Declaration of interests - 1

Some readers of this blog may know that among the various hats I wear there is one that says Researcher, House of Lords. This accounts for my various postings full of praise or, sometimes, sorrow about the Upper House, the only part of the British Constitution (oh yes, we do have one, quite separately from the Consolidated Treaties) that still functions, more or less.

Before anybody jumps in, demanding to know what sort of emoluments I receive for this periodic work, let me assure all those who hold our honour (my colleague’s and mine) so dear, that being a researcher in the House of Lords has various advantages but does not pay the bills. So that’s that out of the way.

My sponsor is a cross-bench peer and, like all backbenchers, receives only daily expenses when he decides to come into the Chamber.

I am putting all this down to make it clear that we are not talking about vast sums or, indeed, any sums from the taxpayer coming my way or being used by the peer who sponsors my researcher’s pass. The work I do tends to be for various peers.

On Saturday I received a very courteous letter from the Registrar of Lords’ Interests, which explained that they were compiling a new Register of Members’ Secretaries and Research Assistants. Would I, therefore, fill in a form about my income outside the House of Lords (which, for most people in my position, means their income) and another form about any gifts or hospitality I may have received.

The second form is very easy. The answer is a big fat zero. Alas, I have to pay my way wherever I go. Actually, the first form is relatively simple, though my main employment is likely to come to an end in a couple of months’ time. I presume, it is the present situation they want to know about.

I presume what this is all about is whether research assistants can exercise improper influence on the peers who sponsor them or ask them to do any work. Clearly, they do not know my sponsoring peer or the others I may work for. One and all, they have strong and well-founded opinions, making no secret of them.

Still, there is nothing wrong with declaration of interests. I imagine those research assistants who do not do so, will manage to get away with it but the rest of us will comply. This means that anyone can check up how I earn money and what sort of gifts or hospitality I have received. And much good may it do them.

There is nothing wrong with declaring interests in the Chamber either. The Lords police themselves and tend to be quite strict on these matters.

As Lord Pearson of Rannoch mentioned in his speech to the Bruges Group, because one of his children is disabled, he has to mention this fact and his involvement with charities and organizations that help disabled children and their carers and teachers every time he speaks in a debate that is somehow related to the subject.

Whenever the Countess of Mar stands up to speak on matters to do with agriculture and animal welfare she declares the small farm she and her husband run, the goats and other livestock they keep, the milk, eggs and meat they sell in their farm shop. (Sadly, she has stopped making the world’s best goat’s cheese.)

A recent Report from the House of Lords Sub-Committee on Privleges reminded all members of the following points in the House of Lords Code of Conduct:

What is a relevant interest?

9. The test of relevant interest is whether the interest might reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges his or her parliamentary duties.

10. The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a Member's actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest, but whether the public might reasonably think that this might be the case.

11. Relevant interests include both financial and non-financial interests.

All quite as it should be, you might say. However, there remains one exception to this rule. We have written about this before and numerous peers have spoken about it before.

Recipients of extremely handsome pensions from the EU, that is former Commissioners and MEPs, do not have to declare their pecuniary or any other interests when speaking in praise of the European project. It is worth recalling that the EU has the right to withdraw that pension, should any recipient make a statement that could be deemed to be against the interests of that organization. I don’t suppose they have ever done that to a former high official, not even when Lord Dahrendorf, a former Commissioner, spoke his many words of criticism.

For all of that, if a research assistant has to declare his or her employment outside the House of Lords, handsome pensions from the EU cannot be seen as irrelevant to the matter in hand.

It may be more complicated than it seems

Whatever the broader, human rights issues relating to Tibet – so well articulated by my co-editor - we have always suspected that the proximate cause of the riots in Lhasa might have had as much to do with economic stresses as it did with strictly political issues.

When we first reported on the riots, we noted that one thing that had not been mentioned by the Western media was the massive weather disaster reported in Tibet. We also noted that, with over four million people affected, a not unusual dynamic in such events was for those survivors who can to make their way to the capital for relief and succour, swelling local populations and, sometimes, adding to political friction.

It is of some interest, therefore, to see a piece first published in New America Media and republished in Asian Week by Yoichi Shimatsu, a media studies lecturer at Tsinghua University in Beijing and former editor of the Japan Times Weekly in Tokyo.

His piece, headed, "The Real Reason For The Tibet Protests", notes that, while the Dalai Lama and the Beijing government point fingers of blame for the firestorm sweeping the Tibetan Plateau, neither authority — religious or secular — has much of a clue what is really going on.

Writes Shimatsu, there has been a battle for the grasslands of Tibet which has been smoldering for the past decade over the volatile price of livestock and food-cost inflation, largely due to the skyrocketing market value of meat. What amounts to a tripling of the price of land, due to rising demand in the wealthy cities of the distant Pacific Coast has led to encroachment by one group of herders onto the lands leased by other groups.

Range wars have erupted between odd coalitions of Tibetans, Mongols and Muslims, with Muslim middle-men blamed for the racheting up of prices which has seen a scarcity of meat in local markets and massive inflation.

Thus, in the first day of the Lhasa riots, most of the casualties of arson were Hui Muslim noodle restaurant workers, who migrated to the newly prosperous provincial capital over the past decade — just as Mexican immigrants have gone to major cities to work as dishwashers. Adds Shimatsu:

The frustration and anger of the Tibetan mobs will not immediately result in either independence or genocidal repression — only a heightened state of anxiety and distrust. The rules of Tibetan Buddhism have curbed the native population from common trades practised by citizens of a modern secular nation-state. Instead, a multiethnic caste system is being perpetuated, with the Muslims doing the butchering, running restaurants and driving; the Nepalese crafting the jewellery and brassware; and the Chinese labourers building roads and raising power lines. With rising expectations and ruthless greed, cultural and religious difference is a formula for ethnic vendetta.

That is not to say that the Chinese regime is anything other than repressive, and there can be no doubt that their occupation of Tibet has been and is extremely brutal – with tribesmen still being stripped of their lands and herded into camps. But it would also seem that there are multiple factors at play in the current unrest.

Where this has some significance, beyond the immediate issues that were being rehearsed at the Olympic torch ceremony in London yesterday, is that the economic stresses arising from food shortages and inflation are potentially more far-reaching than the human rights issues which have become the current cause celebre.

And, if that is the case, remedy of the worst human rights abuses are themselves not going to provide any immediate (or any) relief to the peoples of Tibet, or the many other people in neighbouring provinces. The problems in China may be altogether much more complicated and even more intractable than they seem.

COMMENT THREAD

Those wonderful tranzis

It is, perhaps, just as well for my peace of mind that the transnational organizations, its members and supporters, collectively known as tranzis are really quite as ghastly as they are. Otherwise, I may well find myself supporting one or more of them, particularly after reading yet another rant by a soi-disant eurosceptic in favour of such freedom loving states as Russia or China.

The problem, as I see it, is lack of real political principles. Just as the europhiliacs rant about the beauty of integration and transnational governance, for want of any ideas, so many eurosceptics (well, soi-disant ones, as I mentioned above) go on about the nation state as some sort of a holy entity, regardless of whether it is a nation, or how the state came about.

What that leads to is a support for any state that is in existence at the moment of discussion. Not a happy thought for those of us who envisage the European Union becoming a state to all intents and purposes very soon. After that Britain’s desire to free herself from the shackles will be internal EU matter, according to this argument, not to be interfered with or mentioned by outsiders.

Luckily, most Americans have a slightly different view of the world, as do committed Anglospherists in other lands.

Equally luckily, whenever thoughts of that kind enter my head I come across a few stories about those wonderful tranzis and recover my equanimity.

Let us start with an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, written by Roger Köppel, who is owner and chief editor of the Swiss weekly, Die Weltwoche, the only eurosceptic publication in the German language, as I was once told by one of its editors. It is an unusual publication in its political orientation and courage in breaking away from the herd.

It is, therefore, not surprising that Roger Köppel is less than impressed by the Social-Democratic Foreign Minister of Switzerland, Micheline Calmy-Rey. Mme Clamy-Rey has decided to break with the Swiss tradition of neutrality and try to turn the country into “a moral superpower”.

Like many politicians, when she discusses morality, she really means the trendy political and social views of the left-leaning, unaccountable and unbalanced tranzis. Mr Köppel puts it more politely:

It is a morality, however, that is firmly anchored in the left-liberal mainstream that seems to have lost its moral compass. She shares the aversion of Europe's general public toward the U.S. and Israel. There is an emotional resentment of globalization and a belief against all evidence that, in the end, only broad-based development aid can improve the lives of the poor.

Among her other achievements is the nomination of the old Marxist, friend of Fidel Castro and co-founder of the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize (I wonder why Peter Simple never thought of that one), Jean Ziegler to be an adviser on human rights to the UN.

Her other actions include marching across the North Korean border in red sneakers (I missed this one) “to make a statement that no one understood” and generally make a nuisance herself whenever an American politician was around.

Recently she managed to photograph herself with Iranian President Ahmadinejad as she visited the country, allegedly to discuss transparency in Iranian nuclear development. In fact, she undermined the West’s rather feeble attempts to have some kind of sanctions against that country and handed the Iranian leader a propaganda coup.

Although Ms. Calmy-Rey claims she harshly criticized the president for his policies, such as stoning adulterers, the prevailing impression was that she let herself be manipulated as a useful idiot by a brutal regime.

Mr Köppel is concerned, rightly, with the harm this slightly batty female does to Switzerland’s image and reality. One cannot help feeling, however, that another tranzi nutter is not quite what the world needs.

So it is once again time to have a look at that untalented circus, the tranzi to end all tranzis, the UN, the organization that some eurosceptics set up as the arbiter of international law. Thanks to a posting on Little Green Footballs, entitled “UN Human Rights Council: Officially a Self-Mocking Joke”, we find this:

Islamic countries have succeeded in hijacking the United Nations Human Rights Council and perverting its intent (even more than it was already perverted).

I am glad Charles Johnson added that last bit in brackets. Otherwise I might have had a serious fit from all the laughing the comment would have generated.

He links to an article in the International Herald Tribune, entitled “Arabs, Muslims battle US, Europeans over free speech at UN”.

Arab and Muslim countries defended Tuesday a resolution they pushed through at the United Nations to have the body's expert on free speech police individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.

In itself this is not much of a story. The UN can do no policing because, contrary to some opinions, it has no rights to do so. Of course, it can make grand pronouncements as Ban Ki-Moon did, when he denounced Geert Wilders’s film “Fitna” that remains widely available on Youtube.

Of course, as Claudia Rossett points out, the SecGen’s condemnation and efforts to censor internet films are selective. We have heard nothing from him on the subject of the psychotic mouse, Farfur, or his pathological cousin, the Nahoul, the killer bee, or any others of that delightful cohort that is Hamas’s answer to Blue Peter. (One of the most recent films shows a little darling boy killing President Bush and announcing that the White House has become a mosque.)

One cannot help being amused in a rather grim way by the genuinely Orwellian task given to the UN’s expert on free speech to police negative comments on anything at all. But that’s the UN for you. They probably use the word Orwellian without ever understanding what it means.

The expert in question is a Kenyan, Ambeyi Ligabo and his job is to report to the UN about suppression of free speech by dictatorships and repressive governments. One can’t help feeling that the man has his work cut out. It hardly seems fair that there should be this resolution that adds to his burdens.

Not only must he report on curtailment of free speech now but also on the exercise of free speech if it is done to criticize Islam.

The resolution was introduced by Egypt and Pakistan, two countries well known for the freedom of expression they allow, to that wondrous body about which we have written on numerous occasions, the UN Human Rights Council and was passed 32 - 0.

Ahem, one says to oneself. Whatever happened to the Western countries who maintain that freedom of speech is a value to be cherished? The United States has, quite rightly, refused to be a member of this farcical body. But what of the European countries?

Well, they seem to have abstained. One would not want to be seen to be too extreme in defending the idea of freedom, would one?

Slovenia's ambassador, Andrej Logar, speaking on behalf of the European Union, warned that Ligabo's role as an independent expert was shifting from protecting free speech toward limiting it.

Yes, well, that’s the way it crumbles, cookie-wise, as they kept saying in that wonderful film, “The Apartment”. After all, Slovenia, too, condemned Geert Wilders’s film.

Just for the record, these countries represent Europe and the West in general on the UNHRC: Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, as well as the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine.

One can understand why Russia thought it was best not to interfere with other people’s censorship of expression. But what were the others thinking of? Wringing one’s hands after the resolution had gone through is hardly sensible.

Oh yes, and, naturally enough, we are paying large amounts of money for this bizarre show to go on.

Consistent incompetence

We have already remarked on how lightly scathed the commission had emerged from one of its more egregious cock-ups, so it is good to see the Press Association revisit the issue of the attempt by the EU to ban MRI scans, all under the guise of health and safety.

The agency reminds us that the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee produced a report in 2006 on the Electromagnetic Fields Directive, planned to come into effect on 30 April. This would have banned new MRI machines and severely limited staff operating times in the use of existing scanners, drastically restricting the use of these life-saving scanners, putting thousands of lives at risk.

Thanks to the intervention of the Committee, however, the legislation has been postponed for at least four years, while the MRI health risks are studied again. Its report, which triggered the reversal, declared: "It is deeply regrettable that the impact of the Directive on MRI procedures was not established before the Directive was adopted".

The Committee went on: "This case study illustrates the potential consequences of the failure of policy makers to seek comprehensive scientific advice early in the policy formulation process and to commission the necessary research to inform this process where uncertainty or gaps in knowledge exist."

Why the Press Association should suddenly resurrect this is not clear, as there is no obvious topical "hook", but we cannot be reminded too often of the incompetence of our masters-over-the-water.

Speaking of which, Reuters – via The Guardian is retailing a complaint by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) that EU plans for curbing emissions will hand utilities windfall profits of up to €71 billion euros between 2008 and 2012 even as they burn highly polluting coal, environmental group WWF.

Power companies in five European Union countries - Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland, which are among the biggest coal burners - stand to earn windfalls totalling between €23-71 billion during the second phase of the scheme.

This huge sum will come directly out of the pockets of electricity consumers, reinforcing yet again the amazing ineptness of a scheme which last year brought us a 1.2 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions.

Thus, whether it is the hoary old favourites, like the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy – or the management of its own accounts – the one thing which characterises the European Union is its sheer incompetence. With its disastrous venture into "improving" the safety of MRI scans or its attempts to "save the planet" from non-existent global warming, however, one can at least commend our new supreme government for its consistency.

COMMENT THREAD

The farce continues

For a blog dedicated to the cause of an EU referendum, the weeks from early December – when Brown slid into Lisbon to sign the new treaty - until now should have been our finest hours. This should have been the period when the argument on the European Union really took off, where the issues became vibrant and relevant, and the debate came to life.

However, as Booker records in his column, that "debate" has degenerated into a cynical farce where – appropriately on 1 April – the Lords discussed the treaty in a charade that was in no sense a real debate. Writes Booker, "The two sides merely talked past each other, from lunchtime until midnight, without ever engaging on any point."

Needless to say, we recorded its passing, together with an example of the pitiful ignorance of Lord Kerr, typical of the Europhile tendency who speaks for the Union without the first idea of what it really means.

Booker also notes – as did we – the "sublime irony" of Margot Wallström then announcing her a new initiative on the following day - "Debate Europe, Giving Citizens A Voice", with the Commission planning to spend millions of euros on Pan-European Citizens' Consultation Projects, to enable us to become "ever more closely involved" in debating the EU's future.

The people of Europe cannot be allowed referendums on the treaty. But once the Not-the-Constitution is in place, they may engage in "democracy, dialogue and debate" with the EU's political class - on terms dictated by the likes of Ms Wallström and her colleagues.

Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour, adds Booker.

What then so much typifies this "non-debate", of course, is the media's refusal to engage, witness a long leader in The Sunday Telegraph headed , "Lesson from Lords in how democracy works".

Policy on immigration, the leader tells is, "has more impact on the future of Britain than almost any other area of Government legislation." It continues: "Large-scale immigration of the kind which Labour has endorsed over the past decade, where up to a quarter of a million people arrive here every year, has the potential to transform the country…".

But missing from the long tract are those two crucial words, "European" and "Union". Instead, the leader discusses the application of the government's points system, but then observes that it:

… will do nothing to diminish one of the biggest categories of migrants: spouses following their husbands or wives into Britain. In 2006, the number of spouses entering Britain in that way was 40,960, more than twice the number a decade earlier. Many of those spouses are from rural villages in remote parts of South Asia and speak no English. Many have little or no education, and some are illiterate. They find it very hard to adapt to "British values", never mind to become economically productive residents of our country.

What is left hanging is any discussion of what will diminish this category of immigration, as answer there is none. Under our old friend Directive 2004/38/EC, migrants who become naturalised citizens and thus acquire rights as "EU citizens" have an absolute right to bring in their husbands or wives – and their parents, parents-in-law, children and even cousins if they are "economic dependents". Under EU law, there is nothing the British government can do to prevent them.

So it is that, as the two sides talk past each others, mainstream political issues are simply not discussed in any meaningful sense, which allows The Telegraph to opine that, "scepticism is infecting the voters' attitude to all politicians."

It wants our politicians to treat us, the electorate, with a degree of respect. It wants them, "to be honest with us when they have got their facts wrong, explain truthfully what the real consequences of their chosen policies are, and exercise caution and integrity when they award themselves money from public funds."

If they do not do so, says the paper, scepticism about politicians will turn into general disillusion with the whole democratic political system - and that will be a disaster for our country.

But, what the paper does not seem to realise is that the biggest malaise of all is that, in so many areas, the problem is not the government's "chosen policies" but that they are not the policies of our government at all. They are EU policies, imposed rather than chosen, over which we have no control.

And, as we saw from the Lord's debate last week, the very last thing the government wants to do is "explain truthfully what the real consequences" of those policies. Thus, we are not going to see "general disillusion with the whole democratic political system." The real problem is that it is no longer a democratic system at all. That it cannot be as long as we remain in the European Union, and that is where the politicians (and the media) are going to have to come clean.

COMMENT THREAD

Lawson on global warming

He sees parallels with the apocalyptic visions held out by certain religious movements in the past. He is alarmed by the fanatical intolerance shown by many believers in global warming to any heretic who dares question their certainties.

He ends by describing "the new religion of global warming" as "the Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a best-seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense.

"We have entered," he says, "a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet."

Read the full interview, by Christopher Booker, here.

COMMENT THREAD

An absence of government

I was particularly taken by the title of John Page’s post over at Purple Scorpion, where he expresses the view that, "Good governing is hard and unglamorous".

That is very much the truth of it, which makes for a huge gap between the political fluff that we read in the media and – as John observes - in the right-wing blogosphere, and the reality of ordinary living. Too often, we have written about the great divide between what is actually important and what the political classes believe to be important, the gap being so huge that we have difficulty in believing that the politicians actually inhabit the same planet.

That "reality gap" emerges with full force today as Gordon Brown today attends his "Progressive Governance Conference" - in Watford of all places - with The Times telling us that his keynote theme is a call for "an overhaul of international institutions to cope with the twin threats of global economic turmoil and climate change."

Organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations (UN), said the prime minister, needed to be reformed in order to meet the challenges of the modern world. "We now have to reshape our global rules and global institutions for this new era."

What brought on John Page's cri de coeur, however, was the news of the hike in rice prices, flagged up by The Financial Times. This paper reports that rice prices rose more than 10 percent on Friday to a fresh all-time high, making 50 percent in two weeks. This, unsurprisingly, threatens upheaval and has resulted in riots and soldiers overseeing supplies in some emerging countries, where the grain is a staple food for about three billion people.

The FT also reports that the increase also risks stoking further inflation in emerging countries, which have been suffering the impact of record oil prices and the rise in price of other agricultural commodities – including wheat, maize and vegetable oil – in the last year.

This same theme is taken up by The Guardian which notes that, two years ago the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation expected biofuels to help eradicate hunger and poverty for up to two billion people. Yesterday, it says, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon raised real doubt over that policy amid signs that the world was facing its worst food crisis in a generation.

Putting these issues together, if there is a dominant factor exacerbating the emerging food crisis, it has to be the tranzie class obsession with climate change, which has done more than anything to distort the world market in food commodities – not least through the utter madness of the rush for biofuels.

Yet, it has to be said, that this obsession has been driven by the United Nations, one of the very "international institutions" which Brown tells us he wants to see "reformed". They are very much part of the problem and, inasmuch as their obsession with climate change continues unabated, they will continue to be part of that problem, with or without "reform".

Yet, as Professor Philip Stott writes, the "Global Warming" Grand Narrative is in trouble. The paradigm is shifting: the duck is becoming a rabbit. Everywhere, there is the first hint of decay, while the hot air of desperation is palpable. Quite simply, there has been no "global warming" since 1998 – and nor is there likely to be any for the foreseeable future.

Of concern to this blog – expressed in numerous posts – is the possibility of a succession of poor winters, which could have a devastating effect on harvests and stress the global food situation to crisis point and beyond. Not least, this could have a dramatic effect on inflation, at a time when the global financial situation is already under serious strain.

Some commentators, however, see the commodity price hikes as a "bubble" which will become self-correcting as a global recession bites, driving down demand which, in turn, will drive down prices to more reasonable levels. The choice, therefore, becomes one between inflation or recession, although still others argue that we could face both – the nightmare of “stagflation”.

Not being economists, we do not have the expertise to judge which way the global economy is set to go, but we also note that, when it comes to predicting major global economic changes, professional economists have a very poor record indeed. Random predictions divined with the aid of a pin – it seems – have a better track record.

That said, there are certain constants, in terms of good governments, which we could expect from our leaders, which would mitigate the effects of any economic shocks – and would do us no harm in the event that any downturn is not as severe as some are predicting it will be.

And it is there where John Page comes in. There are few signs, he writes, of a Conservative party being any better at governing than the present incumbents. Other countries are having to face up to real issues, rather than abundance of plastic bags, or cynical tilting at the mirage of man-made global warming, but while the UK's energy security and social cohesion become increasingly fragile, we see no sign that the political classes are shaping up to confront these issues in any meaningful way.

Remarkably, The Economist is retailing concerns that, in the absence of new power stations in the next few years, the spare capacity in the British electrical supply industry will have eroded entirely by around 2015. A report prepared for the government estimates, under gloomy assumptions, a 70 percent chance of at least one blackout in 2012, even with new capacity.

By then, given the expected outcome of what will be a 2010 general election, Mr Cameron will be in office – and we will be without power. With food prices by then in the stratosphere, the lack of government will at least be rather obvious.

COMMENT THREAD

The most appropriate response

No one can blame the European Union specifically for inflation and, seeing what Gordon Brown has done to our economy unaided, it would be stretching it somewhat – even for us – to lay the blame at the door of the "colleagues".

However, considering that EU regulation costs 12 percent of GDP, that we are paying zillions in contributions to the EU pot, that the mad eurozone experiment is contributing to financial instability, that the mismanagement of the CAP is adding to commodity inflation, and that the insane policies on global warming are adding massively to our costs, no one can actually say that the effect of the EU is exactly deflationary.

Thus, it is not exactly difficult to craft a response to the finance ministers of the EU meeting at the Slovenian resort of Brdo pri Kranju for a two day jolly. They are telling member states to do all they can to reign in the soaring inflation, "in particular by keeping prices in check and holding down wage increases."

Chairman of the Eurogroup Jean-Claude Juncker says, "We remain very concerned about the level of inflation ... it is a concern for all governments," telling employers and governments to resist growing demands from unions for higher salaries.

To bolster his colleague, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet then tells us that, "It is extremely important that we understand that moderation today is necessary …", cautioning member states against undertaking wage increases akin to those agreed in Germany for the public sector.

Sometimes, it is not so much the message as the messenger that causes the offence, and a message of moderation from EU fat cats is a little hard to take. Thus, while swearing is often taken to reflect an inadequate vocabulary, sometimes it is the most appropriate response.

Ours uses the letters "f" and "o", and we don't mean "foreign office".

COMMENT THREAD

An entertaining blog …

… from Charles Crawford - the man who gave us this.

The rose-tinted voice of ignorance

By his own estimation, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard is an expert on the European Union. For 36 years a foreign office apparatchik, he was a member of the negotiating team on the single market and worked with both Major and Blair, famously advising Major during the Maastricht treaty negotiations. He then moved further to the dark side, acting as Giscard d'Estaing's right-hand man on the constitutional convention.

As a self-proclaimed Europhile, he was on his feet earlier this week, speaking in support of the constitutional Lisbon treaty, and in particular for the "reforms" of the European Council which, he averred, would make the European Union "work a little better".

Treated with great defence as the "expert", however, this former mandarin then proceeded to display nothing more than his complete ignorance of the nature of the very European Council which he so freely supported, making you wonder whether there is anyone at all in the Europhile ranks who actually knows what they are talking about.

Where he so egregiously went wrong was in telling us that the European Council was "invented by Chancellor Schmidt and President Giscard d'Estaing 30 years ago… the European Council was never a part of Jean Monnet's plan."

The thrust of this specious argument is, of course, to present the Council as an intergovernmental institution, representing the member states. He thus makes out that the plan to have a full-time president presents the "danger" that the Commission "will be overshadowed by the member states in the Council," thereby implying that the new constitution is somehow beneficial.

It is unlikely that Kerr is lying. He is one of those airy-fairy Europhiles who quite sincerely believes that the EU does adequately represent the member states. But, as such, he represents the typical British Europhiliac tendency to wallow in a miasma of rose-tinted self-deception that has the EU as something altogether different from what it really is.

In fact, as we pointed out in our post on 16 December 2004 - based on our work in The Great Deception - the European Council was wholly an invention of Jean Monnet who, when he set it in motion, called it the "provisional European government".

That was back in 1972, at the Paris summit on 18 October, the day after Heath's European Communities Bill received Royal Assent. The idea for this summit, to celebrate the "enlargement" of the "Six" to the "Nine", had also originated with Monnet where, amongst other things, Heath called for "a clear timetable for economic and monetary union".

By and large, however, the summit was inconclusive. Monnet felt it had lacked focus and, more importantly, mechanisms for carrying its resolutions forward. His great regret in establishing his "community", the Treaty of Rome had not set up "a supreme body to steer Europe through the difficult transition from national to collective sovereignty". By the end of August 1973, he had decided to remedy this deficiency.

He therefore produced one of his famous plans, outlining a structure for a "Provisional European Government". This body would draw up a plan for "European Union", to include a "European Government" and an elected European Assembly. This "provisional government" would meet regularly. Those taking part would keep its deliberations secret.

Monnet came over to England to discuss his proposal with Ted Heath at Chequers on 18 September 1973, telling him "we must give public opinion the feeling that European affairs are being decided: today, people have the impression that they're merely being discussed."

Heath readily agreed, but had a reservation about making the proposal public. "Let's just do it," he told Monnet. He also worried about the term "provisional government". "That would get me into great difficulties." he said.

Monnet then approached Georges Pompidou and Willi Brandt. They were equally enthusiastic and neither shared Heath's reservations about the title, although Pompidou warmed to the name "European Union". A member of Pompidou's staff was heard to inquire of a close confidant of Pompidou what this phrase meant. The reply came, "nothing… but then that is the beauty of it".

In late September, Pompidou mentioned Monnet's proposal at a press conference. Heath then took up the baton at the Conservative Party conference on 13 October. "I believe", he said:

...that already some of my colleagues as Heads of Government feel the need for us to get together regularly without large staff so that we can jointly guide the Community along the paths we have already set. I would like to see the Heads of Government of the member countries of the Community meeting together, perhaps twice a year, as I have said, alone and without large staffs, with the President of the Commission being present, as he was at the Summit …our purpose in meeting together would be to lay down the broad direction of European policy.

Heath failed to mention that he was talking about what was being called a "provisional government", and said nothing about it being intended to steer Europe through the "transition from national to collective sovereignty".

Two weeks later, on 31 October, Pompidou told his Cabinet that regular meetings of heads of states were needed "with the aim of comparing and harmonising their attitudes in the framework of political co-operation". He wanted the first meeting to be held before the end of 1973.

Monnet was now confident that, despite the turmoil into which the world had suddenly been plunged that autumn by the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East, his plan was back on track. Then, as he was to recall, "when all seemed well, everything was thrown into turmoil".

In the aftermath of the war, the price of oil had quadrupled, threatening chaos to western economies. The governments of the Nine rushed to strike individual deals with the oil sheikhs. Heath was later to write that, at this moment, the Community:

...lost sight of the philosophy of Jean Monnet: that the Community exists to find common solutions to common problems. Each member state drifted back to seeking its own, unilateral solutions. So we all had to relearn painfully that there is no solution if we act on our own.

Despite this, Monnet continued to make progress with his plan. By March 1974 he was circulating another paper, proclaiming:

Existing European practices have proved inadequate as a means of enabling our countries to organise themselves for collective action… We must break out of this vicious circle, in which the common interests of the Community countries are inadequately served. The existing European institutions are not strong enough today to do it on their own.

Then, in the three leading Community states, there were changes at the top table. In a general election in Britain, Heath was replaced by Wilson. In Germany Brandt retired, to be replaced in May by Helmut Schmidt. The same month in France, after Pompidou had died, he was replaced by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

The old alliance between Pompidou and Brandt was soon replaced by a similar friendship between Giscard and Schmidt. The two new Franco-German leaders soon agreed that there should be "no more separate national actions, only European actions". They accepted Monnet's "provisional government", giving it the title "European Council".

The new body was approved at an informal meeting of heads of government at the Elysée on 14 September 1974.

The Council's first meeting was held in Paris on 9-10 December 1974. Its main business was to make the Council a permanent institution. Giscard pointed out that there had only been three "summits" between the heads of government in five years. They had to become "more organised" and regular, as Monnet had proposed.

Nothing appeared in the communiqué about the Council becoming a "provisional government", but one of its first actions was to ask the Belgium prime minister, Leo Tindemans, to draft a report on how further integration could be achieved. Giscard brought proceedings to a close with the words: "The Summit is dead. Long live the European Council".

Yet, even today, people like Kerr do not realise the significance of what had happened. Monnet himself, however, had no doubts. In his Memoirs, he wrote:

...the European institutions were in charge of immense sectors of activity, over which they exercised the share of sovereignty that had been delegated to them. But if they were to work effectively, the governments had to have the same European will and be prepared, acting together as a collective authority, to transfer the additional sovereignty required to achieve a true European Union. The creation of the European Council supplied the means for reaching that essential decision. A major step had been taken.

It was, effectively, Monnet's last great coup. His "provisional government" survives to this day and, now that it is to become a full-blown institution of the European Union, the heads of states and governments become fully-fledged members of the government of the European Union, owing their loyalty to it.

Perversely, Kerr in the conclusion to his speech, told us: "The critics need to put away their caricatures and look at the Union of today as it is, and as this treaty would confirm it." He added, "They will not, of course," entirely unconscious of the irony that he, himself, is manifestly incapable of looking at the Union the way it really is.

COMMENT THREAD

In the country of the blind

An article in today’s International Herald Tribune once again quotes Henry Kissinger’s fatuous comment about wanting one number to phone Europe and shows that neither the journalist in question nor numerous other people on both sides of the Atlantic have understood the EU any more than the former Secretary of State did in the 1970s.

A poll conducted online from January 10 to January 21 by Harris Interactive, in partnership with France 24 and the Trib itself asked 6,676 adults in Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the United States asked a number of questions, not least who they thought was the person whose phone number every American Secretary of State should have.

When asked what country is the leader of Europe today, a majority of Germans, perhaps unsurprisingly, picked Germany: 57 percent, the same figure as among Spaniards. Among the French, that figure rose to an astonishing 68 percent. The Italians and British were divided on the question between Germany and Britain.

On the other side of the Atlantic, 63 percent of Americans saw Britain as Europe's leading nation.

Looking to the future, the breakdown was roughly the same across the board when people from the six nations were asked about which country will have the most influence in Europe over the next decade.

When asked about political personalities, Europeans chose Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, as No. 1, with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France as a distant second choice. Americans, by contrast, named Brown, the prime minister of Britain, as most influential.

The basis of that assertion is a clear misunderstanding of what is happening in Europe. The aim of the ongoing process is to create a completely new political structure – this has already happened to some extent – in which individual member states and their leaders are not actually going to have any great influence at all.

Any discussion as to what Europe’s future might be has to start with that and to ask whether it is what the people of Europe and its countries want. It is reasonably clear even from the poll that whenever there is a clear proposal for political integration, such as the creation of a European president, there is opposition.

For all of that, the article and the two experts it quotes, two European (whatever that may mean) political bloggers, Jan Seifert and Jon Worth, whose site “whodoicall.eu, has a petition calling for a merger of the two presidencies”, the two being the envisaged European president and the remaining Commission president.

Mind you, that petition is considerably more logical than the endless supposedly eurosceptic ones that call for the abolition of European Parliament’s sittings in Strasbourg. Messrs Seifert and Worth do not exactly hide their sympathies, though the article does not mention that the former is the president of JEF-Europe (Young European Federalists and the latter was that in the past, as well as being a member of the Labour Party and having experience in various NGOs, but you can’t have everything.

It is, therefore, unfortunate that their views are seen as an objective analysis by a newspaper that claims some objectivity in the matter, even if that objectivity extends only to a discussion of what the best way is of overcoming or circumventing doubts about the way the European Union is developing.

The full results are supposedly here but I am finding it hard to open the pdf.

The will of the people…

… as opposed to the EU which, when it gets a clear indication of the will of the people – as in the French and Dutch referendums – simply ignores the results, re-labels and re-issues the EU constitution and then conspires with member state governments to ensure that the "will of the people" is never heard.

Meanwhile, Daniel Hannan comments on the dire effect the EU has on democracies.

COMMENT THREAD

If you can read this ...

... then the crisis is over!

The bizarre behaviour of the Google system, however, is something else. This has really spooked us! We will now be looking for alternative hosting.

COMMENT THREAD

Court cases for everyone

Just in case you were in any doubt as to who really runs the show, Reuters has come up with list of legal actions initiated yesterday by the EU commission against member states.

These include a suit against Italy, requiring it to comply with an ECJ ruling on the award of concessions for horse-race betting services, "reasoned opinions" to Italy regarding lawyers' fees, to Slovakia regarding disclosure of privatisation agreements, and to Britain regarding implementation of a directive on motor insurance.

The commission is sending reasoned opinions to Italy and Germany concerning the procurement of water/wastewater management services and waste disposal services. It has referred Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Spain to the ECJ over their failure to inform the commission of measures taken to implement EU rules on professional qualifications relating to EU newcomers Bulgaria and Romania.

It is also sending reasoned opinions to Belgium, the Czech Republic and Spain for failing to inform it of measures taken to implement other rules on recognising professional qualifications.

Meanwhile, the commission has closed a case against France over a domestic law on current account interest. It said France had now abolished its legislation that formally prohibited banks from offering interest on current accounts to their customers.

Spain is being taken to the ECJ as the commission deems its rules on the establishment of retail outlets are incompatible with EU law. Malta will receive a reasoned opinion telling it to amend its car registration tax rules, which the Commission said discriminated against second-hand cars brought into Malta from other EU countries.

The commission has formally requested Hungary to change its tax law provisions which limit the granting of a tax incentive to taxpayers who engage in research or development activities performed on premises located in Hungary.

Last but not least, the commission has instructed Spain to bring in line with EU rules its administrative practice for determining how much VAT should be paid for barter transactions.

All this because Mr Monnet wanted to stop Germany going to war with France!

COMMENT THREAD

Win some, lose some ....

… and throw our allies to the Russians’ tender mercies. This NATO Summit has been a tad opaque and the precise agreements are still to be made clear. But the supporters of authoritarian Russia, sometimes disguised as opponents of world government but actually opponents of the West, can rejoice. Under German and French pressure NATO has thrown Ukraine and Georgia to the bear. President Bush’s attempts to put them on track to future and very distant membership of NATO has failed, though he is not, apparently giving up.

Germany, who is slowly putting itself completely into Russia’s hands by getting more and more of its gas and oil from that country, supported by France, whose supposedly pro-American president has reverted to type, managed to derail the process with support from other West European countries.

In effect, this is breaking NATO’s rule that no outside country can have a say in its composition. It is also ignoring the very real contribution that Georgia has made to the war on terror.

As AP rightly puts it, this was a big victory for President Putin, who is not precisely our ally and was achieved by a miracle of double-talk on the part of the German and French leaders.

While Russia has been selling arms to Iran Georgia has sent over 2,000 troops to Iraq. Stationed mostly in the Wasit province in the south-east, the force’s “main task is to stop weapons smuggled over the Iranian border from furnishing the arsenal of the insurgency”. Errm, one would expect to hear a bit more about that from the British around Basra.

No doubt this will be seen as a victory for those who are sane and sensible and do not want to see Russia unfriendly to the West. My own suspicion is that it will make absolutely no difference. Russia will now demand something else – perhaps pressure on the Baltic States – and will give nothing in return.

Suppose that country continues to be unfriendly? So what? What do we get out of friendship with Russia, anyway?

Nobody is suggesting a break in diplomatic relations. War is not on the cards, especially not with the Russian military machine in need of heavy overhauling.

Business relations are likely to go on souring because of the cavalier way with which the Russian government treats contracts with foreign investors.

That leaves gas. This needs a separate posting (another one) but the truth is that Russia as a purveyor of gas needs Western Europe as customer as much as Western Europe needs it. What will Gazprom do with the gas if it stops selling it? Drink it?

Sell it to China, I hear people say. Hmmm. Maybe. Sometime. In the future. When there is a pipeline. And if Russia produces enough oil and gas to satisfy the domestic market, fulfil existing contracts and open up new markets.

Combining state ownership with an authoritarian government has resulted in self-censorship, favor-based promotions rather than competence-based promotions, and power struggles between competing clans that are holding back progress on a range of projects in exploration, production, transportation and refining, the analyst said.

Reflecting that, only one new gas field - the Zapolyarnoye field, which came on stream in 2001 - has entered production since the 1980s, while various energy transportation projects are behind schedule, including the East Siberia-Pacific oil pipeline - now set to open a year later than planned, at the end of 2009.

This paralysis coincides with rising doubts about the sustainability of Russian production - running at close to 10 million barrels a day of oil and 850 billion cubic meters, or 30 trillion cubic feet, of gas in 2007, compared with 6 million barrels a day and less than 600 billion cubic meters in the 1990s.

Another country that has not been particularly pro-Western but is always demanding favours is Greece. Right now, it is demanding that Macedonia not be admitted to NATO until it changes its name because its refusal to do so shows that it has designs on parts of Greece. Nobody but the Greek political establishment has managed to notice this fact but the foot-stamping was enough for NATO not to invite Macedonia to become a member as Albania and Croatia have been, until it sorts out the problem of the name with Greece.

One could argue, and probably this blog would do so that taking in various countries who cannot contribute much to NATO and whose security services are dubious is not the best idea. But this decision should not be taken because Greece throws another wobbly.

Still, one victory was achieved and it is surprising that all those who tremble at Russia’s displeasure have agreed to it. Perhaps, President Bush can manage the odd diplomatic agreement.

President Bush won NATO's endorsement Thursday for his plan to build a missile defense system in Europe over Russian objections. The proposal also advanced with Czech officials announcing an agreement to install a missile tracking site for the system in their country.

There will be further news from this summit but I cannot wait to hear Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy extol the Europeans standing up to the United States as being the birth of a common foreign policy. If they can remember, that is, what famous victory they achieved.

That's the seventh one down

To nobody’s particular surprise the Polish Senate as well as the Lower House, the Sejm, has voted the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty through with a 74 to 17 vote with 6 abstentions. Commission President Barroso and the Slovenian Presidency welcomed this display of European solidarity on the part of Polish politicians.

It would appear from this report in the Polish newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza that there was a certain amount unfriendly discussion before the vote went through.

Seventy four senators cast their votes for the treaty - the Civic Platform (PO), the non-affiliated post-communist Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, and 15 Law and Justice (PiS) senators, including deputy Senate speaker Zbigniew Romaszewski. However, there was a split in the PiS caucus, with 17 senators voting against and five abstaining (as did the non-affiliated Lucjan Cichosz).

The Law and Justice Party is that of President Lech Kaczynski, the one remaining comedian on the Polish political scene, who was there in Lisbon and negotiated, if that is what the process to be called, for Poland.

As the various negotiations between the politicians went on, some of the PiS representatives became emotional, calling on Poland’s history to give them strength:

And though no voting discipline was introduced in the caucus, following Mr Romaszewski's declaration the Prime Minister, reassured, left the Senate. And a group of clearly relaxed PO senators went for lunch to the Senate canteen. 'This means that all the votes in the PiS caucus have been counted and at least the PiS Senate committee leaders will vote yes', one of the PO senators explained to the members of the press.

During the same time, the treaty's opponents stepped forward, though they spoke without much conviction. 'This will be a new partition of Poland. The Lisbon treaty establishes a new state called the European Union and Poland will be but an administrative unit in it!' warned Ryszard Bender. At the same time, the PiS eurosceptics were obviously trying not to attack President Lech
Kaczyński who had negotiated the treaty. 'Our dear President fought bravely in Brussels as the real son of the Polish knights from Grunwald, Chocim and Vienna. But there's no certainty that the safeguards he's negotiated will work. It is not always that Poland will be governed by patriots who have God, the fatherland and honour in their hearts', said Janina Fetlińska.

It is at times like this and reading bilge of this kind that I begin to doubt my own certainty that history must be learnt at school. Not if it means that politicians produce unilluminating parallels that hide reality.

Still, an important victory was won, though it has not been widely reported. As 365Gay.com reports, a proviso was added that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is an integral part of the treaty, will be implemented without the rights it grants to gays and lesbians. On the whole, it seems unlikely that provisos like that, negotiated by the Prime Minister and the opposition are worth anything once you are implementing European legislation.

Ah well, we warned them.

"Despised" is not a strong enough word

"What is this House of Lords for? If it has any purpose at all, it must be to stand up for the rights of the people and our democratic system. Now is our moment. I suggest that every Peer, whatever their views on Europe, should consider carefully how they cast their vote on the issue of the referendum. We can prevent this tawdry deceit presented to us on April Fool's Day and allow the people the say that they were promised. This is our moment. We should seize it and turn the tide against those who hold the people in such contempt and risk everything by doing so."

So spoke Lord Forsyth of Drumlean on the occasion of the Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill in the Lords.

He was wasting his time, of course, as indeed were the other of their Lordships who contributed to the debate in the hope that democracy would prevail, not least Lord Pearson, who noted:

It is that political class, politely referred to as the "Westminster village", which is becoming increasingly despised by the real people who earn the money to pay the taxes to keep it afloat. If those real people are denied a referendum on this Lisbon treaty, which they were clearly promised, our whole political system will rightly be held in even greater contempt.

Yet, with the Lib-Dim Euroluvvies having stitched up the proceedings, even the remote chance of the Lords being able to force a referendum on the treaty has evaporated.

But, having conspired with the governments of the member states to prevent their peoples having any meaningful debate on the treaty, how interesting it is that the EU commission yesterday launched a new initiative under the heading: "Debate Europe - giving citizens a voice". In this, we were told:

The European Commission wants to increase citizens' involvement in the EU decision-making process. In a Communication entitled 'Debate Europe – building on the experience of Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate', it puts forward a set of future actions to foster a general and permanent debate on the future of the European Union among people from all walks of life, at both national and EU level.

There really is something particularly loathsome about the way the colleagues – having so skilfully avoided any debate about its new treaty – now want to create the impression of an ongoing debate, all to give itself the trappings of democracy, without in any way committing themselves to the principles.

It seems that, after taking the cue from Lord Pearson, we are also going to have also to take note of Devils Kitchen view that "despised" is not a strong enough word to describe the way we feel about these people.

Perhaps we need a new word.

COMMENT THREAD

The subversion of democracy

Conservative Home is telling the inside story of the outrageous way in which Eurofanatics in the Conservative Party have rigged the reselection process for MEPs.

Writes Tim Montgomerie, "The opponents of party democracy - or more accurately the defenders of a cadre of MEPs supportive of further integration and unrepresentative of mainstream party opinion - have ran a selection process that has protected incumbency and subverted party democracy. They did so in clear opposition to the wishes of party members."

The piece records how sitting MEPs escaped democratic scrutiny from the party's members, adding: "For anyone ever wanting to fix an election it includes lots of helpful tips..."

Read the whole piece and weep.

COMMENT THREAD

The EU scores again

The EU carbon market is now worth €28 billion annually, and represents the EU's best attempt at reaching its Kyoto targets. But, as a measure for "saving the planet" – even if you did believe in anthropogenic global warming – it seems to be a tad less than effective.

According to estimates released yesterday, overall carbon dioxide emissions for 2007 were "roughly flat" while EU industry emissions in the six largest countries rose some 1.2 percent.

That estimate is based on initial data from the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which includes more than 10,000 large industrial plants, leading the environmental group Greenpeace to declare that the scheme is failing.

Most notable was the UK, he said, which went over its allocation by about 85 million tons for the three-year period between 2005 and 2007. Power generators in the UK, Italy and Spain all exceeded their allowances – and that was despite a mild winter.

Thus, for all the hype, the huge expense, the acres of extruded verbal material in the media, the net effect of the activity is a slight increase in emissions. Perhaps it is just as well that the idea of man-made global warming is a total crock. If we were actually reliant on the EU to save us from being fried, we would be in very serious trouble.

COMMENT THREAD

The curious mindset of Mr Miliband

There is something not quite right the head with our current foreign secretary. Only a man with a brain that is not correctly wired could stand up in parliament and glibly tell MPs that, "The international consensus is that the will of the Zimbabwean people must be revealed and properly respected," when that self-same man has done his level best to ensure that the wishes of the British people on the constitutional Lisbon treaty are neither "revealed" nor "respected".

But the curious mindset of David Miliband does not stop here. He is tonight set to claim that Britain has more influence over the greatest global challenges by arguing from a position at the centre of Europe rather than by acting unilaterally.

This is billed as Miliband's "most pro-European speech as foreign secretary", remarks which amount to "a renewed offensive by the pro-European wing of the government following the relatively harmless passage of the Lisbon treaty through the Commons."

Yet, these remarks follow the defining events in Iraq and on the same day that a major Nato summit starts in Bucharest. In the former, the "footprint" of the EU is so slight that, throughout the whole crisis, there was no comment recorded from any EU officials.

As regards the Nato summit, one of the most important items on the agenda will be the vexed question of additional troops for Afghanistan, where again the EU has no locus at all. Even the EU member states which provide troops do so on their own account and not as members of the EU.

Thus, even though in two of the major and possibly most important foreign policy issues for the UK - Iraq and Afghanistan - the EU is largely an irrelevance, the boy Miliband is still set to assert that the EU is a vehicle for the expression of British foreign policy.

Quite how bankrupt that thinking has become is best illustrated by Gordon's new bestist friend, Nicky Sarkozy. For some many weeks now, he has been dropping hints that, come the Nato summit, he will be set to announce that he plans to send another 1,000 troops to Afghanistan, with a possible relaxation of the national caveat which will allow them to do some fighting in the south and east of the country.

But, Nicky's prime minister, Francois Fillon, has now said that Paris was looking to send just "several hundred" more troops to Afghanistan – far short of the "major contribution" that was being signalled.

And, while the perfidious Frogs – part of the European Union that the boy Miliband thinks is so wonderful – are playing their little games, the United States is in the process of deploying an additional 3,500 US Marines complete with 20 helicopters, their own organic air support, air transport and artillery.

Comparing the rhetoric with the reality, far from being an effective vehicle for expressing British foreign policy, the EU is at best an irrelevance and, at worst, a positive handicap. To have a foreign secretary who so transparently thinks otherwise is more than a little worrying.

COMMENT THREAD

The perfect European

Bertie Ahern denies any wrongdoing. Being the dedicated public servant that he is, he is resigning only because he does not want charges of corruption to distract the focus of government.

"I know in my heart of hearts that I've done no wrong and wronged no-one," he says. "I want everyone to understand... never in all the time I served in public life have I ever put my personal interests ahead of the public good."

This is the man who brokered the agreement on the original EU constitution and is slated as one of the possible candidates for the first full-time president of the European Council.

Having done absolutely nothing wrong and being suddenly free to take alternative employment, it does seem that he is the ideal candidate – the perfect European.

COMMENT THREAD

A corner turned

One got the sense from some of the exchanges in the House of Commons yesterday that, barring the more excitable of the breed, MPs have a better handle on the situation in Basra than do most of their media "colleagues".

Certainly, in the exchange between James Arbuthnot – chairman of the Defence Committee – and Des Browne, we saw an element of agreement. Arbuthnot took the view that the Iraqi operation last week was not bad news. It showed the Iraqis taking back responsibility for a key part of Iraq.

Des Browne seemed similarly encouraged, the action demonstrating to him that the (Iraqi) government was showing the whole country and the people of Basra that they are prepared to take on Shi'a militia. They were not, said Browne, "seen to be picking and choosing the elements that they will engage with, but are showing that they are even-handed. Those are all very positive signs."

This is very much the view we prefer to take, with a neat summary on Dean's world and another massively informative post on Talismangate.

The extraordinary negativity of the western media is really quite stunning and, used as we are to the loathsome habits of the MSM, the level of distortion being offered probably sets new levels of venality.

Nevertheless, Browne got a relatively easy ride from the media on his delay in withdrawing another 1,500 British troops from Iraq. But the secretary of state has said that he expects to be able to update the Commons on force levels later this month and my guess is that he will be able to be fairly optimistic about developments.

Whatever the media currently makes of it, it seems something of a corner has been turned.

COMMENT THREAD

Wasted lives

The much-trumpeted though somewhat misunderstood House of Lords Report on the effect immigration has had on the economic life of this country makes some very interesting and highly intelligent points as you would expect from a Select Committee in the Upper House, attacked and undermined though it has been. (Incidentally, I strongly recommend that people should read the whole report or at least the conclusions and recommendations and not rely on the Daily Mail for information.)

While there is evidence that some parts of British society have benefited from immigrants who have taken jobs here on various levels (there can be no doubt that immigrants who merely seek welfare cannot be of any real benefit to a country) others, often children of previous waves of immigrants, have lost out.

What comes across most clearly is that there is little basis for any definite statement to be made because there has been no study done on the subject. For various reasons, I imagine, it would be very difficult to do a thorough study of such a complex issue though their lordships strongly recommend that this should be done.

One particular point is that the influx of immigrants tends to hide certain structural problems in the host country. Thus, cheap labour may well prevent innovation. This is not a new problem. We are still paying for the choice made by those who ran London Transport in the early fifties to bring in cheap labour rather than invest in technical advance.

Moving on from there, the influx of a better qualified, better educated, willing labour force, much of which comes from other EU member states, so there is nothing the government can do about it, as the Report makes it clear, pushes the severe problems we have with our education and training system out of sight and, thus, out of mind.

The problems with a large proportion of the young people brought up and educated in our schools and colleges cannot be solved simply by easier hiring and firing rules. No business wants to keep hiring and firing and few have the capacity to deal with the semi-literate, anumerate, ill-disciplined youngsters so many of our educational establishments seem to produce by the thousand. As long as there are others to take the jobs these people cannot do, the problems can be ignored.

There is yet another problem that is rarely discussed, though it ties in with this blog’s perennial favourite – the regulatory structure. I have been providing a last editorial gloss to a forthcoming Bruges Group pamphlet (I do have a life, honest, it’s just that it seems to have gone AWOL) on the cost of regulation and how the EU makes it worse.

It will be a very interesting paper and I strongly recommend that our readers get hold of it when it is published. There are good examples and excellent arguments as to how the situation we are in has come about as well as the price we have to pay in our freedom disappearing and our economy contracting and becoming considerably less robust because of fear.

William Mason, the author goes through the concept of precautionary principle and how it has become a stumbling block to economic and social existence; he also explains how the European and British sides interact and posits that with many layers in politics there is a competition in regulations. Who will produce more and tighter ones?

Above all, he minces no words about the way the European Union needs regulations for its existence and purpose, that is the integration of the various and different economies of the member states. Regulations in whatever form is the lifeblood of the EU, which has little enough as a basis for its existence.

There is one argument missing, though, and it rarely crops up in any cost/benefit analysis – the wasted lives of people who have to service this Moloch. We all know, thanks to the Taxpayers’ Alliance about the amount various politicians and officials earn and receive in perks at different levels. We hear a great deal about the five-a-day-outreach-workers and the gender-equality-counsellors but this is really the icing on the cake.

The point about the overwhelming and suffocating regulatory structure we live under is that it needs people to administer and service it. Every year it sucks in thousands of young and not so young people, who could be working in the more useful, economically active sectors or professions but who spend their lives within the regulatory structure. The opportunity costs thus become much greater than anything assumed so far.

The need for them grows year by year and this has spread to the educational establishments. Of all the problems we have with our higher education degrees in Media Studies is the least of it. They are not useful but their only harm is in the time and many thousands of pounds wasted.

Bad enough, of course, but not as terrible as some other degrees. Think of the students who have degrees in Social Policy or Social Administration or numerous other subjects of that kind. These are not simply useless or expensive, they are actively harmful.

The point is that with those degrees only the least useful part of the public sector is open to you. You cannot be a teacher or a doctor or a nurse or a prison warder or even a gardener in a public park, let alone go into the wealth-crating private sector. All you can be is an administrator in the regulatory sector.

The more students emerge with these ghastly pseudo-degrees the more jobs are needed for them and the less likely they are to contribute anything useful to our society. They may not be completely illiterate and are, perhaps, tolerably numerate; they certainly know how to dress and behave themselves at work; but as far as employability is concerned they are no better than those youngsters who get turned out of our schools with no qualification or knowledge whatsoever to lead a life of frustration.

The annual loss of many thousands of people who should be doing something useful but are, instead, serving the great god regulation is another high price we are paying and it is one that we may not be able to afford for much longer.

Happy birthday

Celebrated by a flypast of the Red Arrows and four Eurofighters over London, the 90th birthday of the Royal Air Force was marred only by the moronic twittering of a BBC hack whom someone rather unwisely let in the back seat of one of the Hawks.

As the aircraft steamed majestically over the House of Commons, just as Big Ben chimed one, this dismal little prat called off the altitude as "400 metres". He should perhaps know that the only Air Force that ever used metric measurements over London was the Luftwaffe.

Good of the BBC to continue the tradition.

COMMENT THREAD

Time out

Having struggled through five days of the worse attack of 'flu I can ever recall having, I've had enough. I kept on because I thought it was important to try and understand and stay on top of the Basra situation. But when you read this sort of self-serving crap, you wonder why you bother. I'm going to bed … I'll try and post in the morning, if I feel up to it.