Shouting a little louder

There gets to a point where you have said all you can say on a particular subject, and there is little more you can say without repeating yourself, and shouting louder. So it is with the report of the death yesterday of Major Alexis Roberts, serving in Afghanistan with the 1st Battalion, the Royal Gurkha Rifles.

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

Double standards

As British livestock farmers struggle under the combined burden of foot and mouth and blue tongue disease controls, to say nothing of the "hidden epidemic" of bovine TB, a long-running controversy about the standards of Brazilian beef goes almost unnoticed and unreported in the MSM – marked only in the specialist press and in some local newspapers.

Yet nothing more shows the inconsistency of the EU commission, and its willingness to permit double standards, which harm both domestic producers and show the EU to be a totally bankrupt form of government.

However, the latest instalment of the controversy emerges in the Tipperary paper, the Nenagh Guardian, which reports on accusations that not only is the EU commission permitting double standards but that the Irish agriculture minister is aiding and abetting the European Commission bureaucrats in a "cover-up".

The issue rests on the burden of regulation affecting beef producers in EU member states – the two biggest being the Irish Republic and the UK – who must document their cattle from "cradle to grave" and keep detailed records of every single movement, on pain of draconian penalties.

Yet, while agriculture ministers and the commission have gone on record stating that cattle from which meat is imported must conform with the same standards, in September 2005, the EU's inspection agency, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), visited Brazil and found an absence of animal identification and adherence to basic rules. It also found that deficiencies relating to the control of food and mouth disease, found in 2003, had not been rectified and, to this day, there have been no improvements.

Because of the shortfalls in animal health controls, five major countries, including Australia, the USA and New Zealand have banned imports of Brazilian beef - but not the EU, despite guarantees of equivalency provided for in Community legislation. In fact, the commission seems entirely content that animals of unknown origin are eligible for import into Europe after only six weeks residency on the dispatch farm – something which would not be permitted of farmers in EU member states.

The final irony is that – as many will recall – the current EU controls on livestock originated in the health scares of late 1990s, pushed by massive media pressure. Yet, when the EU so singularly fails to enforce those same standards on imported beef, the media are silent.

This should be a major scandal but – as with so many things that the EU fails to do – the media give it an easy ride and turn the other way.

COMMENT THREAD

When I want their opinion I'll ask for it

It is inevitable that one finds news items that report the appearance of the Constitutional Reform Treaty in all the languages on the web. Let’s face it, anything is more interesting than reading that treaty for the third time – in its first version in 2005, the second version this summer and, heigh-ho, the version that will be approved at the IGC Summit.

So what do I find when I read the AFP report on the subject? A most extraordinary farrago, worthy of some of the best MSM’s editorializing when editorials are not needed.

Take the first paragraph:

The European Union unveiled Friday its new draft treaty of sorely-needed reforms to replace the failed constitution but major political hurdles must be overcome before the text can be adopted.

Who says those reforms are sorely needed?

I suppose describing the IGC’s negotiations are “rubber-stamping” the text is near enough to the truth, though a better phrase could have been found. But what are we to make of this:

It contains many positive elements of the constitution, which was torpedoed by voters in France and the Netherlands in referendums two years ago sparking the bloc's worst-ever crisis.

However it amends parts of the other EU treaties and does not replace them, as the constitution would have done. Many of the symbolic trappings -- references to a European flag and anthem -- have also been dropped.

Positive elements? Torpedoed? A tad emotional, is it not, ladies and gentlemen of AFP?

Furthermore, whether this treaty amends parts of the other treaties without replacing them is a matter for discussion not for straightforward reporting. Since when has AFP been the propaganda unit for the European Commission?

The “report” ends with the words:

EU leaders want the treaty to enter force on January 1, 2009 so that public confidence in the European project is not undermined by the problem during elections to the European Parliament that year.

A few quotation marks would not come amiss. Not quite in the Green Helmet Guy category but an honourable mention, I think.

COMMENT THREAD

The revised treaty - it's up!

As forecast last Wednesday, the new draft of the constitutional "reform" treaty is up on the EU Council site – in all the Community languages.

Officially, its title is still the eye-catching "Draft Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community". The informal title of "reform" treaty is merely part of the spin the colleagues insist upon as a means of making is "user friendly" or some such. It has no legal or official standing.

As before, the draft comes in four parts:

Recitals - 2 pages

Main treaty - 152 pages

Protocols - 76 pages

Draft declarations - 25 pages

At 255 pages, it seems to have shrunk slightly from the original 277 pages (still accessible - links from here) so there has obviously been some element of re-writing.

This is the version which will be discussed at the forthcoming IGC in Lisbon, now only two weeks away, so we'll have a look at some of the changes and post the details over the next few days or so.

COMMENT THREAD

Assault on the blogosphere

Comment on Margot Wallström's latest attempt at an EU "communications strategy" has, quite rightly, focused on her attempt to introduce teaching on the EU into the schools curricula. But, tucked into her proposal is an even more sinister target – domination of the blogosphere – plans for which are well advanced.

That the commission regards the internet as a powerful communications tool has been flagged up a number of times, not least by the fragrant one herself launching her own blog. But we also get hints of how seriously it is regarded, as in a piece last year in the semi-official site (commission-funded) Cafebabel, which asked, "Could blogs be the salvation of the European Union?" Interestingly, it cited the "success" of the Euro-sceptic blog EU Referendum as an example of the power of the blogosphere.

More recently, we got another clue on a site run by Jon Worth, former president of the Young European Federalists, who applauded the resumption of blogging by our Europhile foreign secretary, David Miliband, then commenting:

More generally it's good that government departments are making efforts to use the internet in interesting ways, although my main fear is this: who is actually going to believe what's on the FCO blogs any more than they believe anything on any other government website? If we are to manage to start to dispel the myths about the EU pumped out online by EU Referendum and others then some more viral communications methods are going to have to be found.

With the advent of Wallström's communication strategy, however, Worth is to get his way, the most visible evidence of which is an initiative being quietly rolled out by Euractiv.com. This, it is calling Blogactiv, a multilingual "expert generated content" blog platform focused on EU Affairs – scheduled for public launch in mid-October.

Although Euractiv claims to be "independent and neutral", it is heavily financed by the EU and Europhile organisations – including the EPP and the Socialist equivalent (PES). Its Euractiv foundation includes such luminaries as Lindsay Armstrong, co-founder of Europa, and former commission official, Stanley Crossick, founding chairman of the European Policy Centre and Pat Cox, former president of the EU parliament and now president of European Movement International.

Even more interestingly, Euractiv's "orientation committee", includes Alexander Riedl and Giorgio Clarotti, two senior staff members of the EU commission who, the website laughably claims, "serve in their personal capacities". Riedl, however, is also listed as the "Finance and Development Director" of Euractiv portal. Clarotti (pictured, left) is a second-generation commission official who, after ten years in the commission running its biomaterial research budget, moved to the department for employment and social affairs, where he runs the "communication unit".

It is these "independent and neutral" actors who are now offering the Euro equivalent of Blogger, under the domain name Blogactiv.eu. Through this means, they aim to, "build on EurActiv's readership to become the premier source for opinions, discussions and views on EU affairs."

To attract bloggers, they will provide free hosting to anyone who wants to open up a site (or migrate from an existing host). And, as a carrot, its recruiting leaflet (pictured, top) states:

…popular and noteworthy blogs will receive exposure on Euractiv.com and its CrossLingual Network of sites across Europe, which between them receive 475,000 unique visitors every month.

Technically speaking, moreover, Blogactiv is tailored specifically to European affairs. There are myriads of blogging technologies, add-ins and extensions available to today's bloggers. We have examined them all, and adapted those best suited to discussing Europe.

Similarly, Blogactiv will be multilingual, and will launch with major Sections on the main EU issues of the day, featuring background briefings and relevant news. There will also be technical support, community-building activities, and a very active marketing campaign.

As an added "incentive" Euractiv is also offering free indoctrination training sessions in Brussels, prior to launching its "community of bloggers". Invitations are being focused on:

…people who can contribute to a roundtable discussion on how blogging and similar tools will affect EU affairs in the short and medium (i.e., until the EP elections) term.

Hilariously, EU Referendum has been invited (at our own expense, of course) for a one-hour session, so that we can "explore further how Blogactiv can help you better engage with your audiences." But, in an illuminating revelation that they do not really understand what blogging is about, we are told:

Room is very limited, so please let me know as soon as possible if you or any of your staff will attend.

Clumsy and inept, it may be, it would be easy to dismiss this venture as one that must surely fail – as indeed it most probably will. As an indication of how difficult it is to "buy" hits, Euractiv.com and its CrossLingual Network of sites across Europe have a team of 50 people working on the project, yet they only get 475,000 unique visitors every month – not much more than four times the traffic of EU Referendum, run part-time by two people.

However, this development is seriously funded and represents a recognition by the EU that the blogosphere is an important battleground, which it must dominate. And, against what is undoubtedly another step in the Europhile assault on the internet, the Eurosceptic community clearly has a fight on its hands. We need some heavyweight support (see above).

Can we rise to the challenge?

COMMENT THREAD

The minnows and power

Two meetings have gone on in Estonia in the last few days – one is of the three Baltic Prime Ministers, Aigars Kalvitis of Latvia, Andrus Ansip of Estonia and Gediminas Kirkilas of Lithuania; the other one is the 3+3 meeting of Baltic and Benelux Foreign Ministers. One cannot help wondering how all these different numerical equations affect the idea of a common foreign policy and, in this case, a common energy policy. (Both are much discussed but neither is really in place.)

It was energy that was mostly on the agenda at both meetings, in particular Russia’s threat to cut off Ukraine’s gas again because of unpaid bills (not really mentioned until the recent election) and the controversial Nord Stream pipeline that is planned to run under the Baltic Sea and to bypass Poland and the Baltic States to deliver gas directly to Western Europe.

If, the Balts reason, the common energy policy will be based on the West European reliance on Russian gas and the Nord Stream pipeline a major part of it, then they are in political trouble, as Russia will be able to shut their gas off without too much repercussion any time it is displeased by completely irrelevant matters, such as the moving of war memorials.

However, the problems associated with adopting a common energy policy with regard to Russia became apparent when BNE asked if unity was possible on issues such as the Nord Stream gas pipeline planned to run below the Baltic Sea, in
which Gazprom holds a majority stake.

Benelux countries stand to enhance their energy security by plugging into a direct supply of gas from Russia, but the Baltic states and Poland would be bypassed, allowing Russia to restrict supplies if it so desires, without affecting delivery into the industrial heartland of Western Europe.

Dutch foreign minister Maxime Ferhagen gave the official EU line, saying: “In general, we in the European union should deal with energy security and energy supplies for the future. We need an energy policy as such in the European Union. It is one of the issues that must be dealt with not only on an individual basis but also in a European approach.

But even Ferhagen’s reply had become somewhat equivocal by the end: “Regarding the Nord Stream line, in general it is possible for member states to have conflicts with suppliers, but there should be guaranteed supplies for all members of the EU including the Baltic states, and that’s where we need an energy policy. I’m not against the Nord Stream pipeline, but I’m in favour of energy solidarity and energy security for all the member states.”

Estonia last month rejected a belated request for survey work in her maritime economic zone by Nord Stream. Finland had rejected a similar request earlier and only then was Estonia approached.

One argument is that the area is environmentally fragile (as it would be after all those decades of Soviet economic decisions) and an overland pipeline would make far more sense in every way. It also would not by-pass Poland and the Baltic States.

There is, however, no doubt in the minds of the Baltic politicians and they are backed by the Poles: the decision not even to investigate the possibility of an overland pipeline was taken for political reasons and Gazprom was instrumental in that.

Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet was much more explicit, characterising Nord Stream as a deeply flawed project from the outset in which “the political reasons were more important than the environmental ones. We find that this is not correct and that is why Estonia finally did not give permission [to Nord Stream] to investigate the Estonian economic zone in the Baltic Sea.”

“We have always said that it was not correct how this project was started, that it was discussed only with some countries around the Baltic Sea and not with all,” Paet told BNE, alluding to the fact that Nord Stream only contacted the Estonian government in its unsuccesful attempt to carry out a sea bed survey after Finland raised objections to the original route.

“There are lots of environmental concerns because we all know that the International Maritime Organization declared the Baltic as a fragile sea area, and that’s why we find that it was not correct not to investigate real alternatives to this route.

“The main alternative was not investigated and the main alternative should be on the mainland, not in the Baltic Sea,” Paet affirmed.

It will be interesting to see how the issue will be resolved, which it must be if a common energy policy is to be created.

COMMENT THREAD

A lack of engagement

In the Hindustan Times yesterday, a story bore the stark headline: "India’s food security future grim."

A similar headline could easily apply to the whole of Europe, but the Indian dimension was a warning that, unless its farmers produced 100 million tons of wheat by 2020, it could not only jeopardise the country's food security, but also force the government to expend £5 billion a year in imports to fill the gap. This year, India produced around 74 million tons of wheat but, according to current demand predictions, by 2020, India would need an extra 26 million tons.

Part of the problem is productivity, with the yield between 2002 and 2007 averaging around 2.8 tons per hectare. By 2020, it would need to be 3.8 tons per hectare, to keep up with demand. That much is, in theory, eminently possible. European yields are typically 6-8 tons per hectare and 10 tons is the ultimate target.

However, countries like the United States are only producing 2.7 tons per hectare, Australia 2.2 and Russia, 1.7 tons. To produce higher yields requires, in many cases, irrigation and extra fertiliser, although in the short growing seasons in Canada and parts of the US and Russia, this would be of little benefit.

For less developed countries like India, increases in productivity are at least possible – even if they require huge investments in agriculture. But, in Europe, where yields are not far from the theoretical maximum, there is little scope for improvement – without allocating extra land to production.

Strangely, though – despite the real prospect of world-wide grain shortages – European countries are not even beginning to focus on the problem. For instance, while the "green" agenda was uppermost at all three of the recent Party conferences in the UK, there were no discussions at all about the urgent need to increase production to meet the expected shortfall, much less any recognition that the rush for biofuels was massively exacerbating the problem.

Part of this myopia is undoubtedly due to the fact that we have handed over the management of our food production to the EU. With decisions made in Brussels – largely by the commission, notionally approved by the Council of Ministers (pictured) - over which we have little control or influence (Britain has only eight percent of the vote on the Council), there is a tendency simply not to devote time or effort to things we cannot easily change.

Such an attitude might be acceptable if it was clear that the commission had a grip on the situation. But, if events suggest otherwise, an even more recent speech by agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel seems to indicate that the commission is almost completely failing to understand the nature of the problem.

Her speech, entitled, "The future of the CAP: supporting sustainable farming", at a conference organised by BirdLife International, in Brussels on 3 October, was quite extraordinary in its lack of vision and complacency. Addressing two questions, what is desirable for the CAP, and what is feasible, she focused on the environment as being "right up there in our list of priorities", although she did then add that "it is not the only priority".

One might then have expected a homily about increasing production but, instead, she talked about "building the competitiveness of our farm sector", encouraging economic diversification in rural areas, and raising the quality of life for farmers. These attributes came under the heading of "desirable" and, as to what was feasible, her concern was to convince voters that the farm subsidies were worth paying from public funds.

With the increasing prices of grains, however – led by commodity shortages - we are reaching a point where, in the not too distant future, price support for arable crops will be unnecessary, other than, perhaps, to incentivise bringing more land into production.

But nothing of that came from Boel. She was content to argue that, as far as the CAP was concerned, we did not need a sharp break with what is already happening. The CAP, she said, "is already developing rapidly" and she expected "this organic development to continue."

Where the danger lies in this approach is that the CAP, historically (and contrary to myth) was an instrument to manage – and pay for – agricultural surpluses. Now that we are moving into a period where sustained shortfalls of production are expected, we have the commission using an instrument designed for one purpose which will – in the near future – have to be used for exactly the opposite purpose.

Unlike India, however, where at least we are seeing discussion of the problem in its mainstream media, there seems absolutely no recognition from Boel that there is even a problem. And it is that failure to engage which will, in the fullness of time, turn a serious problem into a crisis.

COMMENT THREAD

Only connect

Life is full of disappointments. When the fragrant Margot Wallström first started haunting the blogosphere I thought I was well set up for entertainment for many years to come. Sadly, the woman and her blog turned out to be so utterly boring that, together with most other people, I stopped reading her stream of consciousness burblings.

Still, she does, from time to time, brighten up the horizon of EU politics with her insouciance and, frankly, rather silly suggestions. Whenever the Fragrant Margot appears I cannot help being reminded of a scene in that great film, “All About Eve”, when the very clever and poisonous critic Addison DeWitt, played by the incomparable George Sanders, replies to a comment made by Miss Claudia Carswell, of the Copacabana School of Acting, played by Marilyn Monroe with the words: “You have a point there. An idiotic one, but a point.”

Anyway, she is back with some more idiotic points.

Yesterday EurActiv informed us all that a new plan would be unveiled to encourage the citizens of the European Union to love said Union. It is to be proposed that

member states and EU institutions put an end to the "Brussels blame game" and join forces around a common communications strategy in order to win back support from citizens for the 2009 European elections.

Well, it’s a thought. An idiotic one, but a thought. Let us see what this will consist of. It seems that the first thing to be achieved is for the EU institutions, the Commission, the Toy Parliament and the Council to stop communicating with the people separately through their own organizations and channels but to unite in a new “inter-institutional agreement”.

A new plan to "Communicate Europe in partnership", to be unveiled on 3 October by the Commission, proposes an "inter-institutional agreement" to align communication priorities among EU institutions and member states.

Priorities are to be laid down in "management partnership" agreements negotiated with each national government, in order to try to get the message across at the local level.

Climate change and energy, the EU's new 'Reform Treaty', growth and jobs and mobilising voters in the run-up to the 2009 European elections should all be among the common priorities for such an inter-institutional agreement, said Margot Wallström, Commission Vice-President in charge of institutional relations and communications strategy.

But the laughter dies when one reads the next two paragraphs:

It is also the Commission's wish that member states do more explanatory work at an early age with the inclusion of basic education about European integration in school curricula.

"It has to start with the civic competences and the civic education. EU citizens have a right to know and to be heard," Wallström told a group of Brussels journalists on 2 October.

Now that, oh Fragrant One, is known as brainwashing of children. Well, actually, attempted brainwashing. Since teachers in most schools teach next to nothing anyway and pupils manage to ignore the little they are taught, most of this rubbish will be water off a duck’s back. But as a matter of principle, this must not be allowed.

As it happens, there is legislation in this country that prevents or tries to prevent one-sided political propaganda in schools and there is really no point in saying this is merely civic information.

We, on this blog, are all in favour of information about the EU being as widely disseminated as possible. We want people to know from an early age that somewhere around 80 per cent of the legislation comes from Brussels and our own Parliament cannot stop it.

We want everyone to know that the highest court in the land is not the House of Lords but the European Court of Justice.

We want children at a certain age to understand that inadequate scrutiny by a powerless committee is not the same of legislation.

But, when it comes to European integration, it is a political issue and a highly contentious one at that. Therefore, it should be rehearsed only as one side of a debate.

The proposals were duly presented. Apparently we got the usual canard about people out there neither knowing nor caring what the various institutions are and merely wanting Europe to get on with its job of making everybody’s life wonderful.

Actually, they are wrong. People do not know and may not care about the different institutions. But they do seem to care about the fact that the chasm between them and the people who have taken upon themselves to run their lives is becoming ever wider. They do care about their liberties and about accountability in government.

Yet again, the Fragrant Commissar is making a point, which is seriously idiotic but essential to her self-delusion.

In case we have forgotten what this structure is like, there is a reminder:

The latest paper is a follow-up to a White Paper published in February 2006. This called for joint action by all the major players – EU institutions, Member States, European political parties and NGOs and invited all interested parties to submit comments. Hundreds of replies were received and several conferences were organised to discuss the issues further. The current paper is the
result.

Ah yes, those interested parties, carefully chosen by the Commission to give the sort of responses they want to hear. Let us not trouble ourselves with people who actually would like to see a real discussion of what the future of European countries should be.

Still there is something to be grateful for – no extra money is to be allotted to this new inter-institutional agreement that will look upon the member states as partners in the dissemination of propaganda.

COMMENT THREAD

The European Council on Foreign Relations is finally launched

Well, it has been long time a-coming, considering the solid financing behind it (hint: George Soros and his various interests) but an item on EUObserver alerted me to the great event of the year: the European Council on Foreign Relations has finally been launched.

It now has a brand new website, which tells us that George Soros, the Council’s “onlie begetter” will launch it at a forum attended by all the great and the good, where he will discuss Europe’s global role. One can’t help feeling that Mr Soros is more interested in his own global role but that may be my infamous cynicism. Madeleine Bassett would never think that.

How can one resist an article by François Godemont, a member of the French great and the good fraternity that tells us that we must persuade Burma’s military junta that it makes more sense to have a political process. Sounds like another great common platform for the European Union.

There are fifty founding members from all the member states with impeccable credentials. (I am always rather sorry to see Bronislaw Geremek on lists like this, as I rather admire the man.)

The Statement of Principles starts off with a predictable and completely unlikely appeal to the governments of European Union:

We call on the governments of the European Union to develop a more coherent and vigorous foreign policy, informed by our shared values, dedicated to the pursuit of our common European interests, and sustained by European power.

As a matter of fact, I am rather impressed that in this case the reference is to the European Union and not to Europe. This could not have been written by Mark Leonard, the overall director of this enterprise. When I last debated with him on Radio 4 he showed complete ignorance of how the EU worked and declared said ignorance in ringing tones. He lost the debate, anyway.

Mark Leonard, the wunderkind of the soft-left europhile think-tank world, is the man who wrote not that long ago a book, entitled “Why Europe will run the 21st century?”. It had a great deal about soft power and “Europe’s” unseen influence on countries, if memory serves correctly, such as Russia and Rwanda. One wonders whether he will continue to believe so but, of course, he must go on believing that “Europe’s” power works like an unseen hand in all the member states. It’s just he will not go on saying it quite so openly, I expect.

As a matter of fact, he may be a little disappointed with that plan to run the 21st century. On the new website he says:

Europe needs to come of age. We need to stop complaining about what others are doing to the world, and start thinking for ourselves. We want a can-do foreign policy, where European power is put at the service of European values.

Quite so. Just as soon as we have a European power and can define European values.

COMMENT THREAD

They will comply, it seems

The Al-Dura case proceeds apace, even if the pace set is that of an arthritic snail. As we reported before, the Israeli government has, finally, issued an official statement that denies the killing of the lad.

Nidra Poller writes that

Presiding magistrate Laurence Trébucq officially confirmed the court order anticipated during the September 19th Appellate Court hearing of Philippe Karsenty’s appeal against his October 2006 conviction for defamation against France 2 and Charles Enderlin. The Court has ordered France 2 to turn over, before October 31st, the unedited raw footage filmed by France 2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahma on September 30th and October 1st 2000.

Maître Bénédicte Amblard, representing France 2, confirmed that her client will comply with the order. The 27-minute video will be projected in the (open) courtroom on November 14th. The case will be heard in full on the 27th of February 2008.

It seems that the French MSM, who rejoiced mightily when it looked like France2 were winning, has been keeping silent on the subject, while Charles Enderlin, the reporter in question has been writing joyfully on his blog that the idea to show the footage is entirely his own.

Except for Charles Enderlin who dances with joy on his France 2 blog. Announcing the decision to project the footage as if it were his own ultra bright idea, he justifies the refusal over the past seven years to expose it to public or even semi-private scrutiny as a sign of exquisite legality. Only the Court has eyes pure enough to contemplate the handiwork of camerman Talal Abu Rahma.

Ms Poller also explains why the appeal court's decision will be, in theory, based on convoluted legality but, let's face it, once that footage is shown, we shall be able to understand a great deal about this "iconic" image.

Augean Stables has a good deal of information as ever and many links. In particular, it quotes extensively and analyzes an interview with Jamal Al-Dura, the lad's father, whose rather garbled comments are interesting to read as are Richard Landes's about the man who is, most probably, being used for propaganda purposes.

COMMENT THREAD

A crack in the façade?

A Reuters report today (no link) tells of a suicide bomber targeting a foreign military convoy in southern Afghanistan, slightly wounding one soldier. The attack, adds the agency, came a day after a suicide bomb killed at least 11 people on a police bus in the capital Kabul, part of a Taliban offensive coinciding with Ramadan.

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

Clearing the decks?

A very senior Cabinet minister has, we are reliably informed, instructed his diary secretary not to make any commitments for him for the whole of next week, and to leave his diary completely free.

You can read into that what you will.

Has anything really changed?

For sure, the Tories are in good heart, lauding their Boy leader for his "sincerity" and his delivery of an "unscripted" speech lasting 67 minutes.

Melanie Phillips, however, is less than impressed. "Call me perverse," she writes, but:

…the thing that's drawn the most plaudits about David Cameron's speech yesterday is the thing that puts me off the most. Yes, it was a remarkable feat of memory, coolness and bravado to deliver a 67 minute peroration without reading it. But what was the point of doing that? To convince us of his sincerity, that he was speaking from the heart …

But it was clearly not an impromptu set of remarks. He had memorised much if not all of it, and undoubtedly endlessly rehearsed it. The implication that he'd merely scribbled down a longhand aide memoire of bullet points just before coming on stage is, to put it mildly, implausible. But it was spun as a virtually extempore presentation, and much of the media suspended their disbelief (the BBC's description of it last night as "unscripted" was absurd). Undoubtedly, it was a very impressive performance; but a performance it was. It was the theatre of sincerity, heavily contrived to look like it wasn't contrived.

Actually, the achievement, such as it was, is nothing spectacular. Seasoned Farage-watchers will know that he is quite capable of speaking at any length, ex tempore while, on the other hand, using the autocue is actually quite difficult – more so if you want to come over as "natural".

Once the adrenaline kicks in, speaking "off the cuff" is quite easy. A few years back, I was asked to give a lecture tour in Japan on BSE. On one morning, however, we had (or so I thought) a meeting with some local farmers' representatives.

On arrival, I was ushered into a small room, with about five or six people there but, on moving to sit down, I was told "no - no" ... this was the "welcoming committee". I was led through a door to the side of the room, which opened up into a huge lecture theatre, with at least 200 people there, TV cameras, media and the rest. Then it dawned that I was the "star" speaker, billed to speak for two hours. For two hours I spoke ... without notes. Big deal.

As to the speech, and the conference as a whole, the Speakout blog brings us back down to earth with a bump, suggesting that if Brown discovers that David Cameron's "modestly successful conference" has narrowed his 11 point lead in the polls, the instinctively cautious Brown will not hesitate to delay the election. He knows the adverse headlines will only last a day or two and then it will be back to politics as usual. Speakout continues:

... my guess is that Cameron's speech, and the Blackpool conference, will not produce a big "bounce" for the Tories and that Brown might well be tempted to go to the country in November. If he does, then all those eurosceptics who have been applauding Cameron's adoption of the EU referendum cause should have serious pause for thought – for, if the polls are right, Cameron will lose this election and with it the very chance we all hoped for of decoupling ourselves from the European Union will disappear as Brown will claim the victory is a vindication for his position. What then for eurosceptic Conservatives?

This is very much the position we articulated at the end of last month and now, as The Huntsman writes, "only the rhythmic swish, swish of cleaning brooms remains," we have to ask, on the morning after the night before, has anything really changed?

COMMENT THREAD

Musical (euro) chairs

As I remember it, players in the game circle a line of chairs while the music plays, and everyone goes for a seat when the music stops. Each time the music starts up again, a chair is removed until there is only one left. The winner is the occupier of the solitary chair.

A variation of this game, it seems, has been playing in the EU parliament, with its constitutional affairs committee planning to reduce the number of seats from the current level of 785 to a more manageable 750 – all of which means that some MEPs are going to lose out on a lucrative career.

In all, 17 member states are going to lose out, if the plan is approved by the Lisbon summit on October 18-19, as part of the constitutional "reform" treaty negotiating package.

Germany loses three seat, down from 99 to 96, France will have 74 seats, a loss of four, while Britain's "representation" will fall from 78 to 73 – one of the biggest losers (how unusual), although coming in behind Italy, its allotment shrinking from 78 to 72. Poland, like Germany, loses three seats, ending with 51, while five other countries also lose MEPs: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Luxembourg. Spain maintains parity with 54 seats and four - Austria, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden - would see their parliamentary numbers increase.

A revealing insight as to the mindset behind this "deal" comes from co-rapporteur Adrian Severin, a Romanian socialist MEP. He recognised that the decision on carving out a smaller parliament was "difficult". But, he said, "our common interest is much more important than the possible electoral or political costs which we might face in our country" - the "common interest" thus over-riding and national interest

Of the "national interest", there is a further sting in the tail. The constitutional affairs committee is also proposing that a proportion of MEPs should by selected through transnational elections or lists, rather than the current system of elections in their own nations, building a core of MEPs belonging to "European" political parties, detached from any national party base.

This has been the objective ever since the parliament first met in Strasbourg in 1958 - when they sat in party rather than national groupings – and it is a measure of the persistence of the "colleagues" that, 50 years later, they are still pursuing the same dream, and are that much closer to achieving it.

Strictly national parties like UKIP will, of course, fare badly with this sort of arrangement, and plans to allocate funding to transnational parties will also weaken their grip. Soon enough, we will have Euro-MPs with a vengeance beholden in fact as well as in principle to the European "dream" for their positions.

When it comes to "musical chairs", therefore, it will be the nation states – as always – which are left standing.

COMMENT THREAD

It's official

One can sympathize with Nidra Poller of Pajamas Media who says:

Ainit the truth! You work on a story for years, and the day you oversleep your mailbox spills over with breaking news. “Al Dura death was staged. It’s official.” Everybody and his brother gleefully informed me of the breaking news.

It’s all right for us. We may have been following the story on this blog for some time but there is no particular danger of the British MSM picking up the story. Far too much like real news.

Anyway, the big story is that Israel is fighting back on the propaganda front as well as in the shooting war. For the first time Israel has denied officially that it was responsible for the death of little Mohammed Al-Dura whose life and death has been called into doubt by a number of commentators.

The document argued that the images, which showed al-Dura being shot beside his father and have become a symbol of the second intifada, were staged.

"The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead," said Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman.

The arguments were based on investigations that showed that the angles of the IDF troops' fire could not have hit the child or his father, that part of the filmed material, mainly the moment of the boy's alleged death, is missing, and the fact that the cameraman can be heard saying the boy is dead while the boy is still seen moving.

As we have said before on occasions too numerous to mention or refer to we are not fighting just a shooting war. Actually, when you think about it, not big war is just a shooting war. There was a good deal of propaganda in those religious wars in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in the wars against Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, in the two World Wars of the twentieth century and in the Cold War.

If we do not win the propaganda war we may as well not bother with the shooting one.

COMMENT THREAD

If you treat people like fools…

Embedded in David Cameron's speech to the Tory conference this afternoon was this little gem:

But it wasn't just that, it was the cynicism of it. He told us things that he knows he can't do: 'British jobs for British workers' is illegal under EU law. 'Deporting people for gun and knife crime', you can't do that because of the Human Rights Act. I have to say to our Prime Minister, if you treat people like fools, you don't deserve to run the country let alone win an election.

Er… no Mr Cameron. You can't deport people for "gun and knife crime" because of EU directive 2004/58/EC. Even the BBC's Mark Mardell knows that.

Still, you're right on one thing. If you treat people like fools, you don't deserve to run the country let alone win an election.

COMMENT THREAD

Who will rid us?

I suppose it would be too much to ask clerics to stick to the subjects they know something about. Or, at least, subjects they are supposed to know about. Well, you know, things like religion and the question of right and wrong, not politics, which is not their business or economics that they clearly do not understand.

There are, of course, exceptions – individual clerics who either speak to the aforementioned subjects or even those who have some basic grasp of economic matters. But, en masse, those turbulent clerics are a nuisance.

A newsletter from International Policy Network (IPN) calls our attention to a couple of letters in the Times. (I have to rely on information of that kind because I find it impossible to read that once great newspaper any more.)

The first letter is from a group of clerics, led by the Lord Bishop of Exeter and sundry other religious personalities. Its theme is a protest against free trade ideas. As it happens, there are problems with the EU-ACP negotiations but in order to discuss them one needs to go into complicated details not make broad-brush statement that plead for the poorest countries to be allowed to retain their protectionist policies.

As it happens, protectionist countries remain among the poorest and the idea that there has been any kind of a “recent progress towards making poverty history” is the merest moonshine. Furthermore, protectionist policies and the concomitant control of trade by the state prevents any possibility of corruption disappering in those countries.

Most of this is said clearly in the second letter by various economists and policy wonks (and one cleric) that ends with the following paragraph:

Trade barriers in poor countries lead to resources being allocated to industries where they are least productive, raise prices for consumers and provide a vehicle for corruption. This is a recipe for stagnation and poverty and not for development.

Henry II would have had something to say about this.

COMMENT THREAD

A fatal miscalculation

If, like this blog, you feel that the election fever dominating the headlines started as mere idle speculation by the political hacks, bereft of their daily does of their Blair-Brown "soap opera", then the current situation takes on an aspect somewhat different from that being offered by the MSM.

In our scenario, Brown had no intention whatsoever of going to the country early but, as the press speculation developed, he let it run – by the simple expedient of not firmly denying it – and then fuelled it, by allowing his aides to leak "plans" of electoral preparations. The hope and expectation was that it would destabilise the Tories.

If that was the game plan that developed, then it is beginning to look as if it had seriously backfired. From being perceived as being in control of events, Brown now looks more like a passenger of them. Such is the momentum that, if Brown does not call an election in the next few days, he will be open to the charge of having "bottled out". But if he does, he will be committed to a late campaign, in the gathering gloom of the autumn, when spirits are low.

The Tories, on the other hand – far from falling apart – have recovered from their panic of the early part of the week. They have, almost miraculously, gained a new vigour and purpose from the prospect of an early election. Dissent has been set aside for the moment, and they are now genuinely looking forward to the contest. Not least, they have calculated that, even if they do lose, anything less than an increased majority for Brown will be seen as a setback, weakening his standing in Parliament and in the nation. And an increased majority will be very hard for him to achieve.

In effect, therefore, if Brown did not intend originally to call an election, letting the speculation run on for so long may prove to have been a grave miscalculation.

However, while the Tory press chooses to make a meal of Brown's announcement yesterday of troop reductions in Iraq – overblown in our view – there are, electorally, much more significant influences at play, which could have a major impact on the outcome of any election.

If readers would care to cast their minds back to the 2005 election, they may recall our analyses (and here) that indicated that the then combined UKIP/Veritas vote could have cost the Tories as many as 25 seats.

Then, we observed that, "if current trends continue and the 'UKIP effect' means anything at all, UKIP could cost the Conservatives the next general election."

Now, however, the situation could be completely reversed. Despite the rather "sniffy" response from UKIP to Hague's initiative yesterday, if that is taken with Cameron's unequivocal commitment to a referendum should the Tories win an early election (whatever the ambiguities of a later position), the fact remains that the Conservatives are the last, best hope of defeating the EU constitutional reform treaty.

Thus, as Cranmer rightly observes, this situation does rather put UKIP on the spot.

Given an announcement of a general election, next week – if it comes – is UKIP going to take its usual stance of confronting the Tories in as many seats as possible – and thus risk sabotaging hopes of a referendum – or is it going to hold its nose and throw its weight behind them, in the interests of the greater good?

Then, there remains the sheer practicalities of UKIP fielding a significant number of candidates at short notice. The Party is known to be in disarray, with many of its local party organisations in tatters (after the defection of many of its experienced workers, including this writer), and it is certainly short of money. Its major backers – like Paul Sykes, who bankrolled the last election - have also deserted it and are not likely to support a party which is seen to be handicapping chances of a referendum.

Even if the UKIP hierarchy, for their own ego-driven reasons, do therefore decide to contest the election, their voters might think otherwise, and go for the Tories on this one (to them) central issue – the referendum. In so doing, they themselves may be following the advice UKIP has so often given Tory voters: put country before party.

And there, perhaps is Brown's most serious miscalculation. He, like us, will have seen the opinion poll results, and judged that "Europe" is not high in the list of voters' concerns. Accordingly, if he goes to the country, he may feel he can ignore calls for a referendum as electorally insignificant. But, the UKIP-turned-Tory vote (plus the return of a number of those who have deserted the Tories and simply stayed at home) could make a difference.

As so often, we find that a week is a long time in politics and this last week may turn out to be the longest of them all for Brown.

COMMENT THREAD

He jes' keeps rollin' along

Beavering away in the background – as they have been doing all summer - are those good little Eurocrats, and the civil servants from the 27 member states, preparing the final draft of their constitutional reform treaty for their masters to haggle over in just over two week's time, on 18-19 October.

Now, we are told, the "legal experts" have finalised a "provisional" draft and are all agreed on its content. However, as before, it is only available in French, this apparently being the language in which the negotiations were mostly conducted. Somehow, the thought appals. Not only are we being sold down the river, we are being sold down the river in French.

Anyhow, it is now up to the diligent translators, who are churning it out in the diverse languages of the member states (is it 22 or 23 now? – I lose track). We can expect it in English by the end of the week, when it will be up on the internet – there goes the weekend!

According to the BBC, a "Portuguese diplomat" says Britain should be satisfied with the outcome. That rather depends on what he means by "Britain", I suppose. But even then, the said diplomat has "insisted" there is no guarantee of an agreement at the Lisbon summit. There are still some "unresolved issues".

The uncertainty is put down to the unpredictable behaviour of Poland, although why that country – or, to be more precise, the politicians who will do the final negotiation - should be thought unpredictable is anyone's guess. They are all too predictable. They will make a lot of noise, cause a lot of disruption and then cave-in at the last minute, having gained absolutely nothing of substance.

Of course, another uncertainty is whether Gordon Brown will call an election and, if the UK is in the thrall of campaigning by the time Gordon goes to Lisbon, the "colleagues" will have to cook up some extra-special theatricals to make him look good.

Expect some "sacrificial lambs" that Gordo can toil into the wee small hours haggling over (or so it will be said) "new" concessions, following which he can emerge beaming, telling us all how he has "safeguarded the British interest". Maybe, the "colleagues" will come up with something more imaginative - not least to keep the hacks entertained – but the net effect will be the same.

And so the dreary theatre wends its way to its conclusion – wasting heaven knows how many hours in the process, all for something many of us wish had been still-born. But, like the song goes … he jes' keeps rollin' along.

COMMENT THREAD

Is there a politician in the house?

There is nothing inherently wrong with charities taking a hand in the welfare of our troops – far from it. Very often, such organisations can be more responsive, more effective and more efficient that the bureaucracies of government departments. But we also need politicians to cover the issues which the charities can’t touch.

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

The people are pleading with him

No blame can be attached to any of our readers if they find it a little hard to work out exactly where anything is posted and why these days. All to do with networks and blog families I understand.

Anyhow, the latest posting on Russia and Putin's extraordinary though entirely predictable announcement in on Umbrella 3

COMMENT THREAD

The capacity to surprise

If the Tories are serious about capturing the Eurosceptic vote, they are going the right way about it. That much can be said for William Hague's surprise announcement in a speech at today's session of the Party conference.

Confirmed on the Conservative website, he has promised that the next Conservative government would amend the 1972 European Communities Act, so that any future agreements that transferred powers from Britain to the EU would require a national poll.

"And so, as we campaign for a referendum the people of our country are solemnly promised, we are fighting not only for them to have their say now, but for them always to have their say,” he says. "Never again could a government sign away powers to the EU without the British people's permission in a referendum".

This was in between attacking Brown for his "deceit" over the current "reform" treaty, when he declared that, "If this [Labour] government has its way, the new EU treaty, which almost every EU leader admits is in all essentials nothing less than the old, rejected EU constitution by another name, [will be] passed into law...", then adding:

The attempt to portray this treaty as fundamentally different from the EU constitution, when 240 of the 250 provisions are exactly the same, is one of the most bare-faced and deliberate misrepresentations in the modern annals of political deceit.

Meanwhile, The Sun continues its own campaign, claiming that "an astonishing 100,000 Sun readers are demanding a referendum on the rejigged EU Constitution." Almost 70,000 have backed a referendum in a special phone poll, it says, while more than 20,000 have signed our online petition. Another 10,000 have filled in coupons urging Gordon Brown to keep his promise of a vote on the "new" EU Treaty.

All this is looking good but, as The Huntsman reports, the Tories still also have the capacity to make the wrong moves, while England Expects is less than happy with the speech.

COMMENT THREAD

Is he saying what I think he's saying?

David Cameron, the current leader of the Conservative Party, was on the Today programme this morning, interviewed in anticipation of his "big speech" at the conference tomorrow.

Covering a wide range of issues, he was nevertheless tasked with his attitude over the EU "reform" treaty, 12 minutes 32 seconds into the 14 minute slot. And it is perhaps a sign of old age, when all coppers start to look incredibly young and all Today interviewers begin to sound the same. For the life of me, I cannot make out who was asking the questions, and neither did Cameron help out by naming his inquisitor (perhaps he didn't know either).

Anyhow, the Boy was asked whether, if the election didn't happen in two or three week's time, and there was a European treaty in place when he came into power, would he "tear it up?" Cameron was direct in his reply: "We will hold a referendum on it and put it to the people."

"But," says his interviewer, "it'll be in. I mean, if it is there, if its been ratified, if its in place, what will you do?" So it continues:

Cameron: If it's been, if its been through … we will fight it through the House of Commons, we will put down amendments saying there should be a referendum and as long as that treaty is being debated and discussed …

Interviewer: What if it's there?

Cameron: If it's there, it won't have been accepted by every other European country and we will hold a referendum. We think that this is just so wrong. Look, we put into our manifesto at the last election, we would hold a referendum. The government put into their manifesto they'd hold a referendum. They have broken trust with the British people. It's one of the most flagrant breaches of trust I can remember in British politics. And we promise a referendum. And that promise is good whenever Gordon Brown decides to hold this election.

It is difficult not to be a little confused by this answer. If the treaty is in place, it will "have been accepted by every other European country". By definition, it will have been ratified by all 27 member states.

That aside, Cameron seems to be saying that, whenever Gordon Brown decides to hold this election (in 2010), he will pledge to hold a referendum.

Is that what he actually said?

COMMENT THREAD

Faking it!

The Beatroot writes on his blog how The Daily Mail, in its zeal to prove how ruinous has been recent immigration by new EU members like Poles, will go to any lengths – including giving people money to break the law - and staging evidence of lawbreaking for its "investigation".

This came to light when Daily Mail journalist Sue Reid contacted Beatroot, who lives in Warsaw, and offered him a cash payment of £800 plus his expenses, to bring his girlfriend's foreign-registered car over to England to be photographed breaking British traffic regulations.

Since then, we have obtained a copy of the e-mail from Sue Reid, setting out the offer and, revealing that she wanted to "prove" how foreign drivers in Britain were "evading fines for parking, speeding and congestion charge". We have published the full text above (click to enlarge) as it came to us.

Mail journalist Sue Reid has been active for her newspaper, writing motoring stories and also filing a number of "shock-horror" exposés about Polish immigrants, following in the footsteps of her paper which has, since last year, been enthusiastically seeking out "the truth" about the effects of Polish immigration.

She, herself, is no stranger to "sting" operations, having last year bought three forged passports (pictured) to "demonstrate" the "staggering scale" of a fake passport scandal which has allowed immigrants to seek entry to Britain. But now, in an attempt to prove her point once again, she has been actively soliciting foreigners to break the law so that she can write her story.

The fact, as she claims, that foreign drivers are evading British traffic regulations may be true but, as Neil Herron writes, it is also true of British drivers in ever-increasing numbers (an estimated 2.1 million cars are untaxed – compared with 1.2 million in 2004).

In seeking to fabricate evidence in support of her narrow – and inflamatory – thesis, Sue Reid has stepped over the line. Her journalistic practices are no different in principle to the media condoning the staging of photographs in the Qanagate affair, on which we reported last year.

In fact, Reid has gone that bit further for, while at Qana, scenes were staged by third parties for compliant journalists to photograph, here she is actually setting up the scenes so that Mail photographers can capture the "evidence" for her paper.

Such malpractice, in furtherance of stories about a highly sensitive issue like immigration, goes beyond the pale. There are serious issues to do with our EU membership, enlargement and the mass-migration of central and eastern European workers to this country – but this sort of crass manipulation simply poisons the well of debate and makes rational discussion that much more difficult.

And once again this demonstrates how essentially dishonest are certain sections of the MSM, which have no regard for honesty and decency in the pursuit of a story. And on these, we rely for our information?

COMMENT THREAD

Who is the bigger threat?

Franco Frattini, our egregious justice commissioner is at it again. Never one to miss the opportunity of pushing a bad idea, he has returned to the theme of giving the EU powers to control the internet.

His idea is that EU agencies should monitor sites with the intention of blocking those offering bomb-making recipes as well as making online recruiting of terrorists a punishable offence.

This is being earnestly discussed today by "interior ministers" of the EU member states and, on the table, is Frattini plan to develop the technology to track down terrorists who use the internet in planning attacks and acquiring basic knowledge, and sharing information.

However, Frattini assures us, the aim is not to "follow every person that 'googles' the word 'bomb' on the Internet," wary that the proposed measures have triggered criticisms amongst the civil liberties lobby (and others).

Well might Frattini be cautious as a straightforward Google search on the word "bomb" produced 73,700,000 hits, including such incriminating material such as this, this, this, this, this and even this. And if you want a really devastating bomb recipe, try here.

That is not to say that the internet should not be monitored by the security authorities. The web is as much a war-zone as the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the terrorists have been highly adept at employing the technology of the Western civilisations that they so despise, in their pursuit of their mindless jihads.

That much was noted recently by New York police chief Raymond Kelly, who called the Internet "the new battleground against Islamist extremism". He argued that it provided ideology that could radicalise Westerners who might then initiate home-grown attacks, labelling it "the new Afghanistan," adding that it was "the de facto training ground" for terrorists.

In fact, some individual countries in Europe are already moving ahead to step up surveillance of the Internet. In Germany, Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble is seeking powers allowing investigators to send spyware on specific computers, relaying data to police computers as users operate online.

A court in Germany is also trying a man for posting al Qaeda hate messages and audio and video recordings, by Osama bin Laden among others, in an Internet chartroom for Islamists. The defendant's computer was being monitored for a year and a half by security officials before the man was arrested. In Sweden, too, the defence minister has cited the threat of terrorism to seek broad powers to monitor e-mail traffic without court orders.

The point, therefore, is not whether the Internet should be monitored, but whether the EU should be involved. Once again, we seem to be looking at yet another attempt at an EU power grab. Behind Frattini's concern for defeating terrorism is an ambition to create an EU-wide database on terrorism suspects, controlled centrally, to which police in the member state have access.

And he who controls the database has the ultimate power. In a sense, therefore, one could argue that Frattini is a bigger threat than the terrorists he claims to be fighting.

COMMENT THREAD

Being Right

The Daily Telegraph is running a list of the top 100 of the Right's most influential people.

Much to our genuine surprise, we find ourselves listed in 91st place, ahead of such luminaries as Edward Leigh, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Desmond Swayne, Conservative MP for New Forest West and PPS to David Cameron, and Tim Congdon, Founder of Lombard Street Research, "one of the few Thatcherite economists."

Joy of joys, we also find ourselves well ahead of Zac Goldmith, who just makes it to the list in the 100th place.

The list, compiled by Iain Dale and Brian Brivati is, of course, highly subjective (how do you measure influence?), but we are not going to argue. Many others will.

Coincidentally, today, Janet Daly makes the case for being Right and, although she is not our favourite writer, we have no problems with much of what she says.

We (actually, Helen) set out our own manifesto in March 2003 and, while some parts of it have been overtaken by events, the core tenet stands unchanged: "we believe that to the greatest possible extent, people should make their own decisions and take responsibility for their actions."

If that is being Right, we are proud of it, and pleased that we find our way into the list of the "influential", however valid or not it might be. We might be impostors, but Helen's words are not.

COMMENT THREAD

Cognitive dissonance

The BBC's Europe correspondent, Mark Mardell picks up Gordon Brown's speech and his promise to kick foreigners out of Britain if they are convicted of dealing drugs to children or having guns.

Mardell then follows through with a commentary about secretary of state for communities, Hazel Blears, who was interviewed on the Today programme whence the point was put to her that, given EU law, this was not possible. He writes:

She answered that people would like such a law. She found a few figures to quote. She sounded firm and purposeful. Almost. But it was clear she hadn't got the slightest idea how such a policy proposal would be translated into action.

Mardell supposes that it is an act of faith, a declaration of purpose, but, he adds: "it always surprises me when senior politicians make bold announcements with no idea of how they are going to turn them into reality."

It should come as more than a surprise, though. It is deeply disturbing that senior politicians are either unaware of the law by which the are governed or are simply not able or willing to admit that they are governed by EU law to such an extent that things they want to do – or say they will do – simply cannot be done.

Once again, we are talking about Directive 2004/38/EC, the entry into force of which we blogged at the time and have since watched the politicians wriggle and squirm - most recently in the Learco Chindamo affair – as they struggle to come to terms with this law.

But what is utterly bizarre is that these politicians, who are being forced to confront the fact that, in key areas of policy, they have given away their powers, are still so anxious to give away yet more powers – as in the EU's constitutional treaty.

There can be only one explanation for it.

COMMENT THREAD