For obvious reasons, blogging is going to be fairly light today. Helen will keep the home fires burning as best she can.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Seven minutes to change the world
Today, at a time yet to be decided (as we write) José Manuel Durao Barroso, president of the EU commission, will stand up in the chamber of the EU parliament in Brussels to defend himself (and his commission) against a motion of no confidence, brought by Nigel Farage and 73 or more other MEPs.
Although there will be no vote on the day, the result is a foregone conclusion. All the major political groups oppose the motion and, when it comes to a vote in Strasbourg, they will easily defeat it.
Farage will have exactly seven minutes to make his case, giving him about a thousand words to set out an indictment that could, with justice, run to hundreds of pages. Apart from the headline issue of Barroso taking hospitality from multi-billionaire Spiros Latsis, when one of his companies was awaiting a decision from the commission as to whether it could be paid over €10 million in state aid grants, there are many other issues that could be aired.
For instance, it is of some considerable public interest to establish the precise nature of the funding at Athens Sparta Airport, and the precise role played by the Latsis Group of companies, not least Eurobank, which handled the payments of EU money.
In a country that is awash with EU money, under the multi-billion euro "Community Support Framework III" programme, a country that is also a by-word for corruption, questions might be asked about the funding of the motorway and road building programme – set to receive over €9 billion in EU funds and loans.
In particular, questions could be asked about the tenders for the Elefsina to Patra Motorway and the Ionian Road, and the contract, valued at over €200 million for which two consortia, Olympic Roads and the Aegean Motorway Group, have been recently short-listed with commission approval.
The latter group should, perhaps, get special scrutiny as it includes a firm in the Lamda Group – one of Latsis's companies – and a firm called Hochtief, one of Germany's largest building companies, one, incidentally that managed the Sparta airport contract.
Hochtief is an especially interesting company, with a chequered history. It has been named in relation to the bribery scandal in the World Bank-Funded Lesotho Water Project, where a dozen major international dam-building companies lavishly bribed at least one top official on the project, allegedly giving nearly US$2 million in bribes over ten years. The Highlands Water Venture, a consortium which included Hochtief, was directly linked with $733,404-worth of bribes.
Then there is the affair of the Southern Cross Airport Corporation Limited, to which the federal government awarded the ownership of the Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport, involving Hochtief in circumstances which had an Australian "waste and corruption" website flag it up. Add to that, the affair of the Berlin airport, and why Hochtief was disbarred from bidding for redevelopment by the courts, and an interesting picture emerges.
Yet, Hochtief is one of the companies on whose behalf Schröder intervened with President George W. Bush, asking him to invite them to bid for $4.5 billion worth of contracts. In this context, it could well be asked what professional or other links there are between Schröder and Hochtief, and the role this company might have played in funding Schröder's SDP.
One might then ask why Schröder took it upon himself to intervene personally to prevent the EU parliament's socialist group calling Barroso to explain his links with Latsis, one at least of whose companies is linked with Hochtief.
All this Farage could do, but for the fact, in what is a parody of "transparency", he has precisely seven minutes. In short, Farage has seven minutes to change the world – or, at least, the EU. He isn't going to be able to do it, but he might lay down some interesting markers.
Although there will be no vote on the day, the result is a foregone conclusion. All the major political groups oppose the motion and, when it comes to a vote in Strasbourg, they will easily defeat it.
Farage will have exactly seven minutes to make his case, giving him about a thousand words to set out an indictment that could, with justice, run to hundreds of pages. Apart from the headline issue of Barroso taking hospitality from multi-billionaire Spiros Latsis, when one of his companies was awaiting a decision from the commission as to whether it could be paid over €10 million in state aid grants, there are many other issues that could be aired.
For instance, it is of some considerable public interest to establish the precise nature of the funding at Athens Sparta Airport, and the precise role played by the Latsis Group of companies, not least Eurobank, which handled the payments of EU money.
In a country that is awash with EU money, under the multi-billion euro "Community Support Framework III" programme, a country that is also a by-word for corruption, questions might be asked about the funding of the motorway and road building programme – set to receive over €9 billion in EU funds and loans.
In particular, questions could be asked about the tenders for the Elefsina to Patra Motorway and the Ionian Road, and the contract, valued at over €200 million for which two consortia, Olympic Roads and the Aegean Motorway Group, have been recently short-listed with commission approval.
The latter group should, perhaps, get special scrutiny as it includes a firm in the Lamda Group – one of Latsis's companies – and a firm called Hochtief, one of Germany's largest building companies, one, incidentally that managed the Sparta airport contract.
Hochtief is an especially interesting company, with a chequered history. It has been named in relation to the bribery scandal in the World Bank-Funded Lesotho Water Project, where a dozen major international dam-building companies lavishly bribed at least one top official on the project, allegedly giving nearly US$2 million in bribes over ten years. The Highlands Water Venture, a consortium which included Hochtief, was directly linked with $733,404-worth of bribes.
Then there is the affair of the Southern Cross Airport Corporation Limited, to which the federal government awarded the ownership of the Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport, involving Hochtief in circumstances which had an Australian "waste and corruption" website flag it up. Add to that, the affair of the Berlin airport, and why Hochtief was disbarred from bidding for redevelopment by the courts, and an interesting picture emerges.
Yet, Hochtief is one of the companies on whose behalf Schröder intervened with President George W. Bush, asking him to invite them to bid for $4.5 billion worth of contracts. In this context, it could well be asked what professional or other links there are between Schröder and Hochtief, and the role this company might have played in funding Schröder's SDP.
One might then ask why Schröder took it upon himself to intervene personally to prevent the EU parliament's socialist group calling Barroso to explain his links with Latsis, one at least of whose companies is linked with Hochtief.
All this Farage could do, but for the fact, in what is a parody of "transparency", he has precisely seven minutes. In short, Farage has seven minutes to change the world – or, at least, the EU. He isn't going to be able to do it, but he might lay down some interesting markers.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr Blair goes travelling (again)
This time the Prime Minister will be leaving his happily squabbling Labour Party (the only party in British history that wants to get rid of a victorious leader) in order to talk to his colleagues in the G-8 countries, prior to a meeting at Gleneagles.
As ever, the preliminary negotiations are everything as the meeting must come up with some kind of a consensus. The trouble is that what is bothering Mr Blair, as Prime Minister of the country that holds the presidency of the G-8, is not what is at the forefront of other politicians’ minds (or the electorate’s).
Mr Blair, for instance, does not seem to have noticed that there is the odd economic problem or two in most western countries and, certainly, in almost all European countries. Even in Britain, our boasts ring hollow when we survey the shrinking private sector and the bloated public one, not to mention problems such as pensions, health, education, etc etc.
At least, unemployment is not as high as on the Continent, however the various figures are arrived at.
But this is not what bothers Mr Blair. Nor is it the war against terrorism or the need to form strong alliances across the world not just in the fusty and musty world of EU politics.
His two top items are climate change and aid to Africa. And, sad to say, he is getting no help on either of those from anybody, possibly because just about everybody sees the complete lunacy and stupidity of those two ideas.
It seems that certain Labour MPs feel that the problem lies in the European countries not being able to decide on a united front in order to put pressure on America, as ever the villain of the piece. (What of Russia or Japan, one asks oneself.)
The Guardian is sympathetic to that point of view, of course, but finds it diffiult to avoid the natural conclusion: nobody wants to support Our Tone.
The first item is climate change. This is the new buzz expression that has supplanted global warming. The trouble with global warming was the lack of proof, the lack of understanding as to how it might manifest itself and what it might lead to and the lack of evidence that it was human behaviour that caused it.
With “climate change” some of the problems disappear. You do not have to prove it because it is inevitable and unstoppable. The only constant thing about climate has been that it has changed, at least in the northern hemisphere.
Accounts of life in England and Europe show that a mini-ice age struck round about the fourteenth century and did not let up till the early nineteenth. Before that there was wine produced in this country and Greenland was a populated land.
During it the winters were so cold that there were fairs with ox-roasting on the frozen Thames. Then it changed again. It is possible the change is faster now, though no evidence has been produced and it is equally possible that the Gulf Stream is changing directions which will have climatic implications.
While this needs to be studied and ways of dealing with the possible problems worked out, it cannot be stopped or in any way affected. (Though one could argue that a little less hot air from all these dire meetings would reduce the greenhouse emissions.)
Still, Mr Blair is running around, demanding that America fall into line over emissions, that other countries, notably, China, India and Brazil do the same or something similar, disregarding the clear evidence that what is needed for a better and cleaner environment is economic development not the unsupported and largely discredited assertions of the Kyoto-freaks.
The Guardian gets huffy, too:
“Britain had expected a deal would already be assured by now to write off the debts owed by poor nations to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the African Development Bank.
The government had also hoped that the US would be offering more on climate change than lifting trade barriers to allow US enterprise to help developing countries with clean fuel technologies.”
Surely, what the Americans are offering is the best possible idea. There is nothing you can do about climate change, so we shall help developing countries to work out clean fuel technologies? Alas, no, since it is the fixed certainty of the climate change conspiracy theorists that the most important thing in the world is to shackle the American economy. Whether that would be of any use, they care not.
As for the whole Millennium Plan for helping Africa, that has steadily become nothing but a gleam in Mr Blair’s frantic eyes and a self-publicity tool for film stars, models, rock singers and huffing-puffing politicians like Hizonner the Mayor of LondON.
Unfortunately, even the Guardian has had to admit that it is not just the United States that is telling Mr Blair and his minions to go away and leave them alone.
“In addition to the resistance from the US, fiscal constraints in several EU countries will also make a deal difficult to secure. In a sign of the hurdles ahead, fellow EU states yesterday spurned an attempt by the international development secretary, Hilary Benn, to win support for a commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid.
Germany and Italy have proved difficult to budge on the 0.7% timetable discussed by Mr Benn yesterday, and Mr Blair's meeting with Mr Schröder is seen as crucial in providing a united European position that would put pressure on the US to follow suit.”
Some of the Labour politicians who think that all this can and should be overcome would do well to read Stephen Pollard, former Fabian policy wonk in the Times Online yesterday.
Mr Pollard repeats all the arguments about the idiocy of “trade justice” that prevents developing countries from trading and developing; of abolishing debts and increasing aid that would reward governments for their disastrous policy and give them more money to siphon off.
“Much Third World poverty is the result of governments taking the decision,in effect, to remain poor. The conditions under which they can prosper are known, and available, if those in power choose to avail themselves of them.
As Hernando de Soto (who has done much to alleviate poverty, not least through his seminal book, The Mystery of Capital) points out, it is easy to make a country prosperous. It needs only security of life and property, and markets in which property rights can be valued and traded. The West’s prosperity is built on property rights and the rule of law; it is the denial of those rights which causes poverty and prevents growth.”
He then adds:
“If those behind Make Poverty History were serious about ending poverty they would be campaigning for property rights and the rule of law — for better governance, in other words. And they would campaign not to abolish free trade but to extend it — attacking, for instance, the EU Common Agricultural Policy and its immoral tariff barriers against the developing world.
The EU spends €2.7 billion a year subsidising farmers to grow sugar beet; at the same time it imposes high tariff barriers against sugar imports from the developing world. And the EU’s agricultural tariffs average 20 per cent, rising to a peak of 250 per cent on certain products. The European market remains barely open to the majority of low-cost textiles from the developing world.”
It seems unlikely that any of that will be raised at the G-8 meeting or the subsequent EU Presidency. Instead, there will be more hot air and the sight of Prime Minister Blair running up air miles in his attempts to reverse climate change, whatever that might mean.
An increasing note of hysteria
Mark Steyn is on good form in The Telegraph, taking on board the "Holocaust" obsession of the Euro-luvvies.
In so doing, he deals with the not-so-fragrant Margot and her Terezin references and then concludes that the pitch the luvvies are trying to sell us for the Euro-ballot is: "…yes to the European Constitution, or yes to a new Holocaust."
"The notion that the Continent's peoples are basically a bunch of genocidal whackoes champing at the bit for a new bloodbath is one I'm not unsympathetic to," Steyn continues, "but it's a curious rationale to pitch to one's electorate: vote for us; we're the straitjacket on your own worst instincts."
Actually, it is not that curious. My co-editor and I have constantly puzzled about why the Euro-luvvies have been so lack-lustre in promoting the object of their dreams. More to the point, we have wondered why, when their grandiose claims of the EU having kept the peace in Europe are so easily rebutted, that they persist with them.
What now comes to the fore, and is touched upon by Steyn, is that these people treat "Europe" as a secular religion. And, having been in the ascendancy for so long, without being seriously challenged, they have lost the capability to argue their case – if indeed they ever had such a capability.
Now, having to confront a level hostility to which they have never before been exposed, instead of rethinking their their pitch, and perhaps coming up with some new, more powerful ideas – if indeed they exist – like the High Priests of old, they simply fall back on their mantras and preach hell fire and damnation for the heretics who dare to question them.
In this context, if they believe so fervently, as they do, that it is only the EU that stands between the peoples of Europe and another bloody war – with all that that entails – and they have also linked the constitution with the survival of the "project", it is but a small step in logic to postulate that, if the EU collapses for want of a constitution, there will be nothing to stop the tanks rolling across the borders again.
In a way, the fragility of this argument is encouraging. That is the Euro-luvvies' best shot, and it is neither credible nor convincing. But it does explain the increasing note of hysteria that is entering into their tone, as the peoples of Europe shrug their shoulders and walk away from a dream that is not their own.
In so doing, he deals with the not-so-fragrant Margot and her Terezin references and then concludes that the pitch the luvvies are trying to sell us for the Euro-ballot is: "…yes to the European Constitution, or yes to a new Holocaust."
"The notion that the Continent's peoples are basically a bunch of genocidal whackoes champing at the bit for a new bloodbath is one I'm not unsympathetic to," Steyn continues, "but it's a curious rationale to pitch to one's electorate: vote for us; we're the straitjacket on your own worst instincts."
Actually, it is not that curious. My co-editor and I have constantly puzzled about why the Euro-luvvies have been so lack-lustre in promoting the object of their dreams. More to the point, we have wondered why, when their grandiose claims of the EU having kept the peace in Europe are so easily rebutted, that they persist with them.
What now comes to the fore, and is touched upon by Steyn, is that these people treat "Europe" as a secular religion. And, having been in the ascendancy for so long, without being seriously challenged, they have lost the capability to argue their case – if indeed they ever had such a capability.
Now, having to confront a level hostility to which they have never before been exposed, instead of rethinking their their pitch, and perhaps coming up with some new, more powerful ideas – if indeed they exist – like the High Priests of old, they simply fall back on their mantras and preach hell fire and damnation for the heretics who dare to question them.
In this context, if they believe so fervently, as they do, that it is only the EU that stands between the peoples of Europe and another bloody war – with all that that entails – and they have also linked the constitution with the survival of the "project", it is but a small step in logic to postulate that, if the EU collapses for want of a constitution, there will be nothing to stop the tanks rolling across the borders again.
In a way, the fragility of this argument is encouraging. That is the Euro-luvvies' best shot, and it is neither credible nor convincing. But it does explain the increasing note of hysteria that is entering into their tone, as the peoples of Europe shrug their shoulders and walk away from a dream that is not their own.
Never taking our eyes off America
[Health warning: this posting has no reference whatsoever to the Conservative Party.]
It is the proud boast of “Europe” or whatever passes as “Europe” in some minds, that the creation of the EU, or some alternative integration of the countries would restore the Continent’s greatness.
Above all, it would undemine the power, influence and leadership of the United States. We shall do such things, what they are we do not know, to paraphrase the Bard.
However, what do we get as examples of great independent thought? In France both sides in the referendum campaign are fighting with one eye on America.
Vote yes, to strengthen Europe against American influence (all those McDonalds in the Champs Elysée and other places), says one side. Vote no, to prevent this American-inspired free market constitution from being imposed on France the Glorious. How does that sort of political debate make France a great country?
And what of Germany? In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Europe one of its editorial writers, David Schwimmer had an article entitled “Schröder’s Götterdämmerung” (those dam’ Americans – they are not supposed to know things like that).
Analyzing the situation in Germany after the North Rhine-Westphalia fiasco for the SDP, he pointed out that many of the disillusioned voters were not going to the more reformist minded Christian Democrats, never mind the Free Democrats.
Schröder’s “reforms” made life difficult for people without opening up the economy because they did not go far enough or deep enough. Cutting back unemployment benefits may be a good idea if there is the slightest possibility of an upswing in employment. Otherwise, it causes severe problems.
But both the SPD and its former supporters have found someone else to blame. Of course, there is the usual plethora of tirades against capitalism in general (as if the socialism of one part of Germany had been such a howling success) but more specifically, there is American capitalism.
It is all their fault comrades, for investing money in the economy and wanting a return on it. As Mr Schwimmer writes:
The Market Center Blog says, quoting the left-wing New Republic:
How does any of it make Europe or the European idea great?
It is the proud boast of “Europe” or whatever passes as “Europe” in some minds, that the creation of the EU, or some alternative integration of the countries would restore the Continent’s greatness.
Above all, it would undemine the power, influence and leadership of the United States. We shall do such things, what they are we do not know, to paraphrase the Bard.
However, what do we get as examples of great independent thought? In France both sides in the referendum campaign are fighting with one eye on America.
Vote yes, to strengthen Europe against American influence (all those McDonalds in the Champs Elysée and other places), says one side. Vote no, to prevent this American-inspired free market constitution from being imposed on France the Glorious. How does that sort of political debate make France a great country?
And what of Germany? In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Europe one of its editorial writers, David Schwimmer had an article entitled “Schröder’s Götterdämmerung” (those dam’ Americans – they are not supposed to know things like that).
Analyzing the situation in Germany after the North Rhine-Westphalia fiasco for the SDP, he pointed out that many of the disillusioned voters were not going to the more reformist minded Christian Democrats, never mind the Free Democrats.
Schröder’s “reforms” made life difficult for people without opening up the economy because they did not go far enough or deep enough. Cutting back unemployment benefits may be a good idea if there is the slightest possibility of an upswing in employment. Otherwise, it causes severe problems.
But both the SPD and its former supporters have found someone else to blame. Of course, there is the usual plethora of tirades against capitalism in general (as if the socialism of one part of Germany had been such a howling success) but more specifically, there is American capitalism.
It is all their fault comrades, for investing money in the economy and wanting a return on it. As Mr Schwimmer writes:
“A few weeks ago, as the unemployment figures kept rising and the SPD poll numbers kept falling, Chairman Müntefering began blaming private equity funds for the country’s economic malaise.Well, all these people may get their wish.
Like “locusts” they “devour” German companies, he said. A “black list” was then leaked to the press, containing – you guessed it – the names of American firms only.”
The Market Center Blog says, quoting the left-wing New Republic:
“According to a Boston Consulting Group survey, one in five U.S. companies currently in Germany is planning to relocate at least some operations. Thus,thanks to Schröder and the SPD, Germany is not only an economically dicey investment but a politically dicey one as well.”I guess, they will be able to blame the nasty Yanks again for their problems.
How does any of it make Europe or the European idea great?
Looking for an alibi
I enjoyed the French Ambassador's rebuff in The Independent, who slapped down Denis MacShane's "patronising description" of French small towns "depending on low-cost flights and holidaying Britons for their survival" as "simply ludicrous" (offered in an opinion piece on 20 May).
Disagreeing with MacShane's assertion that the French will be voting on anything but the EU Constitution, Gerard Errera writes that, "if he knew France as he claims, he would have noticed that books on the EU Constitution have been topping the country's best-seller lists for weeks." He might have also have noticed "that a truly democratic and passionate debate about the future of the EU is going on across the Channel."
MacShane, though, is not on his own. Over the past few weeks, I have noticed a succession of pundits – mainly on the BBC – talking down the significance of the referendums, both in France and The Netherlands, claiming that the vote is (mainly) a popular expression of dissatisfaction on the respective governments.
It seems to me that the Euro-luvvies are looking for an alibi. If they can position any "no" results as simply "anti-government" votes, it makes it easier – they think – to call for fresh referendums.
Disagreeing with MacShane's assertion that the French will be voting on anything but the EU Constitution, Gerard Errera writes that, "if he knew France as he claims, he would have noticed that books on the EU Constitution have been topping the country's best-seller lists for weeks." He might have also have noticed "that a truly democratic and passionate debate about the future of the EU is going on across the Channel."
MacShane, though, is not on his own. Over the past few weeks, I have noticed a succession of pundits – mainly on the BBC – talking down the significance of the referendums, both in France and The Netherlands, claiming that the vote is (mainly) a popular expression of dissatisfaction on the respective governments.
It seems to me that the Euro-luvvies are looking for an alibi. If they can position any "no" results as simply "anti-government" votes, it makes it easier – they think – to call for fresh referendums.
Why bother?
"If the choice is Yes or Yes, why bother with a referendum?"
Phillipe Esnol, Socialist Mayor, Saint Germaine-en-Laye (a suburb of Paris), speaking about the French EU referendum. (In today's Telegraph)
Phillipe Esnol, Socialist Mayor, Saint Germaine-en-Laye (a suburb of Paris), speaking about the French EU referendum. (In today's Telegraph)
Against the laws of nature
Says the UPI press agency, "for Schröder's Social Democratic Party to lose the province of North Rhine-Westphalia is like the Democrats in the United States losing Massachusetts, or like Tony Blair losing his seat in Sedgefield. It is against the political laws of nature."
Monday, May 23, 2005
Those battle groups again
Another Monday another meeting of Ministers, though not necessarily of minds. This time round it was Defence and on the agenda was the need to speed up political decision-making for the proposed EU battle groups that are supposed to be up and running by 2008.
The Luxembourg Defence Minister (don’t snigger there at the back), Luc Frieden, explained:
Of course, the EU is not alone in wanting to speed up the political process with military decisions taken ever faster. The Americans are working on that, too. There is a difference, though. Well, several, all to do with the fact that the United States is a single country, a democracy with an accountable government and a clearly defined military structure.
The EU has none of the above: it has no democratic accountability, no single commander in chief, no line of command, no entity to which soldiers can swear an oath of allegiance. Nor has it any specific interests. In the place of all that, it tries to place structures and agreements.
Javier Solana has suggested and the others, presumably, nodded that ministers should take a decision to deploy forces within five days and for the troops to be there, fully deployed within ten days.
That, of course, assumes that there are troops to deploy. It also assumes that the member states and its legislatures will cheerfully accede to these ideas with no fear of political backlash at home.
As we have pointed out before, the proposed European Union Bill, put forward in the last Parliament in Britain, gave the Secretary of State (Foreign or Defence, presumably) extensive powers to push through decisions to do with the common foreign and security policy with no parliamentary debate. We shall have to see whether the new Bill will have the same provisions. And if there is no Bill for reasons to do with the French and Dutch referendums, whether those powers are introduced in some other way.
Mr Frieden seems to think that all member states will modify their national procedures to fall into line with EU practices, but he may find that it is easier to say that than to achieve it.
Meanwhile, according to the EUObserver:
On May 13 there was a ceremony in Lutsk, in Ukraine at which the Chairmen of the Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian parliaments, signed the founding declaration of an Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the three countries.
Historically, those three have been linked for centuries and are closer to each other than they are to, let us say, Spain and Portugal. In the recent Ukrainian election crisis, it was Lithuania and Poland that took an active role, trying to sort matters out in a satisfactory way, while Solana ran around calling for peace and stability.
The idea of this Inter-Parliamentary Assembly grew out of those meetings.
The overriding purpose is to help Ukraine with its process of democratization and to bring it into NATO and the EU eventually (though, I suspect, that eventually is a very long way away).
There is something else though. According to the Eurasia Daily Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation
Will the troops simply be double-hatted? And who is putting together those peacekeeping missions in Moldova and Georgia? Should we not be told? Come to think of it, should Javier Solana not be told?
The Luxembourg Defence Minister (don’t snigger there at the back), Luc Frieden, explained:
“We decided to adopt a proposal which will help us to bring down the time within which decisions are taken to enable the EU to react rapidly to crises to avoid worse coming to pass.”And there you have the problem – the whole plan is so nebulous in its purpose that no specifics can ever be provided.
Of course, the EU is not alone in wanting to speed up the political process with military decisions taken ever faster. The Americans are working on that, too. There is a difference, though. Well, several, all to do with the fact that the United States is a single country, a democracy with an accountable government and a clearly defined military structure.
The EU has none of the above: it has no democratic accountability, no single commander in chief, no line of command, no entity to which soldiers can swear an oath of allegiance. Nor has it any specific interests. In the place of all that, it tries to place structures and agreements.
Javier Solana has suggested and the others, presumably, nodded that ministers should take a decision to deploy forces within five days and for the troops to be there, fully deployed within ten days.
That, of course, assumes that there are troops to deploy. It also assumes that the member states and its legislatures will cheerfully accede to these ideas with no fear of political backlash at home.
As we have pointed out before, the proposed European Union Bill, put forward in the last Parliament in Britain, gave the Secretary of State (Foreign or Defence, presumably) extensive powers to push through decisions to do with the common foreign and security policy with no parliamentary debate. We shall have to see whether the new Bill will have the same provisions. And if there is no Bill for reasons to do with the French and Dutch referendums, whether those powers are introduced in some other way.
Mr Frieden seems to think that all member states will modify their national procedures to fall into line with EU practices, but he may find that it is easier to say that than to achieve it.
Meanwhile, according to the EUObserver:
“…Germany signed itself up to two more battle groups with France and Spain as well as with Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania and Latvia with the first to be ready in the second half of 2008 and the second during the first half of 2010.Intriguing, as news comes of a separate development in Eastern Europe (what a problem those people are, to be sure).
A Nordic group - with Estonia, Finland, Sweden and non-EU members Iceland and Norway - was also formally given the go ahead on Monday and is expected to be up and running in 2008.”
On May 13 there was a ceremony in Lutsk, in Ukraine at which the Chairmen of the Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian parliaments, signed the founding declaration of an Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the three countries.
Historically, those three have been linked for centuries and are closer to each other than they are to, let us say, Spain and Portugal. In the recent Ukrainian election crisis, it was Lithuania and Poland that took an active role, trying to sort matters out in a satisfactory way, while Solana ran around calling for peace and stability.
The idea of this Inter-Parliamentary Assembly grew out of those meetings.
The overriding purpose is to help Ukraine with its process of democratization and to bring it into NATO and the EU eventually (though, I suspect, that eventually is a very long way away).
There is something else though. According to the Eurasia Daily Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation
“Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine are also close to fielding a tripartite peacekeeping battalion. It is an outgrowth of the existing bilateral Ukrainian-Polish and Lithuanian-Polish battalions (UkrPolbat, LitPolbat). On May 11 in Kyiv, Defense Ministers Anatoly Hrytsenko of Ukraine and Gediminas Kirkilas of Lithuania signed an agreement on joining with Poland to create the tripartite LitPolUkrbat.Outside NATO they may be, but how does this fit with the common EU defence policy? NATO has never demanded that its members serve exclusively within its framework. The EU with a common policy will.
Its first mission is planned to begin later this year in Kosovo, with Poland and Ukraine contributing 200 to 300 troops each, and Lithuania 140 troops, to the NATO-led, UN-mandated Kosovo Force (KFOR). Outside NATO's framework, it should be wholly realistic for LitPolUkrbat to consider participating in peacekeeping missions in Moldova and Georgia at these countries' request.”
Will the troops simply be double-hatted? And who is putting together those peacekeeping missions in Moldova and Georgia? Should we not be told? Come to think of it, should Javier Solana not be told?
An American writes ....
Andrew Stuttaford gives an interesting analysis of the European Constitution, the forthcoming referendums and the general situation in the Eurozone on the National Review Corner blog. In particular, he is very forthright about what is and what should be American attitude:
Well, at least we gave Condi Rice the benefit of doubt."Do I think that people over here are looking enough at all this? No.
Do I think that the administration should be doing or saying anything? No, it would be counterproductive.
Do I think that Condi Rice’s supportive comments on the draft ‘constitution’ reveal an ignorance so profound and an imagination so shallow that I am at a loss to understand why she has the job she has? Yes."
There is never any point to appeasement
One of the reasons we need the European Constitution, runs the mantra, is that then Europe “will speak with one voice” and will be stronger in the world. What we have never quite worked out is what it is Europe might want to say with one voice, as there seems to be no evidence of a single interest.
The only reply one ever gets to this eminently reasonable question is that Europe needs to stand up to America. Right, so the single European interest is to oppose the United States? Well, errm, not precisely, but we need to stand up to it and create a multipolar world, not to be confused with multilateralism, which is a way of using up large amounts of money to bleat with great self-satisfaction, achieving little.
So, there we are, standing up to America (and possibly it is about time Secretary of State Rice appreciated that) but how do we do this? One obvious way is opposing everything America does. The trouble is that the United States has proclaimed the aim of its foreign policy to be the spread of democracy.
It is possible to point out various hypocritical actions, all the times the United States decides to support a less than democratic state, like Pakistan because President Musharraf is preferable to the alternative; or the rather nebulous support for the leaders of the various “stans” in Central Asia (not precisely opposed by Russia or the European Union either).
Or we can go the whole hog and actually support all those who oppose the United States. And that, I fear, is what the EU does all too often, pleading a greater sophistication and understanding of world politics.
One spectacular example has been the old and, alas, not too decrepit Communist dictator and murderer, Fidel Castro.
In 2003 the Cuban government imprisoned 75 dissidents and executed three “hijackers” who wanted to escape from the Communist paradise. The EU suspended high level contacts and began to invite those dissidents who are temporarily free to ambassadorial functions.
All that has changed and the engine of change was the new Socialist Spanish government of Zapatero. Urged by him the EU has announced that it has discerned certain changes in the Cuban regime (it must have been using a very powerful microscope) and, therefore, was ready to lift sanctions.
Counter-urged by the new East European member states, who knew all about Communist dictatorships at first hand, and whose representatives would have grown up with pictures of the bearded wonder all over their newspapers and magazines, the EU decided merely to suspend sanctions. Never mind, still a kick in the general direction of Uncle Sam.
Well, it seems Fidel is not all that grateful. Several EU parliamentarians and European journalists went to Cuba last week to attend and monitor a congress of Cuban dissidents. One of them was, in fact, a Spaniard; some others came from the former Communist states.
This was of no importance. One and all, they were frogmarched to the nearest airport, put on a plane and sent packing.
The Czech MEP Karel Schwarrzenberg did not mince his words:0
“This is the typical behaviour of a totalitarian state. I did nothing against the law. They just didn’t like the people I was visiting.”
No doubt he could recall the time when Western visitors were treated in the same way if they tried to make contact with Czech dissidents.
The German Christian Democrat, Arnold Vaatz, who had been sentenced to forced labour under the East German regime, said that he was appalled by the European “romanticism of Cuba”, adding that the dissidents had told him of increased terror and arbitrariness.
The Congress of dissidents did go ahead, despite the inevitable squabbles between the various groups and under the watchful eyes of Castro’s police.
200 people turned up on the first day but only 100 on the second. That may have been fear or a certain feeling that one day is quite sufficient.
The United States made its position clear. A senior diplomat, James Cason, attended, equipped with a videotaped message of support from President Bush.
“We will not rest. We will keep the pressure on until the Cuban people enjoy the same freedom in Havana that they have in America.”
Alas, the “we” does not include the European Union or that many European governments. Not displaying too much worry about the fate of the Cuban people, the spokesman for the Commission, Amadeu Tardio, did make a comment about the expulsion of MEPs and journalists.
He described the incident as “not acceptable”, adding:
“As such incidents occur even the best friends of Cuba would find it difficult to maintain their position.”
What on earth is Mr Tardio talking about? It is not difficult to maintain one’s position as a friend of Cuba or the Cuban people. You just have to oppose the evil government that oppresses them.
Great historic quotes # 1
With thanks to our colleague in Ireland, Anthony Coughlan (who has also spoken at Bruges Group meetings), who reminds us of something Otto von Bismarck wrote in 1880:
“I have always found the word 'Europe' on the lips of people who wanted something from others which they dared not demand under their own names.”Nothing much has changed then.
They use fruitier language in Eastern Europe
In an online interview Mirek Topolánek, the leader of the opposition ODS in the Czech Republic described the European Commission as “shit”, using for some reason the English word.
He also added that no sober person could vote for it. Will they roll out barrels of Czech beer for the referendum?
He also added that no sober person could vote for it. Will they roll out barrels of Czech beer for the referendum?
One must not misoverestimate one’s enemy
We are indebted for that word to one of our most faithful readers and commenters, Mikhael Gennser, who pointed out that the Bush neologism “misunderestimate” can be turned round.
I have finally managed to look at the infamous advertisements run by some of the Dutch MEPs, that have caused an outcry in that country.
It is difficult to tell what is fuelling the growing Dutch opposition to the Constitution: it could be a general discontent with the way Dutch and European politics are going; it could be the now officially acknowledged miscalculation over the euro; it could be the shambles of the Eurovision song contest (is that not a perennial problem?).
It would be very good to think that it is, in fact, the outrageous pro-Constitution video, fronted by four MEPs that convinced a number of those who had not intended to vote, to go out on June 1 and say no to the whole caboodle.
The pictures and words are clearly comprehensible even if one’s knowledge of Dutch is limited. In effect, they are saying that without the Constitution there will be more Holocausts, more Srebrenices, more Madrid bombs.
The Dutch are very sensitive on the first two issues, having been accused of collaborating under the Nazi occupation (though their record is no worse and often better than many others’) and being the ones who supplied the particular battalion that first disarmed the men and boys of Srebrenice, then effectively handed them over to the Serb militia. They were never seen again alive.
To be fair, again, the Srebrenice debacle happened under UN auspices and, while the Dutch government conducted and exhaustive enquiry, produced a report and resigned, the UN and its leadership merely shrugged its collective shoulders.
It is, nevertheless, an odd one to bring up, not least because the Yugoslav war was the largest in post-1945 Europe and coincided with the creation of the European Union.
The EU was around during all the years that the Al-Qaeda cells grew and multiplied in Spain and it is not quite clear how it could prevent another possible bomb attack similar to the one in Madrid last year.
One can go on arguing the historical imbecility of all this propaganda and, indeed, we all have, not least the people who responded to Margot Wallström’s stupidity over Theresienstadt.
The question does remain as to why the yes campaign considers it a good idea to keep coming up with these arguments. Do they really believe what they say: that only further integration and the creation of a European state will stand between us and another Franco-German war, another Holocaust, another massacre, another terrorist attack?
If they do believe it, how do their minds work? Have they looked at the history of the specific events? It looks like the answer to that might be no, as there is a marked tendency to refer to such events as the Holocaust as something that just happened as a result of bad karma, presumably, not as something that was brought about by real people, influenced by real ideologies.
The yes campaigners, or, at least, some of them, presumably, do genuinely believe that without the EU Germany will invade France (or, alternatively, the French will invade Germany, specifically the Ruhr); that without the constitution gas chambers will become functional again across Europe; that a yes vote in France or the Netherlands will guarantee that terrorists will never strike again.
And yet, they are allowed to run around unsupervised and even to make public pronouncements. It is a rum world.
I have finally managed to look at the infamous advertisements run by some of the Dutch MEPs, that have caused an outcry in that country.
It is difficult to tell what is fuelling the growing Dutch opposition to the Constitution: it could be a general discontent with the way Dutch and European politics are going; it could be the now officially acknowledged miscalculation over the euro; it could be the shambles of the Eurovision song contest (is that not a perennial problem?).
It would be very good to think that it is, in fact, the outrageous pro-Constitution video, fronted by four MEPs that convinced a number of those who had not intended to vote, to go out on June 1 and say no to the whole caboodle.
The pictures and words are clearly comprehensible even if one’s knowledge of Dutch is limited. In effect, they are saying that without the Constitution there will be more Holocausts, more Srebrenices, more Madrid bombs.
The Dutch are very sensitive on the first two issues, having been accused of collaborating under the Nazi occupation (though their record is no worse and often better than many others’) and being the ones who supplied the particular battalion that first disarmed the men and boys of Srebrenice, then effectively handed them over to the Serb militia. They were never seen again alive.
To be fair, again, the Srebrenice debacle happened under UN auspices and, while the Dutch government conducted and exhaustive enquiry, produced a report and resigned, the UN and its leadership merely shrugged its collective shoulders.
It is, nevertheless, an odd one to bring up, not least because the Yugoslav war was the largest in post-1945 Europe and coincided with the creation of the European Union.
The EU was around during all the years that the Al-Qaeda cells grew and multiplied in Spain and it is not quite clear how it could prevent another possible bomb attack similar to the one in Madrid last year.
One can go on arguing the historical imbecility of all this propaganda and, indeed, we all have, not least the people who responded to Margot Wallström’s stupidity over Theresienstadt.
The question does remain as to why the yes campaign considers it a good idea to keep coming up with these arguments. Do they really believe what they say: that only further integration and the creation of a European state will stand between us and another Franco-German war, another Holocaust, another massacre, another terrorist attack?
If they do believe it, how do their minds work? Have they looked at the history of the specific events? It looks like the answer to that might be no, as there is a marked tendency to refer to such events as the Holocaust as something that just happened as a result of bad karma, presumably, not as something that was brought about by real people, influenced by real ideologies.
The yes campaigners, or, at least, some of them, presumably, do genuinely believe that without the EU Germany will invade France (or, alternatively, the French will invade Germany, specifically the Ruhr); that without the constitution gas chambers will become functional again across Europe; that a yes vote in France or the Netherlands will guarantee that terrorists will never strike again.
And yet, they are allowed to run around unsupervised and even to make public pronouncements. It is a rum world.
And nappies to you too…
The business section of the Telegraph today offers a “personal view” by Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute, who argues that: It's just rubbish to put recycling on the level of a religion.
He uses as his hook, four-year study by the Environment Agency that, he writes, "has confirmed what many of us, with our back-of-the-envelope calculations, had already worked out: that disposable nappies are no worse for the environment than washable ones." From that, he goes on to explore the economic rationale of recycling, this bringing him to his conclusion that we should recycle if it is rational, not because it is a religion.
If he had been so minded, Butler could then have observed that the problem with the EU environmental policy is precisely that it does elevate recycling to the status of a religion, in the name of the great God "sustainability". This is why its attempts to create a better world will never work.
How interesting, though, that it takes a load of (soiled) nappies to identify this fundamental flaw. No so much out of the mouths of babes...
He uses as his hook, four-year study by the Environment Agency that, he writes, "has confirmed what many of us, with our back-of-the-envelope calculations, had already worked out: that disposable nappies are no worse for the environment than washable ones." From that, he goes on to explore the economic rationale of recycling, this bringing him to his conclusion that we should recycle if it is rational, not because it is a religion.
If he had been so minded, Butler could then have observed that the problem with the EU environmental policy is precisely that it does elevate recycling to the status of a religion, in the name of the great God "sustainability". This is why its attempts to create a better world will never work.
How interesting, though, that it takes a load of (soiled) nappies to identify this fundamental flaw. No so much out of the mouths of babes...
A curious choice of words
The latest instalment in the "battle for the rebate" is given coverage in most of the quality newspapers today (although, strangely, not the Europhile Independent), marking Straw’s arrival in Brussels for a foreign ministers' meeting on the vexed subject of the EU budget.
But no headline is more curious than that offered by The Scotsman, which offers: "Straw holds EU to ransom over plans to scrap Britain's 'fair' £3bn rebate".
Regular readers of this Blog will readily attest to some significant gaps in my education (fortunately, for the large part, filled by my gifted co-editor) but I do not think I am wrong in my understanding of the word "ransom".
As far as I am aware, this is a sum of money demanded by thieves (robbers, brigands, or whatever – sometimes governments, but hey! What's the difference?) for the return of an illegally held person or property.
One can forget the "illegal" bit but, in the context of the Scotsman's headline story, we have a situation where the UK is in receipt of an annual rebate, as an adjustment for a distorted budgetary payment system which would otherwise require of us to pay a disproportionate contribution to the EU.
The other member states are now demanding that we give up all or part of that rebate, in return for… er… exactly nothing. That, in my opinion – which can rarely be described as "humble" – is hardly a ransom situation, especially when be have a copper-bottomed veto, which means that Straw can tell the "colleagues" to go take a running jump.
That reality is better reflected in the Telegraph, which has: "Chancellor talks tough over threat to EU rebate", citing Brown who said yesterday that the Government "would not hesitate" to veto the next EU budget to defend Britain's multi-billion pound rebate. This is the message being delivered by Jack Straw in Brussels today.
What is curious about this is Straw's choice of words, retailed in The Times today, which quoted him on his on arrival in Brussels. There, he said: "The rebate was justified in 1984 when it was agreed. It is fully justified today and we will not hesitate to use our veto if that is necessary. Indeed, it is only the fact that we have a veto that gives a proper bargaining power to the UK."
Those with a memory span slightly longer than a goldfish will instantly recall the Foreign Office "myth rebuttal" exercise, placed on its website on February, where it spoke up in support of Qualified Majority Voting, stating: "Majority Voting helps Britain get what it wants".
"Removing national vetoes," said the Foreign Office, "helps the UK push reform in Europe. For example, without Qualified Majority Voting we could not have secured important reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy or the liberalisation of European energy markets. We are rarely outvoted."
Ho, ho, ho! And is QMV is so helpful in helping Britain get what it wants, why is not Mr Straw pushing for QMV on the budget rebate? Why does a veto give us a "proper bargaining power" on the budget, but not on other matters of national interest? Answers on a postcard please…
And there is one final curiosity. Barroso – amongst others - is claiming that it is only fair that Britain should pay more, as it is a much more wealthy country than it was when Thatcher negotiated the rebate back in 1984. But, since then, the overall contribution is calculated as a proportion of the Gross National Income (GNI), currently fixed at a maximum of one percent.
On this basis, since Britain is a wealthy country, it is automatically paying more than it otherwise would have. Barroso's argument is specious. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
But no headline is more curious than that offered by The Scotsman, which offers: "Straw holds EU to ransom over plans to scrap Britain's 'fair' £3bn rebate".
Regular readers of this Blog will readily attest to some significant gaps in my education (fortunately, for the large part, filled by my gifted co-editor) but I do not think I am wrong in my understanding of the word "ransom".
As far as I am aware, this is a sum of money demanded by thieves (robbers, brigands, or whatever – sometimes governments, but hey! What's the difference?) for the return of an illegally held person or property.
One can forget the "illegal" bit but, in the context of the Scotsman's headline story, we have a situation where the UK is in receipt of an annual rebate, as an adjustment for a distorted budgetary payment system which would otherwise require of us to pay a disproportionate contribution to the EU.
The other member states are now demanding that we give up all or part of that rebate, in return for… er… exactly nothing. That, in my opinion – which can rarely be described as "humble" – is hardly a ransom situation, especially when be have a copper-bottomed veto, which means that Straw can tell the "colleagues" to go take a running jump.
That reality is better reflected in the Telegraph, which has: "Chancellor talks tough over threat to EU rebate", citing Brown who said yesterday that the Government "would not hesitate" to veto the next EU budget to defend Britain's multi-billion pound rebate. This is the message being delivered by Jack Straw in Brussels today.
What is curious about this is Straw's choice of words, retailed in The Times today, which quoted him on his on arrival in Brussels. There, he said: "The rebate was justified in 1984 when it was agreed. It is fully justified today and we will not hesitate to use our veto if that is necessary. Indeed, it is only the fact that we have a veto that gives a proper bargaining power to the UK."
Those with a memory span slightly longer than a goldfish will instantly recall the Foreign Office "myth rebuttal" exercise, placed on its website on February, where it spoke up in support of Qualified Majority Voting, stating: "Majority Voting helps Britain get what it wants".
"Removing national vetoes," said the Foreign Office, "helps the UK push reform in Europe. For example, without Qualified Majority Voting we could not have secured important reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy or the liberalisation of European energy markets. We are rarely outvoted."
Ho, ho, ho! And is QMV is so helpful in helping Britain get what it wants, why is not Mr Straw pushing for QMV on the budget rebate? Why does a veto give us a "proper bargaining power" on the budget, but not on other matters of national interest? Answers on a postcard please…
And there is one final curiosity. Barroso – amongst others - is claiming that it is only fair that Britain should pay more, as it is a much more wealthy country than it was when Thatcher negotiated the rebate back in 1984. But, since then, the overall contribution is calculated as a proportion of the Gross National Income (GNI), currently fixed at a maximum of one percent.
On this basis, since Britain is a wealthy country, it is automatically paying more than it otherwise would have. Barroso's argument is specious. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
Of rats and sinking ships
Although the crashing defeat of Schröder's Social Democrats last night in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia was hardly unexpected, the event could still have unexpected consequences.
One, certainly, was the chancellor bringing forward the general election from next year to this autumn, but there is an even more profound possibility. Schröder has now lost control of the Bundesrat – the upper house of the German federal parliament – controlling only five seats as opposed to the 11 of 16 that his party controlled in 1999.
Yet, it is in the Bundesrat that the final stage of ratification of the EU constitution must take place, and this is not due until 27 May. To ratify the constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote, which Schröder no longer commands.
The länder are already rebellious about being railroaded into ratifying the constitution – the timetable being set by Schröder, simply to influence the French referendum - and the election defeat gives them the opportunity to make their voices heard.
The House has expressed its concerns about the possible accession of Turkey and is uneasy about the lack of participatory rights of the Bundesrat in EU affairs. It wants to increase its influence ahead of EU decisions on subjects which affect its areas of competence, and also wants the individual right for each region to take EU institutions to the European Court of Justice in the event of a breach of the subsidiary principle.
While it is highly unlikely that the House will actually block ratification, with defeat of Schröder in North Rhine-Westphalia, the CDU/CSU could decide to flex its muscles by delaying the process. That, in turn, could influence the French referendum in a way not anticipated by Schröder, affording the Länder an opportunity to negotiate changes to the EU text - by proxy, so to speak – when or if the French reject the constitution.
In that event, we could be seeing another example of the rat leaving the sinking ship – the Bundesrat.
One, certainly, was the chancellor bringing forward the general election from next year to this autumn, but there is an even more profound possibility. Schröder has now lost control of the Bundesrat – the upper house of the German federal parliament – controlling only five seats as opposed to the 11 of 16 that his party controlled in 1999.
Yet, it is in the Bundesrat that the final stage of ratification of the EU constitution must take place, and this is not due until 27 May. To ratify the constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote, which Schröder no longer commands.
The länder are already rebellious about being railroaded into ratifying the constitution – the timetable being set by Schröder, simply to influence the French referendum - and the election defeat gives them the opportunity to make their voices heard.
The House has expressed its concerns about the possible accession of Turkey and is uneasy about the lack of participatory rights of the Bundesrat in EU affairs. It wants to increase its influence ahead of EU decisions on subjects which affect its areas of competence, and also wants the individual right for each region to take EU institutions to the European Court of Justice in the event of a breach of the subsidiary principle.
While it is highly unlikely that the House will actually block ratification, with defeat of Schröder in North Rhine-Westphalia, the CDU/CSU could decide to flex its muscles by delaying the process. That, in turn, could influence the French referendum in a way not anticipated by Schröder, affording the Länder an opportunity to negotiate changes to the EU text - by proxy, so to speak – when or if the French reject the constitution.
In that event, we could be seeing another example of the rat leaving the sinking ship – the Bundesrat.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Has Condi been "captured" by State?
As our readers will recall we discussed exhaustively Secretary of State Rice’s comments on her various trips to Europe and compared them to President Bush’s speech, which unequivocally placed the emphasis on Europe and European countries rather than the European Union.
Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand, seemed wavering, uncertain in her opinions (though her last comments were made in response to a carefully placed question by the Financial Times that was clearly intended to trip her up).
We hear a great deal of what “the Americans” think or what the “United States” wants or thinks. There is no such thing. The size and the variety of the country would preclude that and as a number of our commentators know to their cost, the self-appointed “elite” on the two coasts no longer represents anybody.
There is, however, no one opinion even on the government level. If there is one thing we learnt from the early months of the Iraq war it was that the State Department and the Defence Department had different ideas and different plans. It was, in fact, the multiplicity of plans that was the problem rather than the lack of one, as some people said.
So it is with the European question. By and large, it is the State Department, viewed by many in America and, even, in Washington in much the same light that we view the Foreign Office, to whom the idea of a united and even integrated Europe appeals.
The argument that the European Union, should it ever acquire a common foreign and security policy, will be anti-American, cuts little ice with the diplomats of State. They are there, as someone told to me in Washington, to explain to Americans why the world does not like them, not to represent American interests. (The world in their case consists of other diplomats and members of various multilateral and transnational organizations – the international great and the good, in other words.)
As with our own Foreign Secretaries, so it is with Secretaries of State, only more so: one watches for signs of capture. Sad to say, it is beginning to look as if Condoleezza Rice may have been captured by State. One hopes not but the signs are not good.
ISN Security Watch reports that Secretary of State Rice
What happens then with the much-touted Anglo-American alliance and friendship? Where does Britain come into this scheme? Or for that matter the new member states of Eastern Europe, whose good sense was so notably lauded by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?
Having Germany as a permanent member of the Security Council would be in everybody’s interest. For one thing, it would open the floodgates to other members, thus ensuring that the Security Council would never make any decisions at all. Since most of its decisions are either bad or dangerous or lead to corruption, that would be an entirely good thing. Let them squabble while individual countries would get on with the work through various “coalitions of the willing”.
Then again, if Germany has a permanent seat, Italy may want one as well. Once a country achieves that eminence, it will not want to retreat. Three or four European countries with permanent seats, unwilling to give them up, would signal the end of any EU ambition to become THE one to sit on the Security Council.
Still, even according to the leaked memorandum, Condoleezza Rice makes it clear that she thinks the UN has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously.
Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand, seemed wavering, uncertain in her opinions (though her last comments were made in response to a carefully placed question by the Financial Times that was clearly intended to trip her up).
We hear a great deal of what “the Americans” think or what the “United States” wants or thinks. There is no such thing. The size and the variety of the country would preclude that and as a number of our commentators know to their cost, the self-appointed “elite” on the two coasts no longer represents anybody.
There is, however, no one opinion even on the government level. If there is one thing we learnt from the early months of the Iraq war it was that the State Department and the Defence Department had different ideas and different plans. It was, in fact, the multiplicity of plans that was the problem rather than the lack of one, as some people said.
So it is with the European question. By and large, it is the State Department, viewed by many in America and, even, in Washington in much the same light that we view the Foreign Office, to whom the idea of a united and even integrated Europe appeals.
The argument that the European Union, should it ever acquire a common foreign and security policy, will be anti-American, cuts little ice with the diplomats of State. They are there, as someone told to me in Washington, to explain to Americans why the world does not like them, not to represent American interests. (The world in their case consists of other diplomats and members of various multilateral and transnational organizations – the international great and the good, in other words.)
As with our own Foreign Secretaries, so it is with Secretaries of State, only more so: one watches for signs of capture. Sad to say, it is beginning to look as if Condoleezza Rice may have been captured by State. One hopes not but the signs are not good.
ISN Security Watch reports that Secretary of State Rice
“… has told the leaders of the US Congressional Task Force on the UN that there was a “very poor rationale” for giving Germany a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (UNSC) because the EU was already represented on the council.”The report is based on a leaked memorandum, so it may not be entirely accurate, but it is worrying to think that there is an acceptance at that level of the concept of the EU as one unit that can have so much representation on international organizations but no more.
What happens then with the much-touted Anglo-American alliance and friendship? Where does Britain come into this scheme? Or for that matter the new member states of Eastern Europe, whose good sense was so notably lauded by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?
Having Germany as a permanent member of the Security Council would be in everybody’s interest. For one thing, it would open the floodgates to other members, thus ensuring that the Security Council would never make any decisions at all. Since most of its decisions are either bad or dangerous or lead to corruption, that would be an entirely good thing. Let them squabble while individual countries would get on with the work through various “coalitions of the willing”.
Then again, if Germany has a permanent seat, Italy may want one as well. Once a country achieves that eminence, it will not want to retreat. Three or four European countries with permanent seats, unwilling to give them up, would signal the end of any EU ambition to become THE one to sit on the Security Council.
Still, even according to the leaked memorandum, Condoleezza Rice makes it clear that she thinks the UN has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously.
“In the leaked memo, Rice also said one guideline for restructuring the Security Council should be that “no non-democratic state should become a permanent member”.It’s just this problem of Europe and the European Union that she seems to have problems with. This is a little worrying as the general opinion is that Rice has President Bush’s ear. So far, he has not followed her lead in his pronouncements and may well be listening to other people on this subject.
The memo also quoted Gingrich as saying he doubted that serious change would take place unless the current UN leadership was removed, adding that an entire layer of the UN’s bureaucracy would continue to deteriorate unless the current leadership was cut out. His sentiments were similar to those of the controversial US nominee for the post of ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.
According to the memo, Rice responded to Gingrich by saying: “You won’t get an argument from me.”
Rice also said the principle of allocating jobs in the UN via geographic distribution was a "disgrace”.”
A quarter of a million up
Well, it's something worth celebrating. Courtesy of our steadily increasing band of readers, it only took us 13 months to get there and, if the current 'hit rate is maintained - and I manage to stay out of prison - we will easily have half a million up by the end of the year.
Interestingly, hit number 250,000 came from a US reader, which is not unsurprising as the USA accounts for a good third of our readership. I do not know whether we are improving trans-Atlantic relations, but we are certainly trying.
For the rest, our main readership does come from the UK, with The Netherlands in third place, but we have a good following from Spain and a sizeable scattering from the rest of the world.
And, despite popular request for one now, I think we'll save the party for when we reach a million 'hits'. In the meantime, both Helen and I look forward to seeing some of you on Wednesday, in London. For the rest, we both thank you all for your support.
Interestingly, hit number 250,000 came from a US reader, which is not unsurprising as the USA accounts for a good third of our readership. I do not know whether we are improving trans-Atlantic relations, but we are certainly trying.
For the rest, our main readership does come from the UK, with The Netherlands in third place, but we have a good following from Spain and a sizeable scattering from the rest of the world.
And, despite popular request for one now, I think we'll save the party for when we reach a million 'hits'. In the meantime, both Helen and I look forward to seeing some of you on Wednesday, in London. For the rest, we both thank you all for your support.
The best outcome
The papers today are full of speculation about the outcome of the French referendum, of such confusing diversity that it is pointless even trying to summarise it.
Interestingly, though, after Delors recently let the cat out of the bag about there being a “Plan B” in the event of a French "non" – only to have it denied - The Sunday Telegaph is now revealing that there was a Plan B after all.
In the event of a "non" the 25 EU members plan to issue an emergency joint statement, as long as the rejection is by a small margin. The statement would insist that the constitution lives on and that ratification must continue. Britain would therefore go ahead with its referendum.
Under this plan, the treaty would be voted on again by the French after its ratification by all other EU states. However, if France votes against the treaty by a big majority, a possible outcome dubbed a "grand Non", many EU leaders accept that the constitution would in effect be dead, and it would be futile to try to shore it up with an emergency statement.
While some pundits suggest that we would be better off with a French "oui", the prospect of a French "petit Non" seems to be the best possible outcome. Not least, this would maximise the political pain for Tony Blair – with Britain holding the EU presidency over the crucial period, he would be expected to broker the deal that brought the French back into the fold.
The sight of Blair squirming to justify the constitution to the French – who are already suspicious of its being an "Anglo Saxon Trojan Horse" – is a treat too good to be missed, especially as, at the same time, he will be trying to sell the text to us, as being "Good for Britain".
Altogether then, Wayampi Indians notwithstanding, we on this Blog will be hoping for a very narrow "non" – the narrower the better.
Interestingly, though, after Delors recently let the cat out of the bag about there being a “Plan B” in the event of a French "non" – only to have it denied - The Sunday Telegaph is now revealing that there was a Plan B after all.
In the event of a "non" the 25 EU members plan to issue an emergency joint statement, as long as the rejection is by a small margin. The statement would insist that the constitution lives on and that ratification must continue. Britain would therefore go ahead with its referendum.
Under this plan, the treaty would be voted on again by the French after its ratification by all other EU states. However, if France votes against the treaty by a big majority, a possible outcome dubbed a "grand Non", many EU leaders accept that the constitution would in effect be dead, and it would be futile to try to shore it up with an emergency statement.
While some pundits suggest that we would be better off with a French "oui", the prospect of a French "petit Non" seems to be the best possible outcome. Not least, this would maximise the political pain for Tony Blair – with Britain holding the EU presidency over the crucial period, he would be expected to broker the deal that brought the French back into the fold.
The sight of Blair squirming to justify the constitution to the French – who are already suspicious of its being an "Anglo Saxon Trojan Horse" – is a treat too good to be missed, especially as, at the same time, he will be trying to sell the text to us, as being "Good for Britain".
Altogether then, Wayampi Indians notwithstanding, we on this Blog will be hoping for a very narrow "non" – the narrower the better.
Bright, this one!
"I think there will be a 'yes'. If we don't (vote 'yes'), there is a great risk there will be a 'no'".
Elizabeth Guigou, former French Europe minister, speaking about the French referendum, on The World at One, today.
Elizabeth Guigou, former French Europe minister, speaking about the French referendum, on The World at One, today.
Bring on the terrible twins
Scotland on Sunday reports that, according to a Downing Street spokesman, the great comic double act, Blair and Brown, will move into action after the results from France and the Netherlands come in, to sell the Constitution to the people of Britain.
Remembering the effect Chirac’s involvement in France and certain Dutch politicians’ in Holland has had on the campaign, we on the no side should be greeting this news with joy.
This is especially true as either the spokesman or the Westminster correspondent of the newspaper has seriously misread the election results:
“TONY Blair and Gordon Brown will reprise the 'double act' that helped steer Labour to a third election victory in a desperate attempt to turn public opinion around and win support for the much-derided European constitution.”
Helped to steer? Given the size of the majority in the last parliament and the imbalance in the make-up of the constitutencies, there could have been no other result but a Labour victory. In fact, let us recall, the media was uniformly predicting a much larger one than the electorate delivered.
As it has been noted already, had the Conservative Party been a little more forthcoming on some issues, particularly Europe, the majority would have even been smaller.
The great comic duo has steered Labour to a point where it lost many thousands of votes and has come back into power on 26 per cent of it. Hardly something to be proud of but, not content with “dying” once on a Saturday night in the provinces, the comic duo wants to repeat its performance.
They've finally found a use for the constitution
In an article in The Sunday Times, Matthew Campbell reports on how Chirac is counting on jungle tribes to swing the EU vote.
These are the Wayampi Indians, who inhabit an alligator-infested corner of French Guiana in South America. They are one of the many tribes in the French portfolio of dominions around the globe from the Pacific to the Amazon jungle. Their 1.4m voters, Campbell writes, could swing the result in the French referendum and determine the future of Europe.
Although they only speak rudimentary French, copies of the constitution have been shipped to them at considerable expense on Air France from Paris, and then by helicopter and canoe up the river from Cayenne, the distant capital. The Wayampi, it seems, are particularly pleased to receive them as, we are told, they come in handy for wrapping tapir meat and lighting fires.
These Indians are to be congratulated. They are the first community to have found a use for the constitution.
These are the Wayampi Indians, who inhabit an alligator-infested corner of French Guiana in South America. They are one of the many tribes in the French portfolio of dominions around the globe from the Pacific to the Amazon jungle. Their 1.4m voters, Campbell writes, could swing the result in the French referendum and determine the future of Europe.
Although they only speak rudimentary French, copies of the constitution have been shipped to them at considerable expense on Air France from Paris, and then by helicopter and canoe up the river from Cayenne, the distant capital. The Wayampi, it seems, are particularly pleased to receive them as, we are told, they come in handy for wrapping tapir meat and lighting fires.
These Indians are to be congratulated. They are the first community to have found a use for the constitution.
Booker
After the fishermen, (some) farmers, abattoir owners, electricians, food supplement retailers, chemical manufacturers, lorry drivers, magazine distributors, and sundry others too diverse to mention – to say nothing of the operators of Sally B - it is now the turn of Britain's small animal vets to feel the pinch.
Thanks to an EC directive, Booker writes in today's column, they could soon have to spend a quarter of their working lives recording mountains of almost wholly irrelevant data, forcing them to increase their bills to pet owners by up to 25 percent. He continues:
Let the Euro-luvvies explain that away.
Anyhow, for his next story, Booker picks up on our posting about that idiot Matthew McGregor, styled as "Head of Campaigns – Vote-No", and his debacle on Newsnight last week, plus sundry other matters, all to write a “state of play” article on the forthcoming – possibly – referendum campaign. He writes:
Thanks to an EC directive, Booker writes in today's column, they could soon have to spend a quarter of their working lives recording mountains of almost wholly irrelevant data, forcing them to increase their bills to pet owners by up to 25 percent. He continues:
The threat arises from just one article in the proposed Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2005, implementing directive 2004/28 and now out to 'consultation', which will affect Britain’s 2,500 small animal veterinary practices.It is those last few words that chill the heart: "implementation of the directive's provisions is an obligation of membership of the EU". That also sounds a little bit familiar. Only yesterday we read in the Telegraph, in relation to the absurd rules that have grounded Sally B, the words of a "senior officials from the Department of Transport", who said that "nothing can be done about the rule." And that is because – you guessed it – it is an obligation of membership of the EU.
The new regulations stem from a series of Brussels directives which, since 1990, have sought to protect meat eaters from adverse reactions to drugs used to treat farm animals. But the directives make no distinction between animals for human consumption (including horses eaten on the continent) and domestic pets such as dogs, cats and guinea pigs.
Article 66 of the proposed regulations, headed "Record Keeping", lays down that every time a vet buys in a medicinal product, he or she must record the date, product, quantity, manufacturer's batch number and expiry date. Each time it is dispensed the same data must be recorded, with client details. At the year’s end all drugs dispensed must be checked against stocks remaining, and records kept for five years.
All this might not seem unreasonable until one looks at what it means in practice. As pointed out by Simon Gubbins, the West Midlands vet who drew this to my attention, "every time I see a dog with a bad ear that might get an antiobiotic injection and an anti-inflammory injection, followed by two sorts of tablets and possibly two sorts of topical drops, I will have to spend up to five minutes recording 12 sets of numbers on the clinical records".
Michael Jessop, president-elect of the Small Animals Veterinary Association, explains "in an average day, we may prescribe 200 items, each of which must be recorded, then audited". 30 consultations a day, with five minutes each logging-in time, adds up to two and a half hours a day, or twelve and a half hours a week. This is more than a quarter of the time a vet will be permitted to work under the EC's working time directive.
The implications are horrendous. The loss of time will inevitably mean longer waits for appointments and higher bills. Even with dedicated software, so far not available, tallying up this data will be hugely time-consuming. For the 25 percent of practices not computerised, as Mr Jessop points out, "it will be all but impossible". Any errors will be treated as a criminal offence punishable by fines or imprisonment.
This "batch recording" requirement derives from just one article in a set of regulations 115 pages long. The original purpose of the legislation which inspired them was to protect humans. Not many dogs, cats and guinea pigs are eaten in Britain. Even if the officials now claim it would also be useful to be able to track down any batch of drugs found to be faulty, almost all those millions of pieces of data solemnly logged-in and kept for five years will never be looked at again.
The VMD admitted it will have no "information on the cost of keeping the necessary records" until the consultation is complete. But it insisted that "implementation of the directive's provisions is an obligation of membership of the EU".
Let the Euro-luvvies explain that away.
Anyhow, for his next story, Booker picks up on our posting about that idiot Matthew McGregor, styled as "Head of Campaigns – Vote-No", and his debacle on Newsnight last week, plus sundry other matters, all to write a “state of play” article on the forthcoming – possibly – referendum campaign. He writes:
As the campaign for a referendum on the "Constitution for Europe" stutters into gear, unsure until France votes next Sunday whether we will have one at all, both sides will need to get their act together rather more convincingly than was evident last week. Considering the gravity of the issues at stake, many viewers must have been stunned by the Newsnight discussion last Wednesday, when the spokesmen for each side seemed not just far too young and inexperienced but singularly ill-briefed.Number three, as we call it, tilts at the journalists who claimed that the Queen’s Speech "broke the record" by proposing 45 new Bills. Booker thinks they should be sent on a beginners' course in how our country is now governed:
Fronting for the "Yes" side is "Britain in Europe", with its shambolic track record, hoping that Mr Blair will soon be sending in some rather more heavyweight reinforcements than Douglas Alexander, after his faltering start as our new Europe minister. Along with the Lib Dems and a few Tories, led by Kenneth Clarke, their aim will be to downplay the contents of the Constitution as far as possible, hoping no one will actually read it, to see how much further it would subordinate Britain to a supranational form of government which in almost all significant respects will be able to dictate how our country is run.
Front-running for the "No" camp is an uneasy alliance between Michael Howard's Tory Party and an all-party "No" campaign, set up by the businessmen behind "Business for Sterling" which campaigned effectively against the euro. A central weakness of these groups is their almost comical determination to show that they have nothing against Britain’s membership of the EU as such, but only oppose the constitution.
This will involve them in wondrous intellectual contortions, as they try to distinguish between those bits of the Constitution which are new and those which are simply carried over from previous treaties. The result can be as embarrassing as the young "No" spokesman’s reply to Jeremy Paxman, when he stammered "I don’t think anyone in the No campaign is against there being a constitution". In other words, these "Yesno" campaigners would welcome an EU constitution. It is just this particular constitution they don’t care for.
So far glaringly absent from this line-up is a broader-based "People's Campaign", appealing to ordinary voters who want a grown-up, free-ranging debate on Britain’s relationship with the EU rather than one so tightly constrained from the top as to be meaningless. Next Wednesday at 2 pm, various Eurosceptic groups will meet at Abingdon House, 13 Little College Street, opposite the House of Lords, to discuss launching such a "People's No Campaign". Anyone is welcome to join former Tory and Labour MPs and Neil Herron, the doughty campaigner from the North East, to plan a campaign which is not being set up in rivalry with others but to complement them - in a way which after next Sunday may seem badly needed.
For a start, the only way Blair's proposals for an 18-month session challenged for a record was not in how many Bills he put forward but how few. When John Major put through only 41 in 1994-5, this was historically a record low. Through much of the post-war era, 150 to 200 Bills a year were commonplace.The final story, or "four", deals with two of my own personal obsessions, "speeding" and compulsory metrication, combined in an unexpected way. Booker writes:
A more important point to which these journalists are oblivious is that most of our legislation no longer needs be discussed by Parliament at all. It is issued in the form of statutory instruments or ministerial edicts. Since 1990 the number of these has soared, so that they now average 3,400 a year.
Although much of this "secondary legislation" is trivial, it also now includes many of the more onerous and far-reaching laws going onto our statute book, notably the hundreds of regulations required each year to implement legislation from Brussels (even 10 of Blair’s new Bills are EU-related). If journalists are troubled by what the Evening Standard's Anne McElvoy called this "juggernaut" of new laws our Government is imposing on us, they should first find out how most of our laws are now made, and then recognise which "government" is actually imposing them.
There was understandable uproar over the decision of district judge Bruce Morgan in Ludlow to acquit PC Mark Milton on a speeding charge for driving his police car at 159 mph on the M54. He even criticised the bringing of a prosecution, on the grounds that, as a "crème de la crème" advanced police driver, Milton needed practice at driving fast.It does indeed – one rule for us, and one for them. I wonder if they realise the extent to which they are held in loathing and contempt.
But, interestingly, it was this same Judge Morgan who, in April 2002, had no hesitation in finding a Sunderland market trader, Steve Thoburn, guilty of a criminal offence under EC-inspired law for selling a "pound of bananas". The late Mr Thoburn was clearly not "crème de la crème". To sell a pound of bananas is obviously a criminal act, but it is fine for a policeman to break the speeding laws by 90 miles an hour. This perhaps tells us more about today's Britain than Judge Morgan may have realised.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Now is the time for all good men ...
Browsing through the English-language version of Corriere della Sera (as one does) I came across a couple of articles by one of their star commentators, Gianni Riotta.
One was a prolonged hand-wringing exercise of the possibility of the lustre of the European project being tarnished by the French voting no, ending with what he clearly thinks is a firm warning:
The other article was somewhat more surprising. Its title was The Scandal-stained UN and it began with words similar to those written in the Wall Street Journal Europe many months ago:
It might, of course, confirm some other people’s prejudices, as well. Furthermore, a refusal, even now to condemn all those practices unequivocally does little to dispel those prejudices.
Still, unlike many of the British apologists for the UN (the BBC springs to mind) Gianni Riotta seems to be more on the John Bolton side of the argument about where the UN should be going next. (Not that he would see it that way.)
But it is Signor Riotta’s final conclusion that is priceless in its brilliant and unconscious (I think) humour:
One was a prolonged hand-wringing exercise of the possibility of the lustre of the European project being tarnished by the French voting no, ending with what he clearly thinks is a firm warning:
“If, by a hair’s breadth, the constitution manages to elude the blade of the referendum guillotine, we must thank the French. But the very next day, we should be working to refine our interpretation of the constitution, and to launch a Europe where “social” is not synonymous with the conservatism of a stale, decadent, Ancien Régime.”Of course, as one looks at the shenanigans of Commission President Barroso, the ever more idiotic comments of the fragrant Margot and the staggering stupidity and arrogance of some of the yes campaigners in the Netherlands, the term “Ancien Régime” is precisely the one that comes to mind. I am afraid, it is too late, Signor Riotta.
The other article was somewhat more surprising. Its title was The Scandal-stained UN and it began with words similar to those written in the Wall Street Journal Europe many months ago:
“Let’s suppose for a minute that the chairman of a multinational was under investigation for preferential contracts granted to his own son, while the board was passing kickbacks to bloodthirsty dictators, and executives were resigning in droves under suspicion of bribery. Let’s also suppose that the company’s employees had been accused of raping starving African children in exchange for cookies.Dear me, I thought.Nobody loves the UN any more, not even Italian journalists. In fact, the rest of the article proceeds more in sorrow than in anger, Signor Riotta’s greatest fear being that the UN’s refusal to clean up its act will confirm “the neocons’ worst unilateralist prejudices”.
Finally, let’s imagine that two members of the commission of inquiry had announced that their findings were being covered up. How would public opinion react? With scorn, with impassioned youngsters demonstrating outside the company’s offices, with self-important editorials in the papers, and with demands for swift, sure, guilty verdicts.
This cheerless imaginary scenario is actually, tragically, unfolding at the United Nations, the most important, most prestigious multilateral organization on the planet. The secretary general, Kofi Annan, is entangled in the 50 billion-euro Oil for Food scandal involving under-the-counter payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime, and his son Kojo is accused of covering up embarrassing commissions from Cotecna, one of the companies involved.
Following charges of illegal conduct against Undersecretary-general Benon Sevan, it is now the turn of Maurice Strong, the U.N.’s special envoy to Korea, to suspend himself for being too friendly with a businessman who doubled as an Iraqi bagman.
Two members of the investigation committee, Robert Parton and Miranda Duncan, have resigned in protest at pressure to go easy on Kofi and Kojo Annan in their final report. Sadly, we all know about the Blue Helmets’ sexual transgressions in Africa from the revelations of the young girls who were raped,which we would prefer never to have heard about.”
It might, of course, confirm some other people’s prejudices, as well. Furthermore, a refusal, even now to condemn all those practices unequivocally does little to dispel those prejudices.
Still, unlike many of the British apologists for the UN (the BBC springs to mind) Gianni Riotta seems to be more on the John Bolton side of the argument about where the UN should be going next. (Not that he would see it that way.)
“In recent years, the U.N. has been touted by ad hoc apologists as a moral conscience capable of opposing war, imperialism, and even pollution in the name of peace and harmony. If we concede that this is its role, and not the pragmatic, robust mediation of interests promoted in the name of human rights and development, it is evident that the United Nations is losing its charisma,and is incapable of instilling fear in bullies and bandits.”As it happens the UN has never had much charisma, except for those who did well out of it; nor did it ever instill fear in bullies and bandits, some of the worst, such as the Soviet Union and China, being much cherished permanent members of the Security Council.
But it is Signor Riotta’s final conclusion that is priceless in its brilliant and unconscious (I think) humour:
“For anyone who truly loves the U.N., and wants to serve it with passion, the time for hard, disinterested decisions has arrived. Before September, when the debate on reform will begin, the Glass Palace will have to be cleansed of its oil stains, and regain its former transparency.”You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
One size definitely does not fit all
Among all the articles full of surprise that the people of France and the Netherlands appear to be more cussed than the “traditionally eurosceptic” British, the International Herald Tribune also had one on the economic aspects of the European “experiment.
(That expression reminds me of an old Communist joke about some chap asking at a party meeting whether it was true that Marx and Engels were doctors. Yes, he is told, though, they had PhDs. Well, says the questioner unabashed, why did they not experiment on animals first? I suppose nowadays the animal rights brigade would be up in arms if all these political “experiments” were inflicted on our four-legged friends first.)
Mark Landler of the New York Times looked at the situation in Spain, where the economy or, at least, the housing market is seriously over-heating. (While unemployment remains very high, though Mr Landler did not seem to notice that.)
Mr Landler makes it clear that he thinks the eurozone is a good idea, but he is, nevertheless, bemused with what is happening:
One of the biggest one, however, is the interest rate set by the European Central Bank. Spain, it is considered, could easily absorb a higher rate than 2 per cent.
Meanwhile, just down the road, Italy has gone into a “technical” recession. In other words, its GDP has fallen for the second quarter running. According to the Corriere della Sera:
(That expression reminds me of an old Communist joke about some chap asking at a party meeting whether it was true that Marx and Engels were doctors. Yes, he is told, though, they had PhDs. Well, says the questioner unabashed, why did they not experiment on animals first? I suppose nowadays the animal rights brigade would be up in arms if all these political “experiments” were inflicted on our four-legged friends first.)
Mark Landler of the New York Times looked at the situation in Spain, where the economy or, at least, the housing market is seriously over-heating. (While unemployment remains very high, though Mr Landler did not seem to notice that.)
Mr Landler makes it clear that he thinks the eurozone is a good idea, but he is, nevertheless, bemused with what is happening:
“Nearly two decades after joining the European Union, Spain is on the leading edge of an emerging, and troubling, dichotomy between dynamic European countries with fast-rising asset prices, and lumbering countries with moribund markets,most notably Germany. Far from converging into a more homogeneous bloc, the 12 countries that use the euro are dispersing into sprinters and laggards, with different levels of consumer confidence, industrial activity, and economic vigor. Bustling Ireland, with a growth rate of 5 percent, has little in common with becalmed Italy, where output may shrink this year.There are many reasons for the rapid rise in housing prices, the most rapid since the mid-1980s of any large country in the world, according to Michael Ball, author of an annual survey of the European housing market published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in London.
“This has created a conundrum for the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, which sets interest rates for much of the Continent. For months, the bank has signaled it wants to lift rates. But it is afraid of hobbling weak countries like Germany and the Netherlands.
While the Germans linger on the edge of a recession, Spaniards are taking out cut-rate mortgages to buy and build houses at a furious pace.”
One of the biggest one, however, is the interest rate set by the European Central Bank. Spain, it is considered, could easily absorb a higher rate than 2 per cent.
“Germany is the polar opposite. With an unemployment rate of 11.8 percent and growth of less than 1 percent, prices have been flat or even falling in recent years. Foreign investors are buying German property because it is viewed as a bargain. On the other hand, housing prices are rising at double-digit rates in Ireland and France. "Housing-price inflation is the first indication of a monetary policy that is too expansionary," said Jörg Krämer, the chief economist of HVB Group in Munich. "If we get a bubble, there is a high risk it will burst."”Mark Landler provides no answer. He merely notes the, to him rather strange, phenomenon of the euro not bringing the European economies together or even closer to each other.
Meanwhile, just down the road, Italy has gone into a “technical” recession. In other words, its GDP has fallen for the second quarter running. According to the Corriere della Sera:
“There was a 0.5% drop between January and March in comparison with the previous quarter, and the year-on-year trend has plummeted from +0.8% at the end of 2004 to -0.2%. Again according to data released yesterday by the ISTAT statistics institute, industrial output fell in March by 5.2% on an annual basis.”That’s pretty bad, you might say, but then you are not Silvio Berlusconi, who simply refuses to acknowledge that this is a recession, though he did admit that the situation is not one to encourage optimism.
“Italian domestic consumption is languishing and exports are falling. In the first quarter, all the key Italian economic sectors continued to suffer. In March, textile production fell by 11% on an annual basis, and footwear was down 16.6%. Furniture production had contracted by 8.1%, and output of motor vehicles fell by 9.8%. What is worse, the situation is unlikely to improve in the short term. ISAE (Institute for Studies and Economic Analysis) experts forecast “only weak signs of improvement”.”The worst is yet to come, I fear. The European Commission has decided that the time has come to act on the Italian situation, where the problems are now being described as “structural” not contingent.
“In the light of the new data, the E.U. Commission is stepping up the pace of its inquiry into Italy’s accounts as it prepares to propose infringement procedures in June.”Should the infringement procedures go through, what will they propose as remedy? A huge fine? That should set the economy up, I do not doubt. Then again, Italy is unlikely to pay it.
The love that dare not speak its name
It is rather ironic that, in my commentary to the Booker column of 8 May, I made the following observation:
But now – at least yesterday – The Guardian carried the same story in one of its leaders, under the title: "It ain't broke". Decrying the proposed changes, it noted that the only people likely to gain were large retailers with existing distribution networks. The losers, it said, will probably be everyone else, since higher prices throughout the supply chain will be passed on to publisher and consumer. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is a good rule of thumb," the leader concluded.
However, there was a singular difference between the Booker story and The Guardian contribution. Booker had tracked down the driver behind the proposed change – the British government's insistence that UK practice be brought into line with EU competition law, whereas The Guardian put the blame entirely on the Office of Fair Trading, which is administering the changes on behalf of the government – with not a single mention of the EU.
It really is quite remarkable how many times this happens, with the most Europhile newspapers so anxious to conceal from their readers the malign effects of the organisation they so love. The same goes for pro-EU blogs, few though they are, which are so often remarkably silent on the adverse effects of the "project".
That, in itself, tells you all you need to know about the project. The Euro-luvvies may fawn over their construct, but it is a love that dare not speak it name.
Once again, the malign influence of the EU is to the fore. If only people were more aware of what was going on – beyond that band of devotees who read the Booker column every week – we would all be better off.As it happens, I was commenting on the situation in Botswana but it was that same week that the column carried as its lead story the changes to the system of magazine distribution in this country, instigated in order to bring the UK into line with EU law, that threatens the very survival of many of the periodicals produced in this country and put up to 12,000 retailers out of business.
But now – at least yesterday – The Guardian carried the same story in one of its leaders, under the title: "It ain't broke". Decrying the proposed changes, it noted that the only people likely to gain were large retailers with existing distribution networks. The losers, it said, will probably be everyone else, since higher prices throughout the supply chain will be passed on to publisher and consumer. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is a good rule of thumb," the leader concluded.
However, there was a singular difference between the Booker story and The Guardian contribution. Booker had tracked down the driver behind the proposed change – the British government's insistence that UK practice be brought into line with EU competition law, whereas The Guardian put the blame entirely on the Office of Fair Trading, which is administering the changes on behalf of the government – with not a single mention of the EU.
It really is quite remarkable how many times this happens, with the most Europhile newspapers so anxious to conceal from their readers the malign effects of the organisation they so love. The same goes for pro-EU blogs, few though they are, which are so often remarkably silent on the adverse effects of the "project".
That, in itself, tells you all you need to know about the project. The Euro-luvvies may fawn over their construct, but it is a love that dare not speak it name.
That just about says it all!
Following on from yesterday’s posting on the Sally B, the story about how Britain's last airworthy Flying Fortress has been grounded by an EU regulation is also covered in today's Telegraph.
Although there has been vigorous campaigning to get Sally B exempted from this absurd regulation, the Telegraph cites "senior officials from the Department of Transport", who say that "nothing can be done about the rule."
It took effect on 1 May 1, with no exceptions allowed, and applies across the EU. But, continues the Telegraph:
What the hell is wrong with us in this country, that we seem prepared to put up with this sort of crap?
Although there has been vigorous campaigning to get Sally B exempted from this absurd regulation, the Telegraph cites "senior officials from the Department of Transport", who say that "nothing can be done about the rule."
It took effect on 1 May 1, with no exceptions allowed, and applies across the EU. But, continues the Telegraph:
It is also supposed to affect the only other B17 flying in Europe - Pink Lady, operating in France - although a spokesman for the company said the French government had not enforced the rule and Pink Lady was flying as normal. The Sally B, as a civilian aircraft owned and operated by a small group led by the Danish-born Mrs Sallingboe, appears to be unique in suffering so much from the EU rule...Now doesn't that just about say it all!
What the hell is wrong with us in this country, that we seem prepared to put up with this sort of crap?
Who is this "we", paleface?
In a letter to the Telegraph, published today, Sir Fred Catherwood - former chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board, and 15 years a member of the EU Parliament for Cambridgeshire, including a tenure as its Vice President – writes to implore us to accept the EU constitution.
"Of course", he writes, "the proposed European Constitution contains much that we dislike, as do our own British laws. But it is what we and our partners agreed before the arrival of a dozen new states, each with a vote and a veto at the council table…."
"It is what we and our partners agreed…"? And just precisely who is this "we", paleface?
"Of course", he writes, "the proposed European Constitution contains much that we dislike, as do our own British laws. But it is what we and our partners agreed before the arrival of a dozen new states, each with a vote and a veto at the council table…."
"It is what we and our partners agreed…"? And just precisely who is this "we", paleface?
Vote "yes" or we'll invade France
With polls showing voters swinging between "yes" and "no" - with treaty opponents holding a narrow lead this week - a rerun of 1992, when the French approved the Maastricht treaty by only 51 percent, is possible.
So says an AP report covered by The Guardian website, which also cites French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin saying: "Every vote will count."
Certainly, the French political élites are showing increasing desperation and so, it seems, are the Germans, according to a story in the Canadian daily, the Globe and Mail.
This paper reports how French citizens who thought they would spend a quiet day at the Louvre this week have found themselves assaulted by German youths, dozens of them, intent on plying them with blue-and-yellow flags, heaps of literature and long, impassioned arguments.
It cites Hans-Stefan Stemmer, a 20-year-old Berlin university student, who tells a bewildered elderly couple in fluent French in the museum’s elegant courtyard, "I'm asking you, as fellow Europeans, to think about whether you want my people to retreat back into our old history." They decline his offer of European Union flags, but say they will think about about his entreaties.
Mr. Stemmer, it seems, and hundreds of his comrades are part of a desperate last-ditch effort this week by leaders across Europe to persuade the French to vote in favour of adopting the constitution.
Since nothing seems to have worked, it was time to bring in the Germans. The students have been bussed from across Germany to beg and plead on French streets for people to cast a "oui" vote, in the belief that French citizens, suddenly disillusioned with their media and politicians, are more likely to listen to rank outsiders.
However, the sub-test of the approach is, to say the least, sinister, if not alarming. A "retreat back into our old history" from a German can only really mean one thing, the message effectively being – if you take it to its logical conclusion – "vote 'yes' or we'll invade France – again".
So says an AP report covered by The Guardian website, which also cites French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin saying: "Every vote will count."
Certainly, the French political élites are showing increasing desperation and so, it seems, are the Germans, according to a story in the Canadian daily, the Globe and Mail.
This paper reports how French citizens who thought they would spend a quiet day at the Louvre this week have found themselves assaulted by German youths, dozens of them, intent on plying them with blue-and-yellow flags, heaps of literature and long, impassioned arguments.
It cites Hans-Stefan Stemmer, a 20-year-old Berlin university student, who tells a bewildered elderly couple in fluent French in the museum’s elegant courtyard, "I'm asking you, as fellow Europeans, to think about whether you want my people to retreat back into our old history." They decline his offer of European Union flags, but say they will think about about his entreaties.
Mr. Stemmer, it seems, and hundreds of his comrades are part of a desperate last-ditch effort this week by leaders across Europe to persuade the French to vote in favour of adopting the constitution.
Since nothing seems to have worked, it was time to bring in the Germans. The students have been bussed from across Germany to beg and plead on French streets for people to cast a "oui" vote, in the belief that French citizens, suddenly disillusioned with their media and politicians, are more likely to listen to rank outsiders.
However, the sub-test of the approach is, to say the least, sinister, if not alarming. A "retreat back into our old history" from a German can only really mean one thing, the message effectively being – if you take it to its logical conclusion – "vote 'yes' or we'll invade France – again".
Friday, May 20, 2005
Mustn't get political...
A few weeks ago, via the Booker column, we reported on the how the last remaining British-owned airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress had been stopped from flying by EU rules.
Wrote Booker, at the time: "It seems curiously symbolic…"
In this, I am reminded of the haunting comments made by Pastor Martin Niemöller about the Nazis:
But Sally B is something different. It is a symbol, a reminder of the young men of the US 8th Army Air Force to took to the skies in Europe to defend our freedom. They did not stand alone and fight their own battles. They fought – and died - for us all. Now, Sally B, the last remaining airworthy Flying Fortress in Britain is grounded. But she is not just the property of her custodians. In a way, she belongs to us all and we all have a right to fight the battle to keep her flying – against the enemy that has kept her earth-bound.
Mz Sallingboe, your battle is our battle, whether you like it or not.
Wrote Booker, at the time: "It seems curiously symbolic…"
…that this summer's celebrations of "Victory in Europe" will not include fly-pasts by Britain's last surviving Flying Fortress. For those of us old enough to remember B-17s darkening the skies of southern England in 1943 and 1944, as they flew out for daylight raids on the continent (rather fewer of them returning), there is peculiar irony in the fact that the last of them, the Sally B, owned and run at Duxford by a charity, should have been grounded by a regulation from "Europe".One of the many people who took up the cause of Sally B was the indefatigable ex-airline captain Bryn Wayt but, it seems, his efforts have not been appreciated. He has just received and e-mail from Elly Sallingboe, who describes herself as "Operator, B-17 Preservation", telling him:
The Sally B's website tells the sorry tale of how, under EC regulation 785/2004, the B-17 must now be classified for insurance purposes alongside commercial airliners, prohibitively raising its premiums to the equivalent of £1,000 for each hour of flying time. It is painful to read the letters from a British minister and the head of our Civil Aviation Authority, explaining how, since this is a Brussels regulation, they have no power to grant an exemption for the B-17, although it may seem absurd that the law has been drafted on such a one-size-fits-all basis.
So the last of the "Forts" that helped save Europe 60 years ago, and which serves as an official memorial to the 79,000 US aircrew who lost their lives, can no longer fly again. Bless you, "Europe".
…I want to make it very clear that our sole concern is to get an unsatisfactory Regulation amended so that we can save our B-17. There are no political motives in our campaign, and we do not wish to be associated with any political campaigning. So, please, please STOP using our campaign for your own battle against the EU."There are no political motives…", she writes. Of course there are. The decision to implement EC regulation 785/2004 was a political decision, and the fight against it is a political fight. But, like so many, who inhabit their own corner of misery, Elly Sallingboe believes she (and presumably her immediate colleagues) can fight the good fight without "getting political". She is wrong.
In this, I am reminded of the haunting comments made by Pastor Martin Niemöller about the Nazis:
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.Albeit without the same evil intent, this is the way the EU works, picking off each sector of economic enterprise, one by one. Each, whether it is the fishermen, the farmers, the slaughtermen, the electricians and, as we will see on Sunday in the new Booker column, the vets, deal with the threat as if it applies to them alone. Divided they stand, divided they fall.
But Sally B is something different. It is a symbol, a reminder of the young men of the US 8th Army Air Force to took to the skies in Europe to defend our freedom. They did not stand alone and fight their own battles. They fought – and died - for us all. Now, Sally B, the last remaining airworthy Flying Fortress in Britain is grounded. But she is not just the property of her custodians. In a way, she belongs to us all and we all have a right to fight the battle to keep her flying – against the enemy that has kept her earth-bound.
Mz Sallingboe, your battle is our battle, whether you like it or not.
More news from the Low Countries
The Belgian Parliament to nobody’s surprise has ratified the European Constitution. The Lower House followed the Senate’s endorsement with 118 votes in favour, 18 against and 1 abstention.
However, it is not over, not by a long chalk, let alone the shouting. The 18 votes against were those of Vlaams Belang (still called the Vlaams Blok by some news agencies). The point is that because of the 1993 constitutional reform the ratification has to be completed in the three regional parliaments.
The no camp has protested at the lack of any discussion in the country or even the media of the constitution and its implications, pointing to the different situation in France and the Netherlands. In both those countries, the extended discussion has led to a significant lead for the no side in the opinion polls.
Not surprisingly, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, has firmly announced that there was no point in any more discussion. Instead he reassured everyone that the effects of the Constitution
Of the three regions, the one to watch is Flanders, where the Vlaams Belang has a majority. Verhofstadt himself is a Fleming, which is probably why he hates the Vlaams parties with a passionate hatred.
Meanwhile, over the border in the Netherlands, two opinion polls have put the no side well in the lead.
A poll for RTL television indicated 54% would vote No, with 27% voting Yes. A poll by Centerdata, also published on Thursday, showed 50.9% against the constitution and 28.6% for it.
Among all the various reasons produced by the political establishment to explain the seemingly incomprehensible Dutch attitude – fear of immigration, dislike of the government, dislike of integration that is going too fast – there are a couple of interesting comments by the Socialist MP Harry Van Bommell, one of the leaders of the No campaign.
He is adamant that an important consideration is the threat to the sovereignty of small countries like the Netherlands, presumably not exactly alleviated by President Chirac’s promise that the Constitution will strengthen Franco-German control.
But there is something else, and it ought to be taken into account by our own politicians:
However, it is not over, not by a long chalk, let alone the shouting. The 18 votes against were those of Vlaams Belang (still called the Vlaams Blok by some news agencies). The point is that because of the 1993 constitutional reform the ratification has to be completed in the three regional parliaments.
The no camp has protested at the lack of any discussion in the country or even the media of the constitution and its implications, pointing to the different situation in France and the Netherlands. In both those countries, the extended discussion has led to a significant lead for the no side in the opinion polls.
Not surprisingly, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, has firmly announced that there was no point in any more discussion. Instead he reassured everyone that the effects of the Constitution
“… will not be as tangible as when the euro was introduced, or the borders suppressed”,not necessarily a useful argument.
Of the three regions, the one to watch is Flanders, where the Vlaams Belang has a majority. Verhofstadt himself is a Fleming, which is probably why he hates the Vlaams parties with a passionate hatred.
Meanwhile, over the border in the Netherlands, two opinion polls have put the no side well in the lead.
A poll for RTL television indicated 54% would vote No, with 27% voting Yes. A poll by Centerdata, also published on Thursday, showed 50.9% against the constitution and 28.6% for it.
Among all the various reasons produced by the political establishment to explain the seemingly incomprehensible Dutch attitude – fear of immigration, dislike of the government, dislike of integration that is going too fast – there are a couple of interesting comments by the Socialist MP Harry Van Bommell, one of the leaders of the No campaign.
He is adamant that an important consideration is the threat to the sovereignty of small countries like the Netherlands, presumably not exactly alleviated by President Chirac’s promise that the Constitution will strengthen Franco-German control.
But there is something else, and it ought to be taken into account by our own politicians:
“Mr Van Bommel also said Dutch people were being pushed towards a No vote because of the "ghost stories" being told by the government.Quite so. Enough to make the mildest of people annoyed.
"The justice minister has even said there is a chance of war in Europe if there is a No vote - referring to the break-up of the former republic of Yugoslavia.
"The people in this country sometimes are not completely informed about what is going on, but they are not stupid. They are angry at the government for the fact that they are insulting their intelligence."”
As stupid as he sounds?
Keeping up with the twists and turns of the controversy on the EU budget is more than usually difficult at the moment, not least because I am working on an update for The Great Deception.
I have just reach the point last year when the "great debate" started and comparing the current "cuts" with the batch last year, it is very difficult to discern the difference. With my already very slender grasp of reality (and the first one who agrees on the comments section gets banned!), I really do have difficulty working out which year I am in.
Anyhow, the latest update is provided by the BBC website which, when it confines itself to fact instead of ill-informed opinion (it should leave that to the bloggers) is not too bad.
Barroso, it appears, has ventured out of his lair in Brussels and, in addition to meeting Blair this morning at Chequers – one wonders if they discussed their holiday arrangements – went to that temple of Europhilia, the LSE, to deliver a talk which encompassed the demerits of the British budget rebate.
Telling the students that the rebate was no longer justified, he suggested that British taxpayers would understand that it "has to go" if politicians "had the courage to explain why".
The response, it seems, was less than complimentary, his remarks apparently invoking laughs from the student audience, not out of merriment, but of the domestic soliped variety. Certainly, Barroso seems to be getting a "horse laugh" from Blair, whose spokesman has told the commission president that: "The rebate is fully justified, full stop."
Maybe, what Barroso said today – together with the comments from the Three Musketeers is just pre-referendum posturing, for the benefit of French and Dutch audiences. I would hate to think he is as stupid as he sounds.
I have just reach the point last year when the "great debate" started and comparing the current "cuts" with the batch last year, it is very difficult to discern the difference. With my already very slender grasp of reality (and the first one who agrees on the comments section gets banned!), I really do have difficulty working out which year I am in.
Anyhow, the latest update is provided by the BBC website which, when it confines itself to fact instead of ill-informed opinion (it should leave that to the bloggers) is not too bad.
Barroso, it appears, has ventured out of his lair in Brussels and, in addition to meeting Blair this morning at Chequers – one wonders if they discussed their holiday arrangements – went to that temple of Europhilia, the LSE, to deliver a talk which encompassed the demerits of the British budget rebate.
Telling the students that the rebate was no longer justified, he suggested that British taxpayers would understand that it "has to go" if politicians "had the courage to explain why".
The response, it seems, was less than complimentary, his remarks apparently invoking laughs from the student audience, not out of merriment, but of the domestic soliped variety. Certainly, Barroso seems to be getting a "horse laugh" from Blair, whose spokesman has told the commission president that: "The rebate is fully justified, full stop."
Maybe, what Barroso said today – together with the comments from the Three Musketeers is just pre-referendum posturing, for the benefit of French and Dutch audiences. I would hate to think he is as stupid as he sounds.
Taking to the boats?
There is a particularly stupid comment piece from Bruce Anderson in The Times today, who discusses the "state of play" on the constitution in the "Thunderer" section.
Says the clever-dick, in the context of the prime minister relying on the French delivering a "no" vote to get him off a rather uncomfortable hook, "Messrs Straw and Blair should beware. Anyone intending to rely on the French would be wise to have a Plan B, involving rapid withdrawal to the Channel ports and lots of little ships. The French might still vote 'yes'".
Anderson then concludes that, whatever the French do, "one outcome is certain. In Mr Blair's vacillation, future historians will find further evidence that Jacques Delors was right. The British are allergic to Europe."
I am not sure whether Anderson is parodying the Eurosceptic position, or merely seeking to reflect it, or whether I have missed the point all together. Either way, it totally misrepresents the sentiment which, at the risk of inducing tedium, must be repeated again and again.
We are not against Europe; we have no fear of Europe. And when it comes to the French, I am with the correspondent who wrote in the Telegraph yesterday, who observed that, when you met the ordinary people (Parisians and French motorists excepted) they were friendly, courteous and kind.
That is certainly my experience, to the extent that my loathing for the French must always be taken to mean their politicians (or most of them) and the political élites – a loathing, incidentally, shared by most French citizens.
The essential issue, therefore, remains that we are not against “Europe” but the European Union, a form of government characterised by the single word, "supranational". Meaning, "above the nation", it is best explained as a form of government which has the power to impose on us laws to which we object and which are against the national interest – viz, the Working Time Directive.
Emphasising this word "supranational", in my view, shots the fox which the likes of Mr Douglas Alexander, our new Minister for Europe, likes to set running. According to The Financial Times, he is today addressing a City meeting where he will praise the constitution, stating that: "It recognises that the union is one of free and sovereign nations, sharing our power where that makes us stronger."
More accurately, and truthfully, the union is one in which the political élites of formerly free, sovereign nations – largely without the informed assent of their peoples – have given power to a supranational government which then exercises it without effective restraint, often against our national interest.
This brings me to yesterday’s posting, which sparked a lively discussion of such length that the comment system eventually shut down.
There, I advanced the thesis that the alternative to the "supranational idea" was "intergovernmentalism", inviting questions as to what precisely that meant.
Frankly, at this stage of the debate, I do not know. It is a measure of how "Europe" has stymied thinking, that very little effort has gone into working out credible alternatives. This must be one of our tasks in the months to come, one which the Eurosceptic community has been remiss in not addressing.
For the moment though, we await the results of the referendums in France and The Netherlands. I would not even begin to predict the results – or the consequences. Maybe it will mean that we are deprived of an opportunity to have a referendum, but whatever the outcome, taking to the boats is not the answer. The debate must continue.
Says the clever-dick, in the context of the prime minister relying on the French delivering a "no" vote to get him off a rather uncomfortable hook, "Messrs Straw and Blair should beware. Anyone intending to rely on the French would be wise to have a Plan B, involving rapid withdrawal to the Channel ports and lots of little ships. The French might still vote 'yes'".
Anderson then concludes that, whatever the French do, "one outcome is certain. In Mr Blair's vacillation, future historians will find further evidence that Jacques Delors was right. The British are allergic to Europe."
I am not sure whether Anderson is parodying the Eurosceptic position, or merely seeking to reflect it, or whether I have missed the point all together. Either way, it totally misrepresents the sentiment which, at the risk of inducing tedium, must be repeated again and again.
We are not against Europe; we have no fear of Europe. And when it comes to the French, I am with the correspondent who wrote in the Telegraph yesterday, who observed that, when you met the ordinary people (Parisians and French motorists excepted) they were friendly, courteous and kind.
That is certainly my experience, to the extent that my loathing for the French must always be taken to mean their politicians (or most of them) and the political élites – a loathing, incidentally, shared by most French citizens.
The essential issue, therefore, remains that we are not against “Europe” but the European Union, a form of government characterised by the single word, "supranational". Meaning, "above the nation", it is best explained as a form of government which has the power to impose on us laws to which we object and which are against the national interest – viz, the Working Time Directive.
Emphasising this word "supranational", in my view, shots the fox which the likes of Mr Douglas Alexander, our new Minister for Europe, likes to set running. According to The Financial Times, he is today addressing a City meeting where he will praise the constitution, stating that: "It recognises that the union is one of free and sovereign nations, sharing our power where that makes us stronger."
More accurately, and truthfully, the union is one in which the political élites of formerly free, sovereign nations – largely without the informed assent of their peoples – have given power to a supranational government which then exercises it without effective restraint, often against our national interest.
This brings me to yesterday’s posting, which sparked a lively discussion of such length that the comment system eventually shut down.
There, I advanced the thesis that the alternative to the "supranational idea" was "intergovernmentalism", inviting questions as to what precisely that meant.
Frankly, at this stage of the debate, I do not know. It is a measure of how "Europe" has stymied thinking, that very little effort has gone into working out credible alternatives. This must be one of our tasks in the months to come, one which the Eurosceptic community has been remiss in not addressing.
For the moment though, we await the results of the referendums in France and The Netherlands. I would not even begin to predict the results – or the consequences. Maybe it will mean that we are deprived of an opportunity to have a referendum, but whatever the outcome, taking to the boats is not the answer. The debate must continue.
Try to catch us up
"My tip for today," he advised. "If you see us running, try to catch us up".
Quoted by David Rennie in today's Telegraph, who had been spending the day out with the bomb squad, clearing unexploded shells from Flanders fields.
Not bad advice to a correspondent who more usually spends his time covering the EU.
Quoted by David Rennie in today's Telegraph, who had been spending the day out with the bomb squad, clearing unexploded shells from Flanders fields.
Not bad advice to a correspondent who more usually spends his time covering the EU.
Alexander believes "Yes" camp can win
Douglas Alexander, the government's replacement for Denis MacShane, is looking forward to a referendum on the EU constitution and believes that the "yes" campaign can win.
"My experience as a campaigner teaches me that you win campaigns when you win the arguments. I believe we have the arguments to win this referendum campaign," he told The Times today.
"What emerged from the negotiations, a strengthened role for national governments and parliaments, a reduced commission and more effective decision-making, provides the framework for the kind of reformed Europe that Britain wants," he added.
So there we have it. None us knew it before, but what we all really wanted was a "reformed Europe", which the constitution has given us. And now we've got it, we will all go rushing to the polls and happily vote "yes".
Yea, right.
"My experience as a campaigner teaches me that you win campaigns when you win the arguments. I believe we have the arguments to win this referendum campaign," he told The Times today.
"What emerged from the negotiations, a strengthened role for national governments and parliaments, a reduced commission and more effective decision-making, provides the framework for the kind of reformed Europe that Britain wants," he added.
So there we have it. None us knew it before, but what we all really wanted was a "reformed Europe", which the constitution has given us. And now we've got it, we will all go rushing to the polls and happily vote "yes".
Yea, right.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Other battles, other polls
Hizonner the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is, as we know, a fervent europhile. He supports the Constitution, the euro, the idea that Britain should be on BST permanently because, according to him that will put us in line with the Continent (he, clearly, notices nothing when he goes on one of his jollies) and so on, and so on.
Though he does not support the immunity accorded to Europol officers, without knowing much about it.
However, the Constitution is not his only project. There is the 2012 Olympic bid, in support of which he announces ever higher popular support. Unfortunately, only 1.2 million people have put supportive signatures on the website and we are not quite clear who they are. Perhaps, they are all French tourists.
The arguments against that wretched enterprise are growing so Hizonner commissioned a poll, which, unsurprisingly, came up with the right result. But its methodology is of some interest to those who find it valuable to study how propaganda is created.
A full analysis is given on the Veritas London Assembly Blog.The implications for possible other campaigns are worth considering.
Though he does not support the immunity accorded to Europol officers, without knowing much about it.
However, the Constitution is not his only project. There is the 2012 Olympic bid, in support of which he announces ever higher popular support. Unfortunately, only 1.2 million people have put supportive signatures on the website and we are not quite clear who they are. Perhaps, they are all French tourists.
The arguments against that wretched enterprise are growing so Hizonner commissioned a poll, which, unsurprisingly, came up with the right result. But its methodology is of some interest to those who find it valuable to study how propaganda is created.
A full analysis is given on the Veritas London Assembly Blog.The implications for possible other campaigns are worth considering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)