on operations in the Gulf until at least 2012.

And the newspaper? Ah! This is The Sunday Telegraph, with the story written by Sean Rayment, the paper's very same defence correspondent who yesterday told us the troops would be out next year. But it was written on 7 April.

It seems a month is a long time in journalism.

COMMENT THREAD

I didn't say it was easy!

I did say that the availability of the internet allowed you to do your own fact-checking. But that doesn't mean that it is any easier to put together a coherent picture.

For instance, take the Booker column yesterday, which tells us that the MoD is pulling back from the European Rapid Reaction Force, and gradually re-aligning its policy to deal with the current insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then look at another piece in the Sunday Telegraph that tells us that the ERRF is a "farce". We thus learn that Gen Henri Bentegeat (pictured), the Frenchman who oversees the force's military operations, has admitted that it would struggle to intervene anywhere in the near future. Despite the continuing fighting in Darfur and conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, the battle groups have not been deployed once.

Now go to DefenseNews and find that the EU's Operations Centre will be declared officially operational in the first half of June. Staffed by 76 military and 13 civilian planners, it is intended to enable the European Union to plan and run autonomous military and joint civilian-military operations in the absence of a leading national headquarters.

It also appears that Javier Solana is to recommend that the EU Military Staff (EUMS) headquarters in Brussels should increase its current staff of 200 or its technical capabilities, making the European Security and Defence Policy one of the EU's biggest policy-growth areas.

Finally, pick up on a Reuters' report which tells us that France is asking its European Union "partners" to consider sending a force of up to 12,000 troops to Chad to provide aid for people fleeing the Darfur conflict in Sudan.

So, Britain is detaching itself from the ERRF, its commanding general, Gen Henri Bentegeat, is saying that it is not ready for operations, Solana is looking to beef up its headquarters and the French want the force to deploy in Sudan.

About as clear a mud, I reckon.

COMMENT THREAD

The return of self reliance

There is an especially silly piece in The Sunday Times News Review section by John-Paul Flintoff, who interviews net entrepreneur Andrew Keen about the internet. "The web was going to be the great educator, but the cult of the amateur is now devaluing knowledge," runs the strap, with Keen arguing that the web "is killing our culture, assaulting our economy and destroying time-honoured codes of conduct."

Keen's particular target is Wikipedia, against which he rails for its manifest and multiple errors, but he also takes a tilt against blogs and "news" sites, many of which he claims are "merely fronts for public relations machines." Others, he says, conceal their agendas. They're also unaccountable and rarely remove their mistakes, he asserts, adding: It was once said that: "A lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth has the chance to put its boots on." That has never been more true than in the freewheeling, unchecked blogosphere.

What the silly man does not realise (or wish to hear) is that, while indeed there is an incredible amount of rubbish on the net, the information sources now opened up are incomparable. Never has it been so easy and quick to find information and, for the first time in our recent history, we have not had to be reliant on official sources, or the tyranny of the established media for our information. We have a multiplicity of sources – and access to much of the original material on which the media relies. We can make up our own minds about issues, rather than be spoon-fed with pre-formed opinion.

As to "accountability", where lies the MSM on this, witness the pieces about which we have commented today? Who is there to correct the headlines which convey false information and which spread round the net like wildfire as agencies and regional newspapers report the stories? Who is there to correct the errors perpetrated by the MSM, when there seems little premium in fact checking and extreme reluctance to admit any fault ?

When it comes to the media, therefore, not for nothing did we write in August last:

Whether it is the Middle East, foreign affairs generally, domestic or EU affairs, the very last thing you can do is rely on the media for an honest or intelligent appraisal of current events. Through their lame and often trivial efforts, they let the governments of the day off the hook and, in so doing, become part of the problem. Standing between us and the government and still dominating the debate and filtering out alternative views, they hinder understanding and the accountability that comes with it.

They the media, therefore, are not so much the enemy within – they are the enemy between.

What the internet does is return control to the reader – to the seeker after truth. Thus, to suggest that the net is full of false information is to miss the point. So is the media and established organs. The difference now is that, with the multiplicity of sources available, those that want to can do their own fact-checking. What this wonder of modern science does is give us back the ability to be self-reliant.

COMMENT THREAD

Lebanon at war

The two reports (of many more) from Al-Jazeera and the BBC World Service show clearly that it is not easy to know exactly what is going on in Lebanon. (I would recommend the Al-Jazeera one as being more complete and objective.)

So far as one can make out, the Lebanese army is moving in for the final push in Nahr al-Bared with Fatah Al-Islam acknowledging that one of their leaders, Abu Riyadh, has been killed by an army sniper. The army has reported that at least three other "militants" have been killed in the last day's fighting.

Most of the camp's population has managed to get out but those who are too old or too infirm to go, are still there, with the terrorists (what the heck, call them by their right name) probably intending to use them as shields. Or so the Lebanese government and army believe.

As the siege continued, Abu Salim Taha, a spokesman for Fatah al-Islam, claimed that troops from Unifil, a multi-national peacekeeping force whose remit is largely concerned with monitoring southern Lebanon, had taken part in the shelling of Nahr al-Bared camp.

A deputy spokesperson for Unifil denied the allegations.

Yapmina Bouzaine said: "These claims are utterly unfounded. Unifil's maritime task force have no part whatsoever in the developments in and around Nahr al-Bared camp."

She said the maritime task force was acting within its original mandate, assisting the Lebanese authorities in preventing the illegal flow of arms via the sea.

I do not suppose Unifil is involved in the fighting but it is hard to imagine it doing anything useful in a situation that is rapidly escalating.

Another militant group, Jund Al-Sham, has fired at an army checkpoint (calm down Beeboids, it was not an Israeli checkpoint but a Lebanese one) at the Ain al-Hilweh camp in south Lebanon. The army returned the fire and brought in reinforcements, deploying armoured vehicles mounted with heavy machine guns.

Though the situation remains chaotic, one or two points need to be made.

The first obvious one that if Israel had gone after "militants" in refugee camps, there would, by now be angry demonstrations (though not very large ones) and emergency meetings in the UN Security Council. It is a point that has been made repeatedly and needs to be made over and over again.

However, the really interesting aspect is that the Lebanese government and military seem to be determined to rid the country of various, multimonikered militant groups, and if that means waging war in Palestinian refugee camps, so be it. They will do it, hoping, presumably, that the Palestinians will be too scared to harbour any more terrorists. I doubt if that hope will be justified.

One wonders rather whether Israel's war against Hezbollah last summer may not have left the Lebanese government more determined to reclaim the country for the Lebanese people. How that will play out with all those Palestinian camps remains to be seen.

And while we are on the subject, where is Hezbollah. Apart from a few statements by Nasrallah, they have been very quiet. Indeed, they have retreated in the last few months very quickly after making various threats, as soon as there was a strong response from the government and the people.

Could it be that Hezbollah has, as some of us suspected, suffered a far greater defeat last summer than it was acknowledged by the so-called independent observers? Might there be some difficulty in recruiting replacement fighters and getting more arms from Iran, Syria or, even, some units of the Lebanese army?

Just a few questions to which one would like to know the answers.

COMMENT THREAD

Idle hacks…

First it was the turn of The Times, then The Sunday Telegraph and then the Sunday Times. Now it is followed, this week, by both the Sundays, which pitch in with speculation on whether Gordon Brown is set to pull our troops out of Iraq.

Meanwhile, a quiet voice in the bowels of the Telegraph suggests otherwise. That, as you might expect, is from Christopher Booker.

Starting with the Sunday Telegraph front page, however, this blares out the ludicrous headline, "MoD to pull troops out of Iraq within a year" – ludicrous because, even in its own terms, it is not supported by the text of the story it proclaims.

Bearing in mind that the headline is added after the story is written, however, it is the substance of the text that needs concern us. And here, the fearless hacks, Sean Rayment and Patrick Hennessy, are seen to employ all their journalistic tricks.

"Military chiefs…" they proclaim, "…are drawing up plans to withdraw all British troops from Iraq within 12 months." Right! Now, could these "military chiefs" be Lance Corporal Miggins of the 5th Bombay Dismounts, and his mates down the drill hall? Or could they perhaps be Lt. Col. Blitherington Smythe of the 19/21 Whitehall Desk Drivers, and his gallant staff of pen pushers?

This we will never know from the Telegraph team who, in the best tradition of the idle speculators, never name their sources. What we do get though is that "a fresh timetable, which would see a unilateral withdrawal from the war-torn country by next May, will be presented to Gordon Brown within weeks."

For more (any) detail, we have to go to The Sunday Times and a story by Mick Smith headed: "British Iraq pull-out plan". Here, we actually get names: the British commander in southern Iraq, Major-General Jonathan Shaw, has produced a "commander's tactical advice" several weeks ago, written for Lieutenant-General Nick Houghton, the chief of joint operations, in London.

Now we get to the substance. This "advice" was written after the Ministry of Defence asked for options that could be presented to Brown when he takes over as prime minister. By whom the paper was commissioned is not revealed (there are an awful lot of people in the MoD) but we do learn that it has yet to win the backing of Houghton and it has not gone to ministers. We are told, though, that Shaw's "tactical advice" was endorsed by the most senior British officer in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb, who is deputy coalition commander.

We then have to rely on another unnamed "senior source" (Lance Corporal Miggins, perchance?) to firm up the Mick Smith line that, "it is impossible to see politicians going against the advice of two of the most experienced operational officers in the British Army."

More speculation then follows but we then get from "sources close to Des Browne", that there has been no change to British policy in Iraq. This describes withdrawal as being "conditions based" and dependent on Iraqi troops being able to take control. Ministers have consistently refused to give any timetables for withdrawal

Turning now to Booker, he takes up the theme of this this blog (and here) pointing out that the MoD has committed a torrent of funding to prosecuting counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not least on the C-RAM counter-mortar guns (pictured) that are now being installed in Basra.

It is a standing joke within the MoD that new spending on an establishment is always a precursor to it being closed down, but the joke can only go so far. With programmes as yet formally unannounced, the new money being spent on Iraq alone actually looks to be well in excess of £1 billion. It is beyond reason to argue that Gordon Brown would commit that sort of money if he was set on early withdrawal.

On numerous occasions on this blog, we have cautioned that, when evaluating politicians, you should watch their hands, not their lips. In other words, assess what they do, not what they say.

In this instance, we know that the military is divided on Iraq – as indeed are senior civil servants in the MoD and foreign office – to say nothing of New Labour ministers. In the interregnum where Blair has effectively stood down as prime minister and Gordon has yet to take over, therefore, it is inevitable that there should be a flurry of briefings and counter-briefings, plus position papers setting out the various options that might be considered.

But, from the top political level, not only do the lips say "we stay", the money also tells its own story. Everything else is fluff from idle hacks with too much time on their hands and not enough brains to work out what is really going on, bolstered by "newspapers" which seem more intent on pushing an agenda than reporting facts.

COMMENT THREAD

Shurly not!

The Sunday Times is telling us that some "recycled" waste is dumped in landfill.

Furthermore, it is estimated about 10m tons of domestic and commercial rubbish is now being shipped abroad for recycling.

But quote of the year award has to go to Nigel Keenlyside, of Berryman, Britain’s biggest glass recyclers, complaining about the contamination of glass collected for recycling. He says: "If you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out."

I'd never have guessed that!

COMMENT THREAD

We're all isolated now

You can see the same old, familiar rhetoric re-appearing as we drift towards the dénouement that is the European Council on 21-22 June, when Merkel will lay her proposals for a new treaty on the table.

This it is that we see The Telegraph headline today, over a piece written by Bruno Waterfield: "Britain 'isolated' over new treaty for Europe".

Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. Britain is isolated .. but then so is Poland, and so is the Czech Republic, as is The Netherlands and who knows which other "players", some of which have yet to declare their hands.

Nevertheless, that is what we are led to believe will be the substance of the message which will be given to Blair tomorrow when he meets Merkel at a pre-G8 meeting in Berlin. For Blair, it will most certainly be "same old, same old" - he faces isolation and a bruising battle over British opposition to new powers for the European Union.

However, at least we are getting a vaguely intelligent comment from shadow foreign secretary William Hague, who is complaining about the shuttle diplomacy of recent weeks. "We are in the bizarre position that Merkel and Sarkozy seem to know more about the British Government's policy on Europe than the British public," he says.

For once, he has a point. The "colleagues" are embroiled in fast and furious negotiations about a potential treaty, the substance of which none of us have seen.

Meanwhile, according to that fount of information, the Chinese news agency Xinhuanet, Belgian premier Guy Verhofstadt has been laying down the law during a visit to Berlin to see Merkel.

He expressed strong opposition to watering down the EU constitution, declaring: "What we need is a treaty, and a treaty with substance," a "key element" the EU should have the legal status to enter into treaties of it own – i.e., it own legal personality. Since that it at odds with what – as far as we know – both Merkel and Sazkozy are proposing – one supposes that Belgium is isolated as well.

As for isolated Poland, this poor benighted country is apparently going to get a visit from EU parliament president Hans-Gert Pottering, who is paying an “official visit” on June 4-5, in a bid to persuade the government to preserve the substance of the EU constitution draft.

So far, Kaczynski has only indicated that his countrymen are prepared to die for their version of the treaty but it now looks as if they are going to suffer a fate much worse than that, when Pottering and his entourage arrive.

At least, or so it appears, we are all (or some of us) shortly to be put out of our misery – if you can call it that. Waterfield tells us that, after five months of secrecy, all will be revealed at a "sandwich supper" of foreign ministers in Luxembourg on June 17. Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, will hear for the first time Berlin's plan for an "EU blueprint" and timetable for a replacement of the constitution.

Presumably, shortly thereafter, our maters will deign to let us know what they have in store for us.

The rather stunning pic is called Isolated II by Anouska Vaskebova, available for sale as a poster, via the link.

COMMENT THREAD

Redressing the balance

Troops are frustrated that we - the British public - are not more appreciative of the constructive work being undertaken by our soldiers. Philip "Taff" Bartlett, one of the Welsh Guards' pallbearers for Diana, Princess of Wales, said: "Our families say we are not receiving much recognition, when guys are working their backsides off in dangerous conditions."

"It's a bit close for comfort sometimes," says Pte Tom Holt, 1Bn the Royal Anglians, drenched in sweat from the remorseless heat of battle and the baking sun. "A lot of friends back home don't understand what's going on here or what we are doing."

But they should, writes Thomas Harding in today's Daily Telegraph. For this offensive could determine the success or failure of the West's forgotten war against the Taliban.

"Whisper it for now," he adds, "but this is a war, a necessary war, that the West might just win. It would be an outcome that would change geo-politics. But the war's most shocking feature is that back on the Anglian plains and indeed across Albion, few seem to care. Listen."

Credit where it is due. After my highly critical piece on Wednesday, this long, well-written account of UK-led Operation Lastay Kulang, which has been continuing in northern Helmand Province, goes some way to make up for this paper's own shortcomings in its reporting of the Afghan campaign.

Two pieces on the MoD website (with some superb photography) - here and here - also help to redress the balance of the sustained negative reporting that we have seen.

There are interesting issues which emerge from the reports which we will address in a longer report of our own, tomorrow. For the moment though, suffice to say "well done" to those who have conducted the operations, those who support them and to Harding, who put himself at some personal risk to make his report.

COMMENT THREAD

The Saturday "toy"

The official caption to this photograph reads: US Air Force Senior Airman John Tranum uses a PRC-117 multiband tactical radio to communicate with an aircraft during a training exercise May 29, 2007, on the Pacific Alaska Range Complex, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Tranum is assigned to the 3rd Air Support Operations Squadron. DoD photo by Airman 1st Class Jonathan Snyder, US Air Force.

The aircraft is, of course, an A-10. What I want to know is what the airman is saying to to aircraft pilot. Suggestions on the forum please... keep it clean.

Click the pic to enlarge.

COMMENT THREAD

Rampant idiocy

Take your pick out of a number of news items. The one that qualifies most is the recent call by Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) for a discussion by its branches of a boycott against Israeli academics and academic institutions.

A long piece on the subject is here.

COMMENT THREAD

What a shame

One can only offer a wry smile, but no sympathy at all, on reading a Reuters' report on a recent Eurobarometer report on the attitudes of young "Europeans" to the EU.

Headlined, "Young Europeans see EU as waste of time", it tells us that many of these mythical creatures are unhappy with the European Union and some believe it will soon cease to exist. Furthermore, we are told, "40 per cent of young adults state that it (EU) means an excess of bureaucracy and a waste of time and money," and just over a third of people aged between 15-30 see the EU as a threat to cultural identity and diversity, the poll said.

The short report then concludes that, when looking forward ten years, 13 percent believe the EU will no longer exist, while almost 40 percent said the EU will have more social problems such as unemployment and strikes.

What is really interesting though – not reported by Reuters - is a finding that respondents in the 12 new member states appear more likely to evaluate positively the EU's future, while respondents in the EU15 are characterised by seeing its future in a more negative way. The longer you have been in the EU, it seems, the less you like it.

Looking at the full report (141 pages) or the summary, however, one sees that the main findings are that 90 percent of respondents report that, for them personally, the EU represents the freedom to travel, study and work anywhere in the Union. A plurality of them also underline the fact that its existence represents a way to protect the rights of citizens (72 percent) and a means of improving the EU's economic situation (71 percent). More than half of the respondents (56 percent) feel that the EU is equivalent to a European government.

In other words, Reuters present an unremittingly negative view of the report, which in no way reflects the tenor of the contents.

What a terrible shame ... there ought to be a law about it.

COMMENT THREAD

Dialogue … but only if you agree with us

With all that is going on in the world, it is somewhat comforting to see that the EU commission is running to form, talking about the only thing that really interests it – itself.

More particularly, following the trouncing by the Dutch and the French over the EU constitution, it is still harbouring a sense of wounded grievance about being unloved. And, to that effect, following the fragrant one's brainstorm (more storm than brain) about "Plan D for Democracy", the commission has laboured long and hard to produce another paper on "communication".

Entitled, "A Citizen’s Agenda for Communicating Europe", it aims to bring citizens closer to Europe by encouraging them to participate in shaping EU policies. It seeks "to empower citizens to voice their opinions" and provide them with "relevant information on the functioning of the EU and its policies at all levels".

Drafted by the fragrant Margot Wallström, we are told that the paper states the importance of making access to EU information "a basic individual right" with debates placed in "a national, regional and local context" and made available to citizens "in the language of their choice". In doing so, the commission hopes to help create a long sought-after "European public sphere".

By this means, our Margot wants to "strengthen dialogue" at all levels – national, regional, local. And to do so, she plans to establish management partnerships as "the main tool for joint initiatives between the EU and member states" on communication policy.

You will also be pleased to know that any communication set up under the partnership would ensure "representation of diverse views" in the debate and facilitate linkage with national political agendas, including national elections in order to "facilitate better adaptation of communication to local circumstances".

The trouble is that, in trying to tell us with increasing stridency, that our opinions count, the one opinion it takes absolutely no notice of is the one most ardently expressed by this blog – that the commission and all its fellow travellers should (at the very least) pack up their bags and go away. Diverse views, therefore, are the last thing Margot wants.

Thus is seems that our opinions count, but only as long as we agree with the commission and accept the agenda which it defines. That, of course, is why they will always have communication problems. They are offering a message which we simply do not want to hear.

COMMENT THREAD

The tempo quickens

In the classic pre-treaty minuet, in which the self-obsessed "colleagues" so love to indulge, the couples are drawing together as the dance comes to its conclusion.

In an upbeat report, Reuters tells us that, one by one, the pieces of Angela Merkel's European treaty jigsaw puzzle are slotting into place "three weeks before a decisive summit for the EU's future." The agency has it that a senior German official last week put the prospects of success at less than 50 percent, but one "EU ambassador" said the political stars were suddenly aligned for a deal.

El presidente Jose Manuel Barroso certainly seems bullish about Merkel being "well on the way to a deal" and is enjoying "crucial help" from Sarkozy.

However, according to The Financial Times, smiles turn to snarls when Barroso contemplates Britain, yesterday warning that "it would harm its own interests" if it blocked a deal at the European Council. Failure to get a deal would cost Europe credibility and distract attention from priority issues in London such as fighting climate change and securing a world trade deal.

But, in the manner of a recalcitrant child being presented with last night's uneaten meal at breakfast, the prime minister-soon-to-be Gordon Brown has been told that, if he blocks a deal, "I have no doubt that this issue will not disappear unless it is solved."

Turning the screws, the Barroso has also warned Brown privately that if he fights a rearguard action against the new treaty this autumn it would seriously harm his relations with Ms Merkel and other European leaders.

And even Poland is getting the wagging finger. It should remember, says el presidente, that the EU – including the German presidency – was standing behind it in a row with Moscow over meat exports. "I hope Poland's leaders understand that solidarity is a two-way street," he says.

With that, he offers the prospect of a journey to the sunlit uplands, of creating a "virtuous circle" of global responsibility in which the world's leading economies embraced an agenda of tackling climate change, opening world markets and tackling global poverty.

So there you are, sign here guv and everything in the garden will be rosy … or else.

COMMENT THREAD