As our readers will recall there was a slight awkwardness in Cyprus a week before the great enlargement date of May 1, 2004. A referendum was conducted in both parts of the island on some form of reunification: the Turks voted yes, the Greeks, encouraged by their government and certain church leaders, who told the population that they could get a better deal if they held out, voted no. We have now reached pay-back time.
Far from offering the Greek Cypriots a better deal – and one has to remember that because of the vote, their government becomes the official representative of Cyprus on the European Council – the Commission has put together, as it promised back in April a package to help the Turkish Republic of Cyprus (TRNC).
This, as Günther Verheugen, the Enlargement Commissioner has said, is a reward for the Turkish Cypriots, though, almost certainly, the idea of annoying the Greek Cypriots would have had its appeal.
The Commission’s proposals include a 259 million euro aid package, though given the fate of previous aid packages to other countries, that may be a mixed blessing. Of greater importance (and annoyance to the Greeks of Cyprus and Greece) is the proposal to create direct trading links between the EU and TRNC, under which the latter will be able to sell its produce under preferential terms. The goods will have to be clearly labelled and certified to make sure that Turkey, at present TRNC’s only friend and supporter, will not import its own goods to have them re-exported under those terms. Turkey, as a potential applicant to the EU, has a completely different set or trading agreements.
The Greeks of Cyprus and of Greece have protested. They do not want direct trading agreements. The arrangements for the UN-policed “Green Line” are perfectly adequate, say Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister George Iacovou and Government spokesman, Kypros Chrysostomides.
They agreed that there are positive elements to the plan but, Chrysostomides added, “there are also elements that foster secessionist tendencies”. Given that the present system has existed since 1974, when, in response to an Athens backed Greek Cypriot coup whose aim was a unification between the two countries, Turkey invaded the northern part of the island, it seems rather odd to suggest that some change will foster anything. What on earth will Greek intransigence foster?
The Greek foreign ministry spokesman, Yiorgos Koumoutsakos, said that the EU plan had certain “negative aspects”. He liked the idea of aid being given to the TRNC, probably knowing from experience that aid is the best way of keeping a country down, but he, too, opposed the idea of direct trading links. Trade, he and his Cypriot colleagues thought, should continue to go through the South Cyprus ports in the Greek area.
The plan has to be approved by all EU members and the vote needs to be unanimous. All but Greece and Cyprus appear to favour it, but Cyprus (which is really Greek Cyprus) has threatened to fight it and to go to the European Court of Justice. The basis of their complaint is not immediately clear but perhaps they will use the old boxing cry: “We wuz robbed.” Or, perhaps, they will be bought off, though funds are a little low at the moment in the EU as well.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Among the grown-ups
I had the interesting experience today of being interviewed about the EU's Galileo satellite system for a programme on Radio Netherlands.
My interviewer was the defence correspondent, who had not only read my Bruges Group pamphlet but had also done his own background research, and had put in questions to the Dutch presidency. His questions were relevant, informed and the structure of his interview drew out all the salient points.
For once, I felt I was being interviewed by a grown-up - in start contrast to the sort of interviews one gets from BBC personnel. But in this instance - of course - the BBC hasn't even bothered to follow up this issue. Now there's a surprise.
But who needs them? If you haven't already read it, the pamphlet can be reached here.
My interviewer was the defence correspondent, who had not only read my Bruges Group pamphlet but had also done his own background research, and had put in questions to the Dutch presidency. His questions were relevant, informed and the structure of his interview drew out all the salient points.
For once, I felt I was being interviewed by a grown-up - in start contrast to the sort of interviews one gets from BBC personnel. But in this instance - of course - the BBC hasn't even bothered to follow up this issue. Now there's a surprise.
But who needs them? If you haven't already read it, the pamphlet can be reached here.
Will the EU protest if the Communists come back to power?
There is now a serious danger that an active Communist party can become part of a government in a member state, the Czech Republic, to be precise.
President Vaclav Klaus has asked the Interior Minister, Stanislav Gross, to form the new government in the wake of Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla’s resignation, but specified that he must not include any Communists in it.
Unfortunately, Gross may well find himself asking the Communist Party to join the coalition, there being no other way of ensuring a majority in parliament. This possibility has caused some consternation in the Czech press, with the left-wing, formerly Communist Právo and Mlado front Dnes leading the way.
Given the fuss some member states made when the Austrian people voted for Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party, one wonders what will happen when there is an EU government that includes members of a party that is directly and unashamedly linked to the oppressive pre-1989 system.
President Vaclav Klaus has asked the Interior Minister, Stanislav Gross, to form the new government in the wake of Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla’s resignation, but specified that he must not include any Communists in it.
Unfortunately, Gross may well find himself asking the Communist Party to join the coalition, there being no other way of ensuring a majority in parliament. This possibility has caused some consternation in the Czech press, with the left-wing, formerly Communist Právo and Mlado front Dnes leading the way.
Given the fuss some member states made when the Austrian people voted for Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party, one wonders what will happen when there is an EU government that includes members of a party that is directly and unashamedly linked to the oppressive pre-1989 system.
FSB says no to EU Constitution
The Federation of Small Business which represents over 186,000 independent business people formally adopted as policy a motion that was fully supported by branch delegates at its National Conference at Blackpool in March.
The FSB's policy is:
The Federation of Small Businesses calls upon Her Majesty’s Government not to sign the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the grounds that handing over more power to Brussels will have a detrimental impact on the UK business environment.
The voting on the FSB National Conference motion was as follows:
Block Votes For: 104568
Block Votes Against: 5292
Delegate Votes For: 186
Delegate Votes Against: 18
Strangely, although the decision represents a major boost to the "no" campaign, and clearly expresses members wishes, the FSB itself seem to be in no hurry to publicise it. It was left to Peter Troy, chairman of the FSB Darlington Branch to break the news.
This in turn may reflect the political loyalties of key members of the FSB hierarchy, who are so close to Blair that if they got any closer, they'd be.... (deleted).
The FSB's policy is:
The Federation of Small Businesses calls upon Her Majesty’s Government not to sign the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the grounds that handing over more power to Brussels will have a detrimental impact on the UK business environment.
The voting on the FSB National Conference motion was as follows:
Block Votes For: 104568
Block Votes Against: 5292
Delegate Votes For: 186
Delegate Votes Against: 18
Strangely, although the decision represents a major boost to the "no" campaign, and clearly expresses members wishes, the FSB itself seem to be in no hurry to publicise it. It was left to Peter Troy, chairman of the FSB Darlington Branch to break the news.
This in turn may reflect the political loyalties of key members of the FSB hierarchy, who are so close to Blair that if they got any closer, they'd be.... (deleted).
It's all a bit muddled
Where were we? Oh yes, the Portuguese Prime Minister Durao Barroso was chosen by the EU leaders to succeed Romano Prodi and resigned as Portugal’s Prime Minister. His successor as the leader of the conservative Social Democrat party, Pedro Santana Lopes, has had talks with the President and has promised stability for the country. He is tipped to become the next Portuguese Prime Minister.
Durao Barroso is due to face the European Parliament on July 22 (by which time the political groupings will all have to be worked out) and the Socialist Group, the PES, has been grumbling. They do not like the idea of a right-of-centre President of the Commission and they don’t like the fact that Barroso has resigned the Portuguese premiership, in effect accepting the presidency of the Commission before the hearings in the European Parliament.
The right-of-centre group of European People’s Party (EPP) will be the largest in the Parliament but it does not have a majority of members and will have to have support from other groups if it wants to vote Barroso through.
The leader of the EPP, Hans-Gert Pöttering has announced that the decision was, so to speak in the bag, as a deal had been done with the PES. Part of the deal is that socialists will have the European Parliament presidency for the first two and a half years of the parliamentary mandate and hand it over to the EPP for the second half.
If this supposed deal includes a right-wing President of the Commission, the PES has not done well out of it. Unsurprisingly, their leader, Martin Schultz has denied the existence of such a deal. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether any items on the agreement will come true.
Durao Barroso is due to face the European Parliament on July 22 (by which time the political groupings will all have to be worked out) and the Socialist Group, the PES, has been grumbling. They do not like the idea of a right-of-centre President of the Commission and they don’t like the fact that Barroso has resigned the Portuguese premiership, in effect accepting the presidency of the Commission before the hearings in the European Parliament.
The right-of-centre group of European People’s Party (EPP) will be the largest in the Parliament but it does not have a majority of members and will have to have support from other groups if it wants to vote Barroso through.
The leader of the EPP, Hans-Gert Pöttering has announced that the decision was, so to speak in the bag, as a deal had been done with the PES. Part of the deal is that socialists will have the European Parliament presidency for the first two and a half years of the parliamentary mandate and hand it over to the EPP for the second half.
If this supposed deal includes a right-wing President of the Commission, the PES has not done well out of it. Unsurprisingly, their leader, Martin Schultz has denied the existence of such a deal. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether any items on the agreement will come true.
Commission stokes up heat on rebate
Despite the fact that the UK retains a veto over setting the EU budget, the Commission is determined to remove the British rebate, worth up to £5 billion a year.
The Commission proposals - not due to be released until next week but leaked yesterday - would turn the UK into the biggest net contributor to the EU budget, paying 50 percent more than France. This takes into account a Eurostat calculation that Britain last year was the richest of the net contributors with a Gross National Income at 111.2 percent of the EU-15 average.
As predicted by this Blog, to replace the rebate, Michaele Schreyer, EU budget commissioner, is pushing the idea of replacing the British rebate with a "generalised correction mechanism" for all big net contributors. He is seeking to stave off increasing concern in Germany, the Netherlands and even Sweden at the increasing costs of financing the EU.
Any member state which made a net payment more than 0.35 percent of GNI Income would be eligible to a rebate of two-thirds of funds paid above that level, with a cap at 7.5 billion euro a year.
Needless to say, Blair will be opposing this idea and Kinnock and Patten have already weighed in with their support.
However, with the Commission refusing to back down, there looks set to be a mighty battle in the offing, which could have serious repercussions for Blair’s EU referendum as the issue may well come to a head at the height of the campaign.
In stoking up the rebate row, however, it almost make you wonder whether the Commission wants to see Britain deliver a "no" vote, perhaps as a means of getting rid of the foremost member of the awkward squad.
The Commission proposals - not due to be released until next week but leaked yesterday - would turn the UK into the biggest net contributor to the EU budget, paying 50 percent more than France. This takes into account a Eurostat calculation that Britain last year was the richest of the net contributors with a Gross National Income at 111.2 percent of the EU-15 average.
As predicted by this Blog, to replace the rebate, Michaele Schreyer, EU budget commissioner, is pushing the idea of replacing the British rebate with a "generalised correction mechanism" for all big net contributors. He is seeking to stave off increasing concern in Germany, the Netherlands and even Sweden at the increasing costs of financing the EU.
Any member state which made a net payment more than 0.35 percent of GNI Income would be eligible to a rebate of two-thirds of funds paid above that level, with a cap at 7.5 billion euro a year.
Needless to say, Blair will be opposing this idea and Kinnock and Patten have already weighed in with their support.
However, with the Commission refusing to back down, there looks set to be a mighty battle in the offing, which could have serious repercussions for Blair’s EU referendum as the issue may well come to a head at the height of the campaign.
In stoking up the rebate row, however, it almost make you wonder whether the Commission wants to see Britain deliver a "no" vote, perhaps as a means of getting rid of the foremost member of the awkward squad.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Remember the day Britain left the EU?
There is a good article by George Kerevan on the Scotsman website - a spoof retrospective on the day Britain left the EU following a "no" vote at the referendum. To read the article, click here.
On withdrawing from the EU
In response to our earlier Blog on treaty ratification, the question was raised as to whether the UK (or some other member state) could withdraw from the EU invoking the rebus sic stantibus clause of the Vienna Convention.
Alex Dakers, in commenting on this Blog, makes an interesting point that is worth direct posting (so are many other points, incidentally, but I only just thought of doing it this way). He writes:
"There is not an equivalent doctrine of rebus sic stantibus in common law. However, the court-constructed doctrines of "frustration, impossibility and impracticability" other common law countries have achieved the same result.
The modern formulation of the doctrine of frustration can be found in the decision of the House of Lords in Davis Contractors Ltd. v. Fareham U.D.C, since 1956. Lord Radcliffe stated that:
Alex Dakers, in commenting on this Blog, makes an interesting point that is worth direct posting (so are many other points, incidentally, but I only just thought of doing it this way). He writes:
"There is not an equivalent doctrine of rebus sic stantibus in common law. However, the court-constructed doctrines of "frustration, impossibility and impracticability" other common law countries have achieved the same result.
The modern formulation of the doctrine of frustration can be found in the decision of the House of Lords in Davis Contractors Ltd. v. Fareham U.D.C, since 1956. Lord Radcliffe stated that:
…frustration occurs whenever the law recognises that without default of either party, a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances in which performance is called for would render it a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract. Non haec in foedera veni. It was not this that I promised to do."We, the people, did not promise to undertake a process that would lead to full political integration. I think Alex has a point.
Our mistrusted ally
On 20 March 1996, Britain's health secretary Stephen Dorrell gave a statement to a packed House of Commons on the cattle disease Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
After years of denial and confusion about the risks of BSE to human health, what appeared to be a new strain of the related human disease, Creutzfeldt Jacobs Disease (CJD), had unusually appeared in a number of young people.
The announcement not only precipitated the mother and father of all food scares but led to intervention by the EU Commission to ban the exports of all British beef, not just to the EU but world wide. There followed the imposition on Britain by our EU partners a series of irrational and increasingly draconian controls.
This finally provoked the then prime minister John Major into branding his community colleagues a "bunch of shits" and launching what became known as the beef war – a campaign of non-co-operation in the Council, vetoing new legislative measures.
At the centre of all this was the French government, quick to blame the UK for causing this new disease, and then slow to remove the restrictions on British exports when the ban was finally lifted.
But, as Kim Willsher reported in The Sunday Telegraph, while all this was going on, a Mad Cow disease epidemic in France “went completely undetected and led to almost 50,000 severely infected animals entering the food chain
She reports that Researchers at France's official Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) say that "More than 300,000 cows contracted BSE in the past 13 years, 300 times more than the officially recorded cases".
In fact, those of us heavily involved in the issue at the time were fully aware that something was going on – but lack the evidence. But so persistent were the reports of large numbers of BSE in France, with officials burying the carcasses, that the disease became known unofficially as JCB disease.
Today Deutsche Welle is reporting that France stands on the brink of yet another health scandal, as it becomes evident that a major official cover-up has been in progress for over a decade. That is par for the course but, as Britain continues to revel in the description of the "awkward partner", one has to whether that description might be better applied to our "mistrusted ally".
After years of denial and confusion about the risks of BSE to human health, what appeared to be a new strain of the related human disease, Creutzfeldt Jacobs Disease (CJD), had unusually appeared in a number of young people.
The announcement not only precipitated the mother and father of all food scares but led to intervention by the EU Commission to ban the exports of all British beef, not just to the EU but world wide. There followed the imposition on Britain by our EU partners a series of irrational and increasingly draconian controls.
This finally provoked the then prime minister John Major into branding his community colleagues a "bunch of shits" and launching what became known as the beef war – a campaign of non-co-operation in the Council, vetoing new legislative measures.
At the centre of all this was the French government, quick to blame the UK for causing this new disease, and then slow to remove the restrictions on British exports when the ban was finally lifted.
But, as Kim Willsher reported in The Sunday Telegraph, while all this was going on, a Mad Cow disease epidemic in France “went completely undetected and led to almost 50,000 severely infected animals entering the food chain
She reports that Researchers at France's official Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) say that "More than 300,000 cows contracted BSE in the past 13 years, 300 times more than the officially recorded cases".
In fact, those of us heavily involved in the issue at the time were fully aware that something was going on – but lack the evidence. But so persistent were the reports of large numbers of BSE in France, with officials burying the carcasses, that the disease became known unofficially as JCB disease.
Today Deutsche Welle is reporting that France stands on the brink of yet another health scandal, as it becomes evident that a major official cover-up has been in progress for over a decade. That is par for the course but, as Britain continues to revel in the description of the "awkward partner", one has to whether that description might be better applied to our "mistrusted ally".
It seems that the economic figures are not so good
We have had the good news from the eurozone economies (click here). Now it is time for a reality check. According to Eurostat, which has, we think, sorted out its own problems of insider trading, retail sales year on year in May rose by 1.6 per cent in the EU but fell by 0.9 per cent in the 12 eurozone countries.
As our readers will remember the predicted growth depended on rising domestic spending as the eurozone economy could not do well indefinitely just becaue the euro is weak and the rest of the world is beginning to recover. There had to be more for the seeming internal recovery to be sustainable. It seems that the something more is still in the shadows.
In fact, even the EU figures are not as good as one would like them since retail sales fell in from April the 25 by 1.3 per cent and and by 0.4 per cent in 12.
Total retail trade increased in the United Kingdom (+8.0%), Sweden (+5.4%) and Spain (+1.2%). Decreases were observed in Germany (-2.9%), France (-1.1%) and Portugal (-0.5%).
Click here to read eurostat press release.
As our readers will remember the predicted growth depended on rising domestic spending as the eurozone economy could not do well indefinitely just becaue the euro is weak and the rest of the world is beginning to recover. There had to be more for the seeming internal recovery to be sustainable. It seems that the something more is still in the shadows.
In fact, even the EU figures are not as good as one would like them since retail sales fell in from April the 25 by 1.3 per cent and and by 0.4 per cent in 12.
Total retail trade increased in the United Kingdom (+8.0%), Sweden (+5.4%) and Spain (+1.2%). Decreases were observed in Germany (-2.9%), France (-1.1%) and Portugal (-0.5%).
Click here to read eurostat press release.
Be under no illusions
The constitutional treaty – if it is ever ratified – will need revision long before Giscard's famous 50 years. That is the view of two experts invited by The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) to discuss the treaty.
The two experts, Ben Crum from the University of Amsterdam and Giovanni Grevi from the European Policy Centre, were asked to provide a first assessment of the new treaty on 5th July. Grevi, in particular, took the view that the treaty was "too rigid" to last for fifty years, and would need revision in the next ten years.
As an illuminating aside, Grevi also commented on the "democratic deficit", and argued that the election of top EU officials through a democratic mass process together with an improved communication policy and media engagement in Europe could help diminish the information gap.
Like so many of his ilk, the man confuses form with substance, believing that a democratic process – such as elections – necessarily confers democracy on an institution. He also makes the fatal error of asserting that the democratic status of the institution can be improved by increasing the availability of information.
In our experience, there is no shortage of information – as this Blog readily demonstrates. What is missing is the ability of ordinary people to have any influence of the process of government.
However, the important thing that emerges from this exchange of "experts" is further confirmation that EU insiders already believe that a new treaty will be necessary shortly after the constitutional treaty has been ratified (if that happens).
This conforms with the views expressed by Dominique Strauss-Kahn in his report on "Building a Political Europe" (see link on the sidebar), where the current treaty is regarded as the beginning rather than the end of the process of political integration.
If this constitutional treaty is ratified, therefore, be under no illusions that this will be the end of the matter.
The two experts, Ben Crum from the University of Amsterdam and Giovanni Grevi from the European Policy Centre, were asked to provide a first assessment of the new treaty on 5th July. Grevi, in particular, took the view that the treaty was "too rigid" to last for fifty years, and would need revision in the next ten years.
As an illuminating aside, Grevi also commented on the "democratic deficit", and argued that the election of top EU officials through a democratic mass process together with an improved communication policy and media engagement in Europe could help diminish the information gap.
Like so many of his ilk, the man confuses form with substance, believing that a democratic process – such as elections – necessarily confers democracy on an institution. He also makes the fatal error of asserting that the democratic status of the institution can be improved by increasing the availability of information.
In our experience, there is no shortage of information – as this Blog readily demonstrates. What is missing is the ability of ordinary people to have any influence of the process of government.
However, the important thing that emerges from this exchange of "experts" is further confirmation that EU insiders already believe that a new treaty will be necessary shortly after the constitutional treaty has been ratified (if that happens).
This conforms with the views expressed by Dominique Strauss-Kahn in his report on "Building a Political Europe" (see link on the sidebar), where the current treaty is regarded as the beginning rather than the end of the process of political integration.
If this constitutional treaty is ratified, therefore, be under no illusions that this will be the end of the matter.
One has to feel rather sorry for ministers
Their task is to keep telling everyone that the EU is a wonderful institution and the new Constitution is a simply wonderful document, though, of course, it is not really terribly important, since all it does is to tidy up a few outstanding points (in well over 130 pages) but, on the other hand, unimportant though it is, if the people of Britain vote against it, there will be the most terrible consequences. Clear so far?
It gets worse. For they have to do all that, while obviously having not the slightest idea of what is actually in that document.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton (the historian Hugh Thomas), not a eurosceptic, asked a perfectly helpful question in the House on Monday:
Baroness Symons replied that “a short and clear” guide to the Constitutional Treaty was being produced by the Foreign Office as promised by the Prime Minister. That is not quite the same thing, as the good baroness knows. Also, if previous “guides” are anything to go by, it may be short but it will not be particularly clear..
The Foreign Office is also, apparently going to publish a wide range of material that will include “a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the existing treaties and the new Constitutional Treaty.” Quite a good thing really, since then all our minister and politicians might understand what is in that treaty. Whether it is going to be as good as the one that will be published by the British Management Data Foundation, who have consistently produced clear, comprehensible and easy to read texts cum guides cum analysis for each treaty, remains to be seen.
Click here to read the full debate.
Elsewhere, Lord Pearson of Rannoch put down two written questions, asking for lists of countries with which the European Union has free trade agreements and those with whom these agreements are being negotiated. It seems there are quite a few of them, but the EU would not be the EU if it just had free trade agreements.
Instead, it signs so many different categories of agreements with so many different rules and regulations that it is a wonder anybody ever remembers whether they have a free trade agreement, an association agreement or a stabilizationa and association agreement.
Click here to read the full list.
It gets worse. For they have to do all that, while obviously having not the slightest idea of what is actually in that document.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton (the historian Hugh Thomas), not a eurosceptic, asked a perfectly helpful question in the House on Monday:
Whether they [the Government] will commission a revised version of the draft European constitution in plain English.A very good question but the fact is that the Government can do no such thing as the agreed text of the Constitution has to be translated into all the languages, then compared and agreed on. Lord Thomas’s understandable disdain for what comes out of all that is irrelevant to the process that is going on and it is astonishing that a notable historian cannot understand this.
Baroness Symons replied that “a short and clear” guide to the Constitutional Treaty was being produced by the Foreign Office as promised by the Prime Minister. That is not quite the same thing, as the good baroness knows. Also, if previous “guides” are anything to go by, it may be short but it will not be particularly clear..
The Foreign Office is also, apparently going to publish a wide range of material that will include “a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the existing treaties and the new Constitutional Treaty.” Quite a good thing really, since then all our minister and politicians might understand what is in that treaty. Whether it is going to be as good as the one that will be published by the British Management Data Foundation, who have consistently produced clear, comprehensible and easy to read texts cum guides cum analysis for each treaty, remains to be seen.
Click here to read the full debate.
Elsewhere, Lord Pearson of Rannoch put down two written questions, asking for lists of countries with which the European Union has free trade agreements and those with whom these agreements are being negotiated. It seems there are quite a few of them, but the EU would not be the EU if it just had free trade agreements.
Instead, it signs so many different categories of agreements with so many different rules and regulations that it is a wonder anybody ever remembers whether they have a free trade agreement, an association agreement or a stabilizationa and association agreement.
Click here to read the full list.
Questions to the Leader of the House
Following on from the concession made by Blair in the constitutional treaty that co-ordination of economic policy should be agreed under qualified majority rules, Angela Browning, MP for Tiverton and Honiton, asked Peter Hain (formerly Europe Minister), the following oral question in the House (Hansard 1 Jul 2004: Column 442-3):
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the House next week, will the Leader of the House ask him to incorporate in his statement details of how he will manage the United Kingdom's economy in future when there is an European Union constitution? When the Prime Minister made a statement on 21 June, I asked him what voting method would be used for co-ordinating EU economic policy.
He replied that the treaty made it clear that member states determined their economic policy, but he did not specify the voting method. A few moments later, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) repeated the question but he still would not specify the voting method and I therefore tabled a written question.
The Prime Minister referred it to the Minister for Europe, who replied by citing article 1.11(3) of the draft constitutional treaty, which states that part III determines the arrangements. I have studied part III, which clearly states that, because the voting method is not specified, the default applies as per article 1.22(3), thereby making proposals subject to qualified majority voting.
Now that economic policy in this country will be determined by QMV by other countries, perhaps the Chancellor will explain whether he is happy with that arrangement.
Hain answered in the following terms:
The hon. Lady and her colleagues have an obsession with attempting to show that the new draft constitutional treaty is a threat to Britain's interests when the rest of the European Union views it as a triumph for Britain and our negotiators. Only the Conservatives and their allies in the media and elsewhere cannot recognise that.
On tax and the central economic decisions that the Chancellor makes, this Government are the sovereign body. On co-ordinating economic policy, we have been responsible for driving forward an agenda for economic reform in Europe that was determined at the Lisbon summit some years ago. It included liberalisation of energy policy, so that that our companies, which were previously denied the opportunity to get into markets such as France and Germany when their companies had access to ours, were given free access on a level playing field under single market rules.
That is co-ordination of economic policy. Such matters are normally decided by unanimity at the European Council. All decisions at that level are made by unanimity.
What is going on here? The whole point about the series of amendments to the constitutional treaty is that what started off as the responsibility of the European Council was transferred to the Council, and – as Mrs Browning rightly observes – because the voting method is not specified, the "default mode" of QMV applies. Hain does not appear to know this, or is he being "economical with the truth"?
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the House next week, will the Leader of the House ask him to incorporate in his statement details of how he will manage the United Kingdom's economy in future when there is an European Union constitution? When the Prime Minister made a statement on 21 June, I asked him what voting method would be used for co-ordinating EU economic policy.
He replied that the treaty made it clear that member states determined their economic policy, but he did not specify the voting method. A few moments later, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) repeated the question but he still would not specify the voting method and I therefore tabled a written question.
The Prime Minister referred it to the Minister for Europe, who replied by citing article 1.11(3) of the draft constitutional treaty, which states that part III determines the arrangements. I have studied part III, which clearly states that, because the voting method is not specified, the default applies as per article 1.22(3), thereby making proposals subject to qualified majority voting.
Now that economic policy in this country will be determined by QMV by other countries, perhaps the Chancellor will explain whether he is happy with that arrangement.
Hain answered in the following terms:
The hon. Lady and her colleagues have an obsession with attempting to show that the new draft constitutional treaty is a threat to Britain's interests when the rest of the European Union views it as a triumph for Britain and our negotiators. Only the Conservatives and their allies in the media and elsewhere cannot recognise that.
On tax and the central economic decisions that the Chancellor makes, this Government are the sovereign body. On co-ordinating economic policy, we have been responsible for driving forward an agenda for economic reform in Europe that was determined at the Lisbon summit some years ago. It included liberalisation of energy policy, so that that our companies, which were previously denied the opportunity to get into markets such as France and Germany when their companies had access to ours, were given free access on a level playing field under single market rules.
That is co-ordination of economic policy. Such matters are normally decided by unanimity at the European Council. All decisions at that level are made by unanimity.
What is going on here? The whole point about the series of amendments to the constitutional treaty is that what started off as the responsibility of the European Council was transferred to the Council, and – as Mrs Browning rightly observes – because the voting method is not specified, the "default mode" of QMV applies. Hain does not appear to know this, or is he being "economical with the truth"?
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
What if the Constitutional Treaty is not ratified?
In a paper for the Brussels-based European Policy Centre, researcher Lucia Serena Rossi has explored the legal implications of a rejection of the EU constitutional treaty. She has outlined five scenarios ranging from the co-existence of the new legal system with the old treaties, to the dismantling of the current framework and the creation of a new union.
As has this Blog, she agrees that the treaty can only come into force following its ratification by all Member States, and concedes that this is "less and less theoretical problem". But she also argues another point, that if the treaty was dropped, and we were left in the framework of the system currently in force (including the Nice Treaty and the enlargement treaties), some flexibility would still be possible.
She then argues that enhanced co-operation could still be used (with the participation of at least eight member states), “to promote experimental forms of co-operation open to all other member states. Moreover, agreements could be concluded among member states in a similar fashion to the Schengen Agreements, as long as they did not infringe the basic treaties.
With this, she postulates five different scenarios for the eventuality that the constitutional treaty is not ratified:
the coexistence of the Constitutional Treaty with the present system;
the "opt-out" or "opt-in" clauses;
the conclusion of separate agreements providing "exit" or "entry into force" mechanisms;
the clause of "voluntary withdrawal"; and
breaking the present system, by unilateral denunciation
Interestingly, Rossi confirms that it would be possible for a group of nations to go ahead with the constitution but states adhering to the new treaty would also be bound by previous agreements with those states that had not adopted it. This, she writes, would lead to an unsustainable situation.
As to her next offering, the "opt-in - opt-out" scenario, with a group of member states concluding a separate protocol outwith the treaty, this also seems to create unresolvable complications.
But Rossi believes that separate agreements independent of the treaty, providing termination, "exit" or "entry into force" clauses, could be a partial solution, although they would have to be ratified by all 25 member states. Adoption would be very difficult from a political point of view.
Rejecting the idea that any member state could be forced out of the EU, Rossi comes up with the "less elegant solution" of inserting a "voluntary withdrawal" clause in one of the next Accession Treaties (e.g. with Romania or Bulgaria).
But, if none of these solutions were to prove feasible, and the constitutional treaty was brought to a halt, Rossi agrees that the EU would face a very serious political crisis. This situation "could justify… breaking the current system", with one or more member states exiting the treaties currently in force.
This happened in 1985 when Greenland left the EC following a consultative referendum and it negotiated an agreement to become an OCT (Overseas Countries and Territories). Furthermore, in this context of the 1975 referendum, nobody seemed to doubt the sovereign right of the United Kingdom to withdraw.
The German Constitutional Court said (in the 1993 Maastricht Urteil), the states are still "the Masters of the Treaties" and they can always decide to abandon the EU revoking the previous act of accession to the EU by a contrary with a unilateral denunciation.
The International Court of Justice, in its 1980 opinion on the interpretation of the agreement between the WHO and Egypt, stated that the possibility of denunciation is implicit and is accompanied by an obligation of consultation and negotiation.
Rossi adds that an additional possibility would be to invoke the "rebus sic stantibus" clause to withdraw from the current Treaties. This clause, which belongs to general international law and is also codified in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, could be invoked by a state claiming a radical change in the circumstances that originally caused it to join the Union, leading to a drastic modification of the existing obligations. According to Article 54 of the Vienna Convention, it could be argued that, by agreeing to conclude a new Treaty, some parties also agree to allow other parties to withdraw.
This solution, Rossi concludes, would of course be highly traumatic, entailing an unparalleled political crisis. But, from it would emerge a new Union.
To read the full report, click here.
As has this Blog, she agrees that the treaty can only come into force following its ratification by all Member States, and concedes that this is "less and less theoretical problem". But she also argues another point, that if the treaty was dropped, and we were left in the framework of the system currently in force (including the Nice Treaty and the enlargement treaties), some flexibility would still be possible.
She then argues that enhanced co-operation could still be used (with the participation of at least eight member states), “to promote experimental forms of co-operation open to all other member states. Moreover, agreements could be concluded among member states in a similar fashion to the Schengen Agreements, as long as they did not infringe the basic treaties.
With this, she postulates five different scenarios for the eventuality that the constitutional treaty is not ratified:
the coexistence of the Constitutional Treaty with the present system;
the "opt-out" or "opt-in" clauses;
the conclusion of separate agreements providing "exit" or "entry into force" mechanisms;
the clause of "voluntary withdrawal"; and
breaking the present system, by unilateral denunciation
Interestingly, Rossi confirms that it would be possible for a group of nations to go ahead with the constitution but states adhering to the new treaty would also be bound by previous agreements with those states that had not adopted it. This, she writes, would lead to an unsustainable situation.
As to her next offering, the "opt-in - opt-out" scenario, with a group of member states concluding a separate protocol outwith the treaty, this also seems to create unresolvable complications.
But Rossi believes that separate agreements independent of the treaty, providing termination, "exit" or "entry into force" clauses, could be a partial solution, although they would have to be ratified by all 25 member states. Adoption would be very difficult from a political point of view.
Rejecting the idea that any member state could be forced out of the EU, Rossi comes up with the "less elegant solution" of inserting a "voluntary withdrawal" clause in one of the next Accession Treaties (e.g. with Romania or Bulgaria).
But, if none of these solutions were to prove feasible, and the constitutional treaty was brought to a halt, Rossi agrees that the EU would face a very serious political crisis. This situation "could justify… breaking the current system", with one or more member states exiting the treaties currently in force.
This happened in 1985 when Greenland left the EC following a consultative referendum and it negotiated an agreement to become an OCT (Overseas Countries and Territories). Furthermore, in this context of the 1975 referendum, nobody seemed to doubt the sovereign right of the United Kingdom to withdraw.
The German Constitutional Court said (in the 1993 Maastricht Urteil), the states are still "the Masters of the Treaties" and they can always decide to abandon the EU revoking the previous act of accession to the EU by a contrary with a unilateral denunciation.
The International Court of Justice, in its 1980 opinion on the interpretation of the agreement between the WHO and Egypt, stated that the possibility of denunciation is implicit and is accompanied by an obligation of consultation and negotiation.
Rossi adds that an additional possibility would be to invoke the "rebus sic stantibus" clause to withdraw from the current Treaties. This clause, which belongs to general international law and is also codified in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, could be invoked by a state claiming a radical change in the circumstances that originally caused it to join the Union, leading to a drastic modification of the existing obligations. According to Article 54 of the Vienna Convention, it could be argued that, by agreeing to conclude a new Treaty, some parties also agree to allow other parties to withdraw.
This solution, Rossi concludes, would of course be highly traumatic, entailing an unparalleled political crisis. But, from it would emerge a new Union.
To read the full report, click here.
The price of fame
According to Ireland online the cost of Ireland's six-month presidency of the EU was €60.23m.
Ahern clains that sponsorship made a significant contribution to the overall cost, so the €60m was just the state's contribution.
This included the cost of official meetings, travel abroad, hospitality in Ireland, security arrangements, cultural presentations in Ireland and Europe, information services and the presidency website.
However, there is no word yet on whether Ahern's air miles have been taken into account. Given the number of times he rushed round Europe talking to his mates, he should have enough stacked up to holiday in the Bahamas until he retires.
Ahern clains that sponsorship made a significant contribution to the overall cost, so the €60m was just the state's contribution.
This included the cost of official meetings, travel abroad, hospitality in Ireland, security arrangements, cultural presentations in Ireland and Europe, information services and the presidency website.
However, there is no word yet on whether Ahern's air miles have been taken into account. Given the number of times he rushed round Europe talking to his mates, he should have enough stacked up to holiday in the Bahamas until he retires.
EU to have its own KGB?
The Socialist Republic of Sheffield – home secretary Blunkett's stamping ground – was host to a meeting yesterday of the so-called Group of Five, comprising Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain – the EU’s five largest member states.
The main item on the agenda seems to have been "stronger coordination and an increased cooperation" on the security of the EU's external borders, something that has increasingly sinister overtones. Although there is nothing formal at this stage – there rarely is when the EU is planning initiatives – the suspicion is definitely that they are after creating an EU corps of border guards.
Students of the Soviet Union will recall that its borders were guarded be a dedicated force – more commonly known as the KGB. It seems now that the EU has ambitions of following along this route. He believes that, with 25-member states, external border security is a major issues.
The European Union now has 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles) of terrestrial border and 85,000 kilometers of maritime borders.
Adopting the typical obscure language beloved of EU bureaucrats, he proposed that "the G5" adopt a "more integrated approach" to the management of the borders. This is definitely code for a common force and, once France suggests it, it is only a matter of time before we start seeing some definitive proposals from the Commission.
The smaller countries - and Poland - will of course be expected to fall into line.
The main item on the agenda seems to have been "stronger coordination and an increased cooperation" on the security of the EU's external borders, something that has increasingly sinister overtones. Although there is nothing formal at this stage – there rarely is when the EU is planning initiatives – the suspicion is definitely that they are after creating an EU corps of border guards.
Students of the Soviet Union will recall that its borders were guarded be a dedicated force – more commonly known as the KGB. It seems now that the EU has ambitions of following along this route. He believes that, with 25-member states, external border security is a major issues.
The European Union now has 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles) of terrestrial border and 85,000 kilometers of maritime borders.
Adopting the typical obscure language beloved of EU bureaucrats, he proposed that "the G5" adopt a "more integrated approach" to the management of the borders. This is definitely code for a common force and, once France suggests it, it is only a matter of time before we start seeing some definitive proposals from the Commission.
The smaller countries - and Poland - will of course be expected to fall into line.
Schröder once again calls for China arms embargo to be lifted
Chancellor Schröder has once again called for the China arms embargo to be lifted assuring the world that the Communist country has changed greatly since that black day when hundreds of demonstrators were mowed down by tanks in Tianamen Square.
It rather depends on what one means by “change”. There have been no tanks running over demonstrators recently but, then again, there have been no demonstrators either. The lave labour camps are still there and still full to the brim; dissidents still get persecuted; the dying rooms for unwanted babies have not been made illegal; religious groups are persecuted and their members imprisoned and murdered; Taiwan is still being threatened; and Hong Kong is not really allowed to run its own affairs in a reasonably democratic fashion.
On the other hand, Germany like France, would like to sell arms openly to the Chinese, whose defence expenditure increases by leaps and bounds and Chancellor Schröder has expressed himself in favour of unifying China and Taiwan on whatever conditions.
There is some disagreement on the subject within the coalition in the German Federal Government. The Greens are against the lifting of the embargo. As is the way in politics, this issue, too, has created strange bedfellows.
Der Spiegel reported that the German government did not think they could persuade their EU colleagues to lift the embargo and quoted an advisor to the Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who said, apparently with full approval,
It rather depends on what one means by “change”. There have been no tanks running over demonstrators recently but, then again, there have been no demonstrators either. The lave labour camps are still there and still full to the brim; dissidents still get persecuted; the dying rooms for unwanted babies have not been made illegal; religious groups are persecuted and their members imprisoned and murdered; Taiwan is still being threatened; and Hong Kong is not really allowed to run its own affairs in a reasonably democratic fashion.
On the other hand, Germany like France, would like to sell arms openly to the Chinese, whose defence expenditure increases by leaps and bounds and Chancellor Schröder has expressed himself in favour of unifying China and Taiwan on whatever conditions.
There is some disagreement on the subject within the coalition in the German Federal Government. The Greens are against the lifting of the embargo. As is the way in politics, this issue, too, has created strange bedfellows.
Der Spiegel reported that the German government did not think they could persuade their EU colleagues to lift the embargo and quoted an advisor to the Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who said, apparently with full approval,
that the United States "not want European arms in the Strait of Formosa" that could be used against US troops in the event of a conflict with China over Taiwan.We can be sure that either the French or the German government will bring up the subject of the embargo and the need to lift it again and again.
Monday, July 05, 2004
No need to worry
After all that worry with resignations and the need to placate his coalition partners, Silvio Berlusconi has managed to avoid an EU warning over Italy’s budget deficit. The Commission would like to see a system whereby there is an early warning given to all those who are likely to have a budget deficit or, indeed, already have one. A sort of political yellow card, one assumes, except that a red card means you are sent off.
Italy’s deficit for the year is forecast to be 3.2 per cent, whereas it should be below 3 per cent. But then, France and Germany continue to break the deficit rules.
Berlusconi went to the Finance Ministers’ meeting today himself, presumably because there was no relevant minister to hand. He explained how his government intended to correct the financial situation and his explanations were deemed to be perfectly adequate by, among others, the Austrian Finance Minister Karl-Heinz Grasser and the French Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.
As George Formby used to say: “Turned out all right again.”
Italy’s deficit for the year is forecast to be 3.2 per cent, whereas it should be below 3 per cent. But then, France and Germany continue to break the deficit rules.
Berlusconi went to the Finance Ministers’ meeting today himself, presumably because there was no relevant minister to hand. He explained how his government intended to correct the financial situation and his explanations were deemed to be perfectly adequate by, among others, the Austrian Finance Minister Karl-Heinz Grasser and the French Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.
As George Formby used to say: “Turned out all right again.”
Which matters more: European or national politics?
Here is another difference between Britain and its Continental partners: our Commissioners are, one and all, failed politicians, who have no future in this country. When they do return, they become members of the House of Lords but, unlike other peers, do little by way of work. They continue to have lavish lunches and stagger to their feet from time to time to defend the European Union and all its manifestations without, let it be said again, ever declaring their extremely generous pensions as interest.
Not so in other member states. Their Commissioners are frequently failed politicians but equally often they seem to see their stints in “Europe” as a career step in national politics. Romano Prodi is an obvious example. Other Commissioners left in droves in the last couple of months to re-enter the hurly-burly of their country’s political life.
Now it looks like Mario Monti, the present Competition Commissioner, who is due for retirement, will re-emerge as an important Italian politician (wot dat?).
Berlusconi’s government is in trouble on all fronts. The party is unpopular with the electors and the EU is demanding that the budget deficit be reined in. To appeal to the electorate Signor Berlusconi has promised tax cuts; to obey the Commission’s injunctions he has to do the exact opposite. Which will prove to be more important?
Just before a key cabinet meeting that was due to discuss supposedly drastic spending cuts, Giulio Tremonti, the Economy Minister resigned. It could have been worse. Gianfranco Fini, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Alliance Party was going to resign as well. That seems to have been averted.
There had been little love lost between Fini and Tremonti and, clearly, it was the latter who became dispensable, for the time being at least. This is where Mario Monti comes in. The Italian press seems to think that he is the man to step in as the next Economy Minister, sort out the economic mess and calm the coalition. Otherwise, Italy may well find itself on the old treadmill of short-lived governments and frequent elections. Both Romano Prodi and Mario Monti may find Italian politics rather too frenetic after the calm of Brussels.
Not so in other member states. Their Commissioners are frequently failed politicians but equally often they seem to see their stints in “Europe” as a career step in national politics. Romano Prodi is an obvious example. Other Commissioners left in droves in the last couple of months to re-enter the hurly-burly of their country’s political life.
Now it looks like Mario Monti, the present Competition Commissioner, who is due for retirement, will re-emerge as an important Italian politician (wot dat?).
Berlusconi’s government is in trouble on all fronts. The party is unpopular with the electors and the EU is demanding that the budget deficit be reined in. To appeal to the electorate Signor Berlusconi has promised tax cuts; to obey the Commission’s injunctions he has to do the exact opposite. Which will prove to be more important?
Just before a key cabinet meeting that was due to discuss supposedly drastic spending cuts, Giulio Tremonti, the Economy Minister resigned. It could have been worse. Gianfranco Fini, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Alliance Party was going to resign as well. That seems to have been averted.
There had been little love lost between Fini and Tremonti and, clearly, it was the latter who became dispensable, for the time being at least. This is where Mario Monti comes in. The Italian press seems to think that he is the man to step in as the next Economy Minister, sort out the economic mess and calm the coalition. Otherwise, Italy may well find itself on the old treadmill of short-lived governments and frequent elections. Both Romano Prodi and Mario Monti may find Italian politics rather too frenetic after the calm of Brussels.
Rats leaving the ship?
According to the Independent, Jim Dougal, Head of the European Commission in the United Kingdom, has resigned "because convincing people in the UK to tolerate, let alone love, Europe, in present circumstances is an impossible task".
Why anyone should "love" the EU or any other form of government (does anyone "love" Whitehall?) is a mystery, but never mind.
Poor old Jim feels that the bureaucracy in the Commission is "stifling" and the organisation has not yet come to terms with the fall of the Santer Commission. It seems to come as a surprise to him that "Staff are more interested in watching their backs than moving ahead", unaware perhaps that all bureaucracies behave in this fashion.
The man came to the Commission as a former broadcaster and he wanted to "communicate" but he has spent "two years in London pushing paper around my desk, generally the same pieces of paper recirculated, dealing with rules which appeared more to impede communication than facilitate it".
The Commission "has taken on responsibility for selling Europe throughout the Union" but its rules, regulations and bureaucracy "are too cumbersome for it to be effective". It should be the Government's job to present its European enterprise to its people.”
But our Jim doesn't seem to have much time for the Blair idea of blaming the unpopularity of the EU on the Eurosceptic press and the "Euromyth industry". "Those who hate the very thought of any European integration have an open goal because nobody challenges them".
And here we have the punch line: "The pro-European lobby must get out of its permanently defensive and reactive mode. It must have credible leaders and a credible voice". And they "must initiate the debate".
Certainly, our Jim ain’t going to do it any longer. He seems to be too busy manning the lifeboats.
Why anyone should "love" the EU or any other form of government (does anyone "love" Whitehall?) is a mystery, but never mind.
Poor old Jim feels that the bureaucracy in the Commission is "stifling" and the organisation has not yet come to terms with the fall of the Santer Commission. It seems to come as a surprise to him that "Staff are more interested in watching their backs than moving ahead", unaware perhaps that all bureaucracies behave in this fashion.
The man came to the Commission as a former broadcaster and he wanted to "communicate" but he has spent "two years in London pushing paper around my desk, generally the same pieces of paper recirculated, dealing with rules which appeared more to impede communication than facilitate it".
The Commission "has taken on responsibility for selling Europe throughout the Union" but its rules, regulations and bureaucracy "are too cumbersome for it to be effective". It should be the Government's job to present its European enterprise to its people.”
But our Jim doesn't seem to have much time for the Blair idea of blaming the unpopularity of the EU on the Eurosceptic press and the "Euromyth industry". "Those who hate the very thought of any European integration have an open goal because nobody challenges them".
And here we have the punch line: "The pro-European lobby must get out of its permanently defensive and reactive mode. It must have credible leaders and a credible voice". And they "must initiate the debate".
Certainly, our Jim ain’t going to do it any longer. He seems to be too busy manning the lifeboats.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
When in doubt, try to have more powers of control
Before her execution during the French Revolutionary Terror, Madame Roland, the prominent Girondist and wife to another one, is supposed to have exclaimed: “Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name.”.
Without using that language, we can but sigh about the crimes against liberty that are committed or planned in the name of anti-terrorist security.
Tomorrow Mr Blunkett, who is bidding to be one of the least successful Home Secretaries of the last thirty years, will be hosting a meeting in Sheffield of the Interior Ministers of the so-called G5, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. (That makes 5 with the UK but I don’t exactly understand the so-called part of it. So-called by whom? I have never heard that expression until I read it in the news release today.)
Mr Blunkett’s great suggestion will be the pooling of the DNA database across the EU. The buzz-word is co-operation. The EU must have more co-operation across national borders; more information on fingerprints and biometric records must be pooled.
Whatever for? Plenty of information crosses borders already and, in any case, the fight against terrorism is world-wide. This is just an excuse to integrate policing and to collect more and more information about all sorts of people.
Mr Blunkett assures us that pooling information would have prevented the Madrid outrage of this May. Really? How? It seems the Spanish police and, possibly, their colleagues in the other countries, were fully aware who were the people active in the Al-Quaeda cells that had been established over the last ten years in that country – long before 9/11.
The only thing that could have prevented the Madrid horror, short of indefinite preventive detention of all suspects, is greater vigilance on the part of the authorities and, dare one say it, on the part of the public. The idea that a dozen rucksacks, stuffed with explosives could have been left up and down the Madrid underground system with nobody, nobody noticing or reporting them, beggars belief. Or perhaps, they were reported but this was ignored and the police is keeping very quiet.
There is plenty of information around and plenty of co-operation as is obvious from daily reports. Of course, police forces must talk to each other but, as many of the more liberal Arab and North African writers and politicians have attested, a change of attitude in many European countries and, in particular, in the establishments of those countries is also needed.
Above all, the fight against terrorism must not be used as an excuse for a greater centralization of policing across the EU and for yet more controls placed on peaceful, law-abiding citizens. And now that I think of it, how can five countries make that sort of a decision for the whole of the EU, which now has 25 members?
Without using that language, we can but sigh about the crimes against liberty that are committed or planned in the name of anti-terrorist security.
Tomorrow Mr Blunkett, who is bidding to be one of the least successful Home Secretaries of the last thirty years, will be hosting a meeting in Sheffield of the Interior Ministers of the so-called G5, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. (That makes 5 with the UK but I don’t exactly understand the so-called part of it. So-called by whom? I have never heard that expression until I read it in the news release today.)
Mr Blunkett’s great suggestion will be the pooling of the DNA database across the EU. The buzz-word is co-operation. The EU must have more co-operation across national borders; more information on fingerprints and biometric records must be pooled.
Whatever for? Plenty of information crosses borders already and, in any case, the fight against terrorism is world-wide. This is just an excuse to integrate policing and to collect more and more information about all sorts of people.
Mr Blunkett assures us that pooling information would have prevented the Madrid outrage of this May. Really? How? It seems the Spanish police and, possibly, their colleagues in the other countries, were fully aware who were the people active in the Al-Quaeda cells that had been established over the last ten years in that country – long before 9/11.
The only thing that could have prevented the Madrid horror, short of indefinite preventive detention of all suspects, is greater vigilance on the part of the authorities and, dare one say it, on the part of the public. The idea that a dozen rucksacks, stuffed with explosives could have been left up and down the Madrid underground system with nobody, nobody noticing or reporting them, beggars belief. Or perhaps, they were reported but this was ignored and the police is keeping very quiet.
There is plenty of information around and plenty of co-operation as is obvious from daily reports. Of course, police forces must talk to each other but, as many of the more liberal Arab and North African writers and politicians have attested, a change of attitude in many European countries and, in particular, in the establishments of those countries is also needed.
Above all, the fight against terrorism must not be used as an excuse for a greater centralization of policing across the EU and for yet more controls placed on peaceful, law-abiding citizens. And now that I think of it, how can five countries make that sort of a decision for the whole of the EU, which now has 25 members?
Just make that case
Once again the long-suffering listeners of the BBC’s TheWorld this Weekend were told that the Government and the Prime Minister, in particular, must make the “pro-Europe” case or go under in the referendum. This time the words of wisdom came from Sir Stephen Wall, until recently Mr Blair’s chief adviser on Europe and the EU (good to know that they are finally beginning to grasp the difference, though one wonders whether Sir Stephen’s advice always made clear distinctions).
Of course, Sir Stephen is not a politician and is, therefore, more likely to use arguments, however cock-eyed they may be and less likely to repeat the same phrases.
For instance, he assured the inteviewer that the supporters of the EU Constitution must “capture some of the high ground”. This is suitably modest. Only some of the high ground and not the moral one, at that. Surely they can manage that. Well, I don’t know. For all his intelligence and abilities, Sir Stephen’s arguments do not make a great deal of sense:
That was then. This is now. We are not talking about an alliance or some kind of a free-trade agreement that would prevent war or make it less likely. We are talking about a state in the making, a deeply integrated political entity (as every leader on the Continent admits) and a long, convoluted, detailed, intrusive, centralizing, over-regulating Constitution. What kind of a national rivalry needs that document in order not to erupt into outright hostility?
Come to think of it, between whom does Sir Stephen Wall envisage the war that is to be prevented by M Giscard d’Estaing’s somewhat revised document? What about other rival countries in the world? Have they all abandoned their independence and rushed into a union or are they all (and I mean all) beating each other up all the time? Has Sir Stephen not noticed that wars tend to be caused by certain political systems and that the worst of the modern wars have been waged by governments against their own people?
Clearly, the old, old argument about the EU keeping the peace will be trotted out again. What a good thing this blog has dealt with it already. (Click here to read our EU Myth). Could we have something new, please?
Of course, Sir Stephen is not a politician and is, therefore, more likely to use arguments, however cock-eyed they may be and less likely to repeat the same phrases.
For instance, he assured the inteviewer that the supporters of the EU Constitution must “capture some of the high ground”. This is suitably modest. Only some of the high ground and not the moral one, at that. Surely they can manage that. Well, I don’t know. For all his intelligence and abilities, Sir Stephen’s arguments do not make a great deal of sense:
"In a reasonable and rational way, we have to set out for people that the EU - for all its faults - was founded because people rightly felt after two world wars that we had to find a way of managing the squabbles between rival nations without them going to war. And nobody has yet thought of a better way of doing it. It has worked, and it has worked pretty successfully."This is complete nonsense. The EU in any of its forms was not founded immediately after the Second World War but more than ten years after, when the said rival nations could not have gone to war even if they wanted to. Long before that the geopolitical situation had changed and the West had to stand together against the new enemy: Communism and the Soviet system, as it did with the help of the United States (and Canada, also a member of NATO).
That was then. This is now. We are not talking about an alliance or some kind of a free-trade agreement that would prevent war or make it less likely. We are talking about a state in the making, a deeply integrated political entity (as every leader on the Continent admits) and a long, convoluted, detailed, intrusive, centralizing, over-regulating Constitution. What kind of a national rivalry needs that document in order not to erupt into outright hostility?
Come to think of it, between whom does Sir Stephen Wall envisage the war that is to be prevented by M Giscard d’Estaing’s somewhat revised document? What about other rival countries in the world? Have they all abandoned their independence and rushed into a union or are they all (and I mean all) beating each other up all the time? Has Sir Stephen not noticed that wars tend to be caused by certain political systems and that the worst of the modern wars have been waged by governments against their own people?
Clearly, the old, old argument about the EU keeping the peace will be trotted out again. What a good thing this blog has dealt with it already. (Click here to read our EU Myth). Could we have something new, please?
Eurozone to grow?
The European Commission has announced that “solid world trade, a weakening euro and consumer demand” meant that economic growth in the eurozone is likely to rise above the predicted 1.7 per cent, in itself rather low.
Nevertheless, the recently appointed but outgoing Economic Commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, was not precisely in up-beat mood. He said he could make no predictions for 2005 and expressed a worry that rising oil prices might trigger off another inflation.
Nevertheless, the recently appointed but outgoing Economic Commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, was not precisely in up-beat mood. He said he could make no predictions for 2005 and expressed a worry that rising oil prices might trigger off another inflation.
“The recovery (in the eurozone) is not yet self-sustaining and, in the context of a maturing global trade cycle, robust domestic demand will become increasingly necessary,” – said Mr Almunia.He criticised the member states who breached the budget deficit rules, making it clear that by 2005 as many as half of the 12 would be running deficits. (One wonders what the point is of rules that are obeyed by only half of those to whom they apply. And does not include EU member states outside the eurozone, like the new intake, most of whom will have large deficits.)
“This is particularly urgent since the window of opportunity before the impact of ageing is fully felt is small and closing,” – he added somewhat mysteriously.Curiously, he did not criticise anybody for failing to carry out any structural reforms in order to make the economies stronger and more productive. After all, relying on other economies strengthening and one's own currency weakening is not precisely the sort of healthy, sustainable economic development that was envisaged when the euro was imposed on all these countries.
Let us recall
Let us, on this day, July 4, recall some of the sonorous words of the American Declaration of Independence, words that neither the Laeken Declaration, nor the Preamble to the draft EU Constitution can rival, no matter how much former President Giscard d’Estaing postures:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.I leave it to all our readers to decide whether those words are applicable to us or not.
Global repositioning
Extracted from the Booker column - Sunday Telegraph
A press conference tomorrow will attempt to raise the alarm on how the "common European defence identity" is pushing to breaking point Britain's unique defence and intelligence relationship with the United States. At the invitation of the Bruges Group, an all-party Eurosceptic think tank, Gerald Howarth, the Tory spokesmen on defence procurement, and Dr Richard North will explain the two issues involved.
The first is the Pentagon's instruction to US contractors not to release vital "source codes" to Britain for the joint strike fighter, for fear this information might be passed on to Britain's EU allies.
The second, explained by Dr North in a new Bruges Group pamphlet, is US alarm over the EU's Galileo satellite project, which will be a direct rival to America's GPS (global positioning satellite) system.
Although the EU insists that Galileo is for civilian use only, the project's underlying purpose is to provide a military rival to GPS, which could be of huge value to America's potential enemies, including Russia and China, which has a 20 per cent share in Galileo. The US is so worried by this threat to its military security that it is discussing a plan to spend $3 billion on a jamming system, and even to put up satellites that could blow Galileo out of the sky.
Britain is helping to foot the bill for Galileo, which will be under the personal control of the EU's "foreign minister", and the US is sufficiently alarmed by our support for the project that, as is now being openly stated in Washington, this could prove the end of any "special relationship". Mr Blair must now decide which way Britain will jump.
For the full Booker column, click here.
A press conference tomorrow will attempt to raise the alarm on how the "common European defence identity" is pushing to breaking point Britain's unique defence and intelligence relationship with the United States. At the invitation of the Bruges Group, an all-party Eurosceptic think tank, Gerald Howarth, the Tory spokesmen on defence procurement, and Dr Richard North will explain the two issues involved.
The first is the Pentagon's instruction to US contractors not to release vital "source codes" to Britain for the joint strike fighter, for fear this information might be passed on to Britain's EU allies.
The second, explained by Dr North in a new Bruges Group pamphlet, is US alarm over the EU's Galileo satellite project, which will be a direct rival to America's GPS (global positioning satellite) system.
Although the EU insists that Galileo is for civilian use only, the project's underlying purpose is to provide a military rival to GPS, which could be of huge value to America's potential enemies, including Russia and China, which has a 20 per cent share in Galileo. The US is so worried by this threat to its military security that it is discussing a plan to spend $3 billion on a jamming system, and even to put up satellites that could blow Galileo out of the sky.
Britain is helping to foot the bill for Galileo, which will be under the personal control of the EU's "foreign minister", and the US is sufficiently alarmed by our support for the project that, as is now being openly stated in Washington, this could prove the end of any "special relationship". Mr Blair must now decide which way Britain will jump.
For the full Booker column, click here.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Constitution to be signed in Rome
The EU constitutional treaty will be signed by EU member state leaders in Rome on 20 November.
In Paris for bilateral discussions with Chirac, Italian premier Berlusconi said the ceremony would take place in the same room in the Capitol where the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.
The 25 member states will then have two years to ratify the historic document, either by parliamentary vote or by national referendum, before it is planned to take effect at the end of 2006.
In Paris for bilateral discussions with Chirac, Italian premier Berlusconi said the ceremony would take place in the same room in the Capitol where the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.
The 25 member states will then have two years to ratify the historic document, either by parliamentary vote or by national referendum, before it is planned to take effect at the end of 2006.
Chancellor Schröder is in trouble
Chancellor Schröder reminds one of William Brown of the Just William books. His tie is in place and his socks are not, one assumes, falling down but, like William, he is in trouble on many fronts. And like William he thinks that talking fast is the way to get out of trouble.
Yesterday (Friday, July 2) he was speaking to the Bundestag, making his government’s official statement about the EU Constitution. Not surprisingly, he was in favour of it.
There are two things to remember here. The first is that Schröder was one of numerous EU leaders who went to Brussels on June 17 having just lost heavily in the European elections in Germany. His party the SPD had won 21.5 per cent of the vote, which was something of a come-down from the 30.7 per cent of 1999. At the same time they suffered another in the series of defeats in regional elections. Altogether, this was the worst result the socialists have had since World War II.
That is the bad news for Schröder. The good news is that Germany cannot have a referendum unless there is a change in the German Federal Consitution. This document was devised largely by the Western allies in the wake of the war and, understandably, plebiscites were specifically forbidden.
The Chancellor can, therefore, make all sorts of speeches in the Bundestag, secure in the knowledge that the equally europhile Christian Democrat party led by Angela Merkel will support him and the German people will not be able to express their disquiet with the euro that was imposed on them and other aspects of European integration directly.
Not having to play up to the electorate meant that he did not have to go into the convoluted explanations Tony Blair and his ministers have to do. Not for him the notion that the Constitution is a tidying up exercise. It is, quite clearly, a blue-print for a deepening European Union.
He did explain that Germany did not get everything it wanted in the matter of voting procedures and numbers but a compromise was necessary and this was as good as you could hope for. His parliamentary opponent, Angela Merkel had one point of criticism: why was God left out of the text?
She was not, however, particularly in favour of Commissioner Günter Verheugen continuing with another term and being backed for the position of the “super” Commissioner in charge of industrial and economic matters. This was not because she thought there was something odd in the idea of the German Commissioner being put in charge of that, given Germany’s recent economic and industrial performance, but because the opposition should have been consulted.
Incidentally, why is it completely against the rules to talk about a superstate while the term “super” Commissioner has become part of the euro-jargon?
Chancellor Schröder also made some very positive comments about the Franco-German relationship, which was irreplaceable, particularly for the process of unifying Europe.
But how long the smooth relationship between the two leaders will continue is unclear. Chancellor Schröder also gave an interview to the German TV station ARD, in which he acknowledged that his party is becoming very unpopular but maintained, like Tony Blair that he will continue with the unpopular economic and social reforms. Unpopular they may be, but serious reforms they are not.
The latest news is that some members of the SPD are so disaffected with the barely noticeable reforms that they are setting up another party that will run in the next lot of regional elections as well as the national ones. By a strange coincidence, Tony Blair is also to be challenged with some disaffected members on the left of the Labour Party, because of his “reforms”.
Yesterday (Friday, July 2) he was speaking to the Bundestag, making his government’s official statement about the EU Constitution. Not surprisingly, he was in favour of it.
There are two things to remember here. The first is that Schröder was one of numerous EU leaders who went to Brussels on June 17 having just lost heavily in the European elections in Germany. His party the SPD had won 21.5 per cent of the vote, which was something of a come-down from the 30.7 per cent of 1999. At the same time they suffered another in the series of defeats in regional elections. Altogether, this was the worst result the socialists have had since World War II.
That is the bad news for Schröder. The good news is that Germany cannot have a referendum unless there is a change in the German Federal Consitution. This document was devised largely by the Western allies in the wake of the war and, understandably, plebiscites were specifically forbidden.
The Chancellor can, therefore, make all sorts of speeches in the Bundestag, secure in the knowledge that the equally europhile Christian Democrat party led by Angela Merkel will support him and the German people will not be able to express their disquiet with the euro that was imposed on them and other aspects of European integration directly.
Not having to play up to the electorate meant that he did not have to go into the convoluted explanations Tony Blair and his ministers have to do. Not for him the notion that the Constitution is a tidying up exercise. It is, quite clearly, a blue-print for a deepening European Union.
He did explain that Germany did not get everything it wanted in the matter of voting procedures and numbers but a compromise was necessary and this was as good as you could hope for. His parliamentary opponent, Angela Merkel had one point of criticism: why was God left out of the text?
She was not, however, particularly in favour of Commissioner Günter Verheugen continuing with another term and being backed for the position of the “super” Commissioner in charge of industrial and economic matters. This was not because she thought there was something odd in the idea of the German Commissioner being put in charge of that, given Germany’s recent economic and industrial performance, but because the opposition should have been consulted.
Incidentally, why is it completely against the rules to talk about a superstate while the term “super” Commissioner has become part of the euro-jargon?
Chancellor Schröder also made some very positive comments about the Franco-German relationship, which was irreplaceable, particularly for the process of unifying Europe.
"Progress on European integration can only and will only occur if Germany and France are as united as possible."Alas, President Chirac may not like other parts of the Chancellor’s speech, in which he called for a similar complete reconciliation between Germany and Poland as well as Germany and Russia. It has, after all, been France’s great fear that Germany, the main funder of the European Community, will turn its attention to the east and start forgetting or neglecting the “friends” in the south and south-west, who are relying on support, both political and financial.
But how long the smooth relationship between the two leaders will continue is unclear. Chancellor Schröder also gave an interview to the German TV station ARD, in which he acknowledged that his party is becoming very unpopular but maintained, like Tony Blair that he will continue with the unpopular economic and social reforms. Unpopular they may be, but serious reforms they are not.
The latest news is that some members of the SPD are so disaffected with the barely noticeable reforms that they are setting up another party that will run in the next lot of regional elections as well as the national ones. By a strange coincidence, Tony Blair is also to be challenged with some disaffected members on the left of the Labour Party, because of his “reforms”.
More on that Byers story
Why should we bother, one might ask. After all, who is Stephen Byers? A former transport minister, who left under a cloud and after a great deal of “persuasion” by the media and public opinion. He, too, had to have his fingers prised off his portfolio one by one.
The fact is, that for some reason his statements are reported by all and sundry, that is Sky News, the BBC, the Financial Times, the Scotsman and so on, and so on. As the reports were a little confused about the time of his statement – past, present or future – they were clearly quoting his press release. Why? Is there really a dearth of news around? Or is it that all these organizations are desperate to produce some pro-EU, pro-Constitution, pro-yes vote comments and cannot find any?
Mr Byers has made or is about to make a speech in Yalta, which is very pleasant at this time of the year. I hope he will manage to get a bit of a holiday, particularly as he is unlikely to be paying for it. Did he, as my colleague asked, take his family with him?
Accroding to Interfax-Ukraine there is a “[t]wo-day European seminar New Strategy for Partnership, whose purpose is to discuss Ukraine's new status in the context of European Union enlargement, as well as the perspectives of further development of relations between Ukraine and Europe as equal partners.”
Presumably, that is what Mr Byers is attending, probably on behalf of the British Government. Is there nobody else we can send, apart from a disgraced former minister for transport? Clearly we do not think EU relationship with Ukraine is of sufficient importance. And, to be perfectly honest, can the EU and Ukraine be “equal” partners? On the other hand, as we have written in this blog before, Britain and other west European countries ought to think very seriously about the situation in the former Soviet republics, now somewhat messy independent states between Russia and the EU.
Well, Mr Byers is obviously not thinking about it. Perhaps, he cannot quite place Ukraine on the map. He is using the occasion to talk about the forthcoming referendum in Britain and, as the previous blog said, to point out that the yes campaign may well be unsuccessful because it is not presenting the case for Europe well enough.
At this point one might think Mr Byers would do just that: present a case for Europe. Alas, no such thing. Mr Byers thinks that the EU’s image must be cleaned up but also that there ought to be some changes in Brussels. There seems to be little distinction in his own mind between the two.
Or is he saying that there are a few problems with the EU but these can be easily solved by a few reforms? Then, perhaps, he should explain what it is that is right with the whole structure, in some detail, and how exactly it can be reformed. It is not enough to sigh that:
It is not, however, a good idea simply to dismiss those arguments as being meaningless and nonsensical, therefore not dangerous. They are dangerous through their vagueness and the warm feeling that suffuses them. The yes campaign will not argue on the details if they can help it, knowing that the details speak against them but knowing also that most people are bored by the subject. They will stick to well-meaning, seemingly reasonable generalities. Arguing with them will be like wading through treacle but that is what we shall have to do and what we shall have to combat.
The fact is, that for some reason his statements are reported by all and sundry, that is Sky News, the BBC, the Financial Times, the Scotsman and so on, and so on. As the reports were a little confused about the time of his statement – past, present or future – they were clearly quoting his press release. Why? Is there really a dearth of news around? Or is it that all these organizations are desperate to produce some pro-EU, pro-Constitution, pro-yes vote comments and cannot find any?
Mr Byers has made or is about to make a speech in Yalta, which is very pleasant at this time of the year. I hope he will manage to get a bit of a holiday, particularly as he is unlikely to be paying for it. Did he, as my colleague asked, take his family with him?
Accroding to Interfax-Ukraine there is a “[t]wo-day European seminar New Strategy for Partnership, whose purpose is to discuss Ukraine's new status in the context of European Union enlargement, as well as the perspectives of further development of relations between Ukraine and Europe as equal partners.”
Presumably, that is what Mr Byers is attending, probably on behalf of the British Government. Is there nobody else we can send, apart from a disgraced former minister for transport? Clearly we do not think EU relationship with Ukraine is of sufficient importance. And, to be perfectly honest, can the EU and Ukraine be “equal” partners? On the other hand, as we have written in this blog before, Britain and other west European countries ought to think very seriously about the situation in the former Soviet republics, now somewhat messy independent states between Russia and the EU.
Well, Mr Byers is obviously not thinking about it. Perhaps, he cannot quite place Ukraine on the map. He is using the occasion to talk about the forthcoming referendum in Britain and, as the previous blog said, to point out that the yes campaign may well be unsuccessful because it is not presenting the case for Europe well enough.
At this point one might think Mr Byers would do just that: present a case for Europe. Alas, no such thing. Mr Byers thinks that the EU’s image must be cleaned up but also that there ought to be some changes in Brussels. There seems to be little distinction in his own mind between the two.
"To be in with a chance of winning the referendum in the UK, Brussels must change. It needs to be in touch with what people want and reflect their priorities," Mr Byers will say. "But perhaps above everything else, it has to recognise and act on the basis that cultural and political identity are firmly rooted in the nation state. For the Labour party, the lesson of the last few years is clear. You cannot win an argument over Europe unless you go out and make it . . . This is the time to be strong and confident in order to campaign and make the positive case."So what is it Mr Byers and with him the entire yes campaign is saying? That Europe (I think they must win the European Union but are deliberately obfuscating the issue) is a good thing but is badly presented? Then why do they not present it better?
Or is he saying that there are a few problems with the EU but these can be easily solved by a few reforms? Then, perhaps, he should explain what it is that is right with the whole structure, in some detail, and how exactly it can be reformed. It is not enough to sigh that:
Pro-Europeans had to convince voters Europe was "not a conspiracy against the British people"and that voters regard the European Union as "bureaucratic, intrusive, inefficient and out of touch."If you really want to make a “positive” case for Europe you should analyze why they regard it so, to what extent is that true, is the problem endemic or superficial and what can be done to change it. (Honestly, why don’t they ask me to write their speeches for them? I am sure I could do better than whoever Mr Byers employs.)
It is not, however, a good idea simply to dismiss those arguments as being meaningless and nonsensical, therefore not dangerous. They are dangerous through their vagueness and the warm feeling that suffuses them. The yes campaign will not argue on the details if they can help it, knowing that the details speak against them but knowing also that most people are bored by the subject. They will stick to well-meaning, seemingly reasonable generalities. Arguing with them will be like wading through treacle but that is what we shall have to do and what we shall have to combat.
Now there’s a surprise
According to a headline in the Scotsman, "Blair Faces 'Serious Risk' of EU Referendum Defeat". That is what his Europhile former Cabinet minister Stephen Byers - taking time out from spending more time with his family - is telling Blair.
The pro-European camp start as "underdogs" in the campaign to win the referendum because so many voters regard the EU as bureaucratic, intrusive, inefficient and out of touch.
And, with a stunning flash of insight, Byers – who for some unaccountable reason was speaking in the Ukraine (did he take his family?) – is also warning that government, if it is to turn public opinion round, must "go out and make the case for Britain taking a lead in shaping Europe's future."
One does wish, however, that these people would stop prattling on about "making a case" and get out there and make it. At least then, we could have a bit of fun demolishing it.
If you can be bothered with the full story, click here.
The pro-European camp start as "underdogs" in the campaign to win the referendum because so many voters regard the EU as bureaucratic, intrusive, inefficient and out of touch.
And, with a stunning flash of insight, Byers – who for some unaccountable reason was speaking in the Ukraine (did he take his family?) – is also warning that government, if it is to turn public opinion round, must "go out and make the case for Britain taking a lead in shaping Europe's future."
One does wish, however, that these people would stop prattling on about "making a case" and get out there and make it. At least then, we could have a bit of fun demolishing it.
If you can be bothered with the full story, click here.
Prisoner JW7874
Regarding my earlier Blog about a possible interruption of service, I did indeed have the unpleasant experience of being sent down by Bradford Magistrates, for 14 days for the heinous crime of not paying the police for a service they do not deliver.
After nine hours in confinement, including a period in Armley Jail - where I have to say that the prison officers behaved impecably - I was "sprung" by a wellwisher.
However, in deference to my fierce but highly talented co-editor, who quite rightly maintains that I should not use this Blog for non EU issues, I have started a new Blog called Prisoner JW7874, this being the prisoner number I was allocated during my brief stay in prison.
It is dedicated to exposing the incompetence and inadequacy of the police, and the craven stupidity of the magistrates, extolling people to stop paying for a service that we are not getting. My "catch-phrase" is, "remember, there are more of us than there are of them".
Owing to extreme fatigue, this will not be up and running with the first post for a couple of days. Normal service on this Blog will be resumed today.
After nine hours in confinement, including a period in Armley Jail - where I have to say that the prison officers behaved impecably - I was "sprung" by a wellwisher.
However, in deference to my fierce but highly talented co-editor, who quite rightly maintains that I should not use this Blog for non EU issues, I have started a new Blog called Prisoner JW7874, this being the prisoner number I was allocated during my brief stay in prison.
It is dedicated to exposing the incompetence and inadequacy of the police, and the craven stupidity of the magistrates, extolling people to stop paying for a service that we are not getting. My "catch-phrase" is, "remember, there are more of us than there are of them".
Owing to extreme fatigue, this will not be up and running with the first post for a couple of days. Normal service on this Blog will be resumed today.
Friday, July 02, 2004
And the next fight will be ... about the budget
If the EU leaders think that they can now enjoy their summer holidays, having managed various compromises on the Constitution and the Presidency, they can think again. Even before the European Parliament starts mewling about the new Commission (it rarely does anything else), there will be the question of the Commission proposals for financial reform.
This will have nothing to do with the Lisbon process or the need to make the European economy the strongest and most competitive in the world but with the financing of the EU. In other words, the fight will be real and bloody because it will be about the money that is to be handed over by member states to the Union.
Romano Prodi, the outgoing President is due to present the Commission’s plan in two weeks’ time on how the EU should fund itself in the next period under discussion: 2007 – 2013.
(In parenthesis, we may note yet again that one reason why the EU manages to push its plans through unchecked is because it thinks in managerial rather than political terms. Its political ideas are founded on five year plans a long way ahead. They are not disturbed by elections and possible changes of ruling parties, for they do not alter the legislative and regulatory process; nor are they affected by the need for an annual presentation of the budget to Parliament for that is not how the financing operates.)
Signor Prodi is threatening his colleagues with “radical ideas”, about the most dangerous term one can use in the EU. However, the last time he had “radical ideas” – in February of this year, to be precise – he was attacked by all the net contributors as he suggested that contributions should be raised. At a time of economic recession this was not a popular idea. (To be fair, this would not be a popular idea at any time.)
Now, he seems to have hit on something else. Britain’s rebate, won with some handbagging by Mrs Thatcher in 1984, according to Prodi, belongs to a different era in European history and should be stopped. Instead, there should be a, no doubt extremely cumbersome, system of “generalized correction mechanisms”, whereby any country that reaches a certain level of contribution, should have a rebate. We shall have to see how these mechanisms are supposed to work but those who suspect that they will create a great deal more bureaucracy are probably not far wrong.
Meanwhile, in another corner of the battlefield, there is a some squaring up going on between the UK and the Netherlands. Each Prime Minister maintains that it is he and he alone who won the important concession that EU budget rules can be changed only by unanimity even if the Constitution is implemented.
For Tony Blair much of that is to do with the need to hang on to the rebate as a badge of honour. The Dutch Prime Minister, on the other hand, is talking about the need for a general cap on contributions. He is not likely to be sympathetic to the British case. As the Financial Times put it on July 1:
This will have nothing to do with the Lisbon process or the need to make the European economy the strongest and most competitive in the world but with the financing of the EU. In other words, the fight will be real and bloody because it will be about the money that is to be handed over by member states to the Union.
Romano Prodi, the outgoing President is due to present the Commission’s plan in two weeks’ time on how the EU should fund itself in the next period under discussion: 2007 – 2013.
(In parenthesis, we may note yet again that one reason why the EU manages to push its plans through unchecked is because it thinks in managerial rather than political terms. Its political ideas are founded on five year plans a long way ahead. They are not disturbed by elections and possible changes of ruling parties, for they do not alter the legislative and regulatory process; nor are they affected by the need for an annual presentation of the budget to Parliament for that is not how the financing operates.)
Signor Prodi is threatening his colleagues with “radical ideas”, about the most dangerous term one can use in the EU. However, the last time he had “radical ideas” – in February of this year, to be precise – he was attacked by all the net contributors as he suggested that contributions should be raised. At a time of economic recession this was not a popular idea. (To be fair, this would not be a popular idea at any time.)
Now, he seems to have hit on something else. Britain’s rebate, won with some handbagging by Mrs Thatcher in 1984, according to Prodi, belongs to a different era in European history and should be stopped. Instead, there should be a, no doubt extremely cumbersome, system of “generalized correction mechanisms”, whereby any country that reaches a certain level of contribution, should have a rebate. We shall have to see how these mechanisms are supposed to work but those who suspect that they will create a great deal more bureaucracy are probably not far wrong.
Meanwhile, in another corner of the battlefield, there is a some squaring up going on between the UK and the Netherlands. Each Prime Minister maintains that it is he and he alone who won the important concession that EU budget rules can be changed only by unanimity even if the Constitution is implemented.
For Tony Blair much of that is to do with the need to hang on to the rebate as a badge of honour. The Dutch Prime Minister, on the other hand, is talking about the need for a general cap on contributions. He is not likely to be sympathetic to the British case. As the Financial Times put it on July 1:
Jan Peter Balkenende, Dutch prime minister, said his country was fed up with being the biggest per capita contributor to the €100bn annual EU budget and that the whole system of EU financing needed to be reviewed.Nor will there be much sympathy from Germany, the largest net contributor or, in this case, from the much poorer new member states, some of whom, by a freak of accounting, are also net contributors at the moment. Will Mr Blair find that unanimity does not necessarily mean that when a consensus is needed? Watch this space.
Mr Balkenende said Dutch citizens paid six times more into the EU budget, which funds agricultural subsidies, regional aid and other programmes, than their French counterparts.
They are thinking ahead
Territorial "widening" and constitutional "deepening," however, may not symbolize Europe's growing strength.They may represent the zenith of its integration. The Bush administration should be aware of the troubles Europe faces and fashion U.S. foreign policy so as to minimize the negative consequences of Europe's probable break-up.
This paragraph appeared in an article published first in the Washington Times on June 30 and reprinted by the Cato Institute. Its author, Dr Marian L. Tupy is Assistant Director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. To read the article in full click here.
This paragraph appeared in an article published first in the Washington Times on June 30 and reprinted by the Cato Institute. Its author, Dr Marian L. Tupy is Assistant Director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. To read the article in full click here.
Possible interruption of service
Despite the EU being the major preoccupation of this Blog, other issues do occasionally intrude. This morning, this author is attending Bradford Magistrates' court in response to an arrest warrant, for refusal to pay part of the Council Tax.
The proceedings are being taken by Bradford Metropolitan District Council, the department involved being – and I kid you not – the Customer Services Department. They have intimated that they will be asking for a three month jail sentence if I refuse to pay the outstanding amount – initially £78, but now inflated by costs to £272.34.
The initial sum was in fact the police precept, which I deducted from the Council Tax for a very simple reason. The West Yorkshire Police Service – recently slated as one of the worst police services in the country – simply is not providing a service.
Our house, in a quiet suburb of Bradford, has now been burgled five times. Virtually every house in the street has been "done", and my elderly neighbour was mugged on her front doorstep, in broad daylight, while she was getting her keys out to open her door.
In terms of prevention, or solving any of these crimes, the police have been as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard. However, that is not to say we have never seen them. We once had twelve of them in the street at one time – when the came to arrest me for trying to prevent a pair of unlicensed bailiffs stealing my car.
That time, I was assaulted, arrested, and locked up for five hours, and then charged with resisting arrest. The charges were miraculously dropped when the bailiff's warrant was finally produced, which proved that the bailiffs were acting illegally. No apology was ever offered, and when I sought to make a complaint in person at the local police station, I was told by the station superintendent, very loudly, to "get out".
Why the bailiffs were there in the first place is a long story, but related to an incident when I was charged for "not being in proper control" of a motor vehicle, when using a mobile phone, in the days before using mobile in cars was an offence. The charge was a crock, and I had refused to pay the fine, instead making a complaint to the chief constable - which was ignored. Incidentally, with police aid, the bailiffs did steal my car, and it cost me £350 to recover it.
On the day that I paid the cheque to the Council for my tax, my wife's car was broken into, the side window being smashed. Coincidentally, it cost us £78 to repair, the same amount we were being charged for the Police precept. It was the last straw. I simply deducted the sum from the Council tax.
Now we have the interesting situation of a "customer" being charged money by a police service, which does not provide a service, and refusing to pay for the lack of the same, then being summonsed by the customer service department of the council, where I will be dealt with by the court service, who may well do me the "service" of ordering me to be locked up, and thus passed to the custody of the self-same police service who had done me no service, until I can be handed over to the prison service – or whatever it is called now – who will do me the service of depriving me of my liberty – while the criminals who robbed my house and smashed up my wife's car roam free. As they say, you couldn't make it up.
And, as they also say, I may be some time.
The proceedings are being taken by Bradford Metropolitan District Council, the department involved being – and I kid you not – the Customer Services Department. They have intimated that they will be asking for a three month jail sentence if I refuse to pay the outstanding amount – initially £78, but now inflated by costs to £272.34.
The initial sum was in fact the police precept, which I deducted from the Council Tax for a very simple reason. The West Yorkshire Police Service – recently slated as one of the worst police services in the country – simply is not providing a service.
Our house, in a quiet suburb of Bradford, has now been burgled five times. Virtually every house in the street has been "done", and my elderly neighbour was mugged on her front doorstep, in broad daylight, while she was getting her keys out to open her door.
In terms of prevention, or solving any of these crimes, the police have been as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard. However, that is not to say we have never seen them. We once had twelve of them in the street at one time – when the came to arrest me for trying to prevent a pair of unlicensed bailiffs stealing my car.
That time, I was assaulted, arrested, and locked up for five hours, and then charged with resisting arrest. The charges were miraculously dropped when the bailiff's warrant was finally produced, which proved that the bailiffs were acting illegally. No apology was ever offered, and when I sought to make a complaint in person at the local police station, I was told by the station superintendent, very loudly, to "get out".
Why the bailiffs were there in the first place is a long story, but related to an incident when I was charged for "not being in proper control" of a motor vehicle, when using a mobile phone, in the days before using mobile in cars was an offence. The charge was a crock, and I had refused to pay the fine, instead making a complaint to the chief constable - which was ignored. Incidentally, with police aid, the bailiffs did steal my car, and it cost me £350 to recover it.
On the day that I paid the cheque to the Council for my tax, my wife's car was broken into, the side window being smashed. Coincidentally, it cost us £78 to repair, the same amount we were being charged for the Police precept. It was the last straw. I simply deducted the sum from the Council tax.
Now we have the interesting situation of a "customer" being charged money by a police service, which does not provide a service, and refusing to pay for the lack of the same, then being summonsed by the customer service department of the council, where I will be dealt with by the court service, who may well do me the "service" of ordering me to be locked up, and thus passed to the custody of the self-same police service who had done me no service, until I can be handed over to the prison service – or whatever it is called now – who will do me the service of depriving me of my liberty – while the criminals who robbed my house and smashed up my wife's car roam free. As they say, you couldn't make it up.
And, as they also say, I may be some time.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Stop blaming the fishermen - Part II
In Part I, I explored the relative resonsibilities for the failures of fishing policy, concluding that the real responsibility lay with management. In this Part, I look at some the management failures of the CFP, contrasted with successes elsewhere.
There are several examples of commercial fisheries which are well managed. New Zealand, the Falklands, Namibia – believe it or not, the Grand Banks – the Faroes, Iceland and Norway are prime examples. Stocks are healthy and sustainable. Catches are plentiful, the fish are of good quality and highly marketable, the vessels are modern and efficient and the fishermen are prosperous and happy.
One glaring exception is the fishery defined by the waters of the member states of the European Union, which happen also to encompass some of the richest, most varied and fertile grounds in the world.
There, the fishermen are no different – no better, no worse – than fishermen anywhere else in the world. Yet the fishery is a disaster. Some stocks are on the verge of collapse, the fleets are suffering, with vessels being scrapped wholesale, and fishermen are going bankrupt in their droves. What is the difference? EU member state fisheries are run under the aegis of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Looking at the successful fisheries throughout the world – as we have done – the remarkable thing is that there is no single system, and in fact no agreement as to what constitutes an ideal system. But there are constants.
Firstly, all successful fisheries managers place a great premium on obtaining accurate, reliable information on what is happening in their fisheries – and there is world-wide consensus that the most reliable source is landings data.
Secondly, all these systems have the ability to process this information extremely quickly, and have an equally rapid decision-making process which can enable changes to be made to the regime at very short notice (sometimes in a matter of hours).
Thirdly, they have the means of rapidly communicating their decisions, in the form of executive orders to fishermen and, finally, they have effective means of enforcing those orders.
When one examines the CFP, however, none of those management tools are in place. Furthermore, under the prevailing system, providing those tools is not actually possible.
In the first instance, the difficulties in obtaining reliable catch data are insuperable, arising out of the very nature of the CFP. The problem is, quite simply, "equal access". The member state waters are defined under the EU treaties as a "common resource". Fishing vessels from all member states are therefore allowed “equal access”, and there can be no discrimination on the basis of nationality.
Because some 80 percent of the fish lie in British waters, however – and the bulk of the rest in Irish – this effectively means that the fleets of all the other member states have access to British and Irish waters. This means that the home fleets have to be cut back, as does their fishing effort.
Unsurprisingly, domestic (i.e., British and Irish) fishermen object to this (arguing, quite correctly, that “their” fish have been "given away" for wholly political ends) and, as they see foreign fleets – in their terms – pillaging "their waters", often allocated more generous quantities than they are allowed, they react accordingly.
The fishermen take the view that the only sensible response to what has become (as a result of "equal access") a diminishing resource is to grab as much of that resource as possible, before it disappears. "Better we have it than let the foreigners take it", is the prevailing ethos. Put more simply, they cheat. Equally, the foreign fleets cheat, the cumulative effect of which is that the landings figures are unreliable.
But the situation is actually worse than that. In order to allocate fishing effort, the Commission relies on a system of quotas, which are allocated by species, to the different member states and thence to individual vessels. Skippers are then allowed to catch amounts of fish up to their quota level, but any in excess cannot be landed – on pain of criminal prosecution. And since, under the current regime, fishermen cannot avoid catching species for which they have no quota, unknown quantities of fish – known as "discards" are ditched overboard.
Annually, those quantities are estimated to amount to hundreds of thousands of tons and, for some species, may considerably exceed individual quota allocations, hugely distorting the catch figures. In the successful systems, however, discards are always banned, because of this distorting effect on landings monitoring. Fishermen are required to land what they catch.
As an aside, it was earlier indicated in this piece that modern net design was such that different species could be selected, in which case discards should be minimal. However, the problem here is that net conformation is specified by regulation and many of the advanced, selective designs are not permitted under EU regulations.
Furthermore, net designers cannot get permission to experiment with new designs because, by definition, these are not permitted by current regulations. To use them, even on a scientific vessel, requires a derogation, which the Commission is extremely reluctant to give and, without at least some sea testing, any design project cannot get grant funding for commercial development. Thus, much of the selective fishing gear theoretically available simply cannot be used.
There is also an allied problem in that, while it is possible to select between some species, such as cod and haddock, between others it is not technically possible at the moment. For instance, segregation between monk fish – a high value species – and cod, is virtually impossible. Therefore, while it is possible to fish in a mixed fishery for either cod or haddock, and possible to fish for monk fish and cod without catching haddock, it is not possible to fish for haddock and monk fish without also catching cod.
Yet, the Scottish white fish fleet, which specialises in haddock, only covers its costs from haddock, the profitability of the fleet relying on the incidental monk fish catch. To enable segregation, while maintaining profitability, there also needs to be a restructuring of the fleet financial base, so that it can use available techniques.
All this notwithstanding, the combination of cheating and discards renders the landings data as unusable for the purposes of fisheries management, the results often leading to underestimates of the fish available, resulting in catch quota reductions which further increase the pressure to cheat and the amount of discarding.
The EU's commission, which is responsible for making the rules, tries to compensate for the poor data by using survey data from research vessels, but this is a poor substitute. These data are often so wildly wrong – also underestimating the biomass - that they reinforce the spiral of decline where, faced with rules based on obviously unsound data, the fishermen are even more determined to cheat – making the landings data even more unreliable.
This problem is then exacerbated by the slowness of data collection. Instead of the hours it takes in the systems run by the Icelanders and the Faroese (and others), the tortuous process of collecting data from diverse national authorities, checking it, correcting it, collating it and assessing it, takes many months. Before it is in a shape to use, the data can be up to a year old, or even older. It is out of date before it even gets to the decision-makers.
Then there is the decision-making process itself. Set up historically, the system requires that the commission formulates proposals, and the Council, now comprising 25 members, makes the decisions – which it does once a year at the December fisheries council. Working with out of date information, the decision are then delayed and then heavily influenced by political rather than scientific considerations. The council often ends up in a tense bargaining session, with such pressure on quota allocations that it has been known for the ministers, collectively, to award themselves more fish than are theoretically available.
However it is judged, the decision-making process is not in any way geared to making the rapid decisions necessary for the demands of modern fisheries management.
Then there is the matter of communication. When Owen Paterson recently went to Iceland, he saw their system in operation. When excessive juveniles were reported in a particular fishery, the detail was radioed in to the fisheries directorate, who then made a broadcast on public service radio, closing the fishery. From initial report, to closure was a matter of hours.
The EU does not get near this. After the last December fisheries Council, it took two months for the regulations to be produced, and then more time for the explanatory notes to be produced by the member states – without which the rules were intelligible. And then there were errors in the regulations, which took until the May to sort out. Rapid communication it is not.
Then there is the enforcement problem. This, I deal with in Part III.
There are several examples of commercial fisheries which are well managed. New Zealand, the Falklands, Namibia – believe it or not, the Grand Banks – the Faroes, Iceland and Norway are prime examples. Stocks are healthy and sustainable. Catches are plentiful, the fish are of good quality and highly marketable, the vessels are modern and efficient and the fishermen are prosperous and happy.
One glaring exception is the fishery defined by the waters of the member states of the European Union, which happen also to encompass some of the richest, most varied and fertile grounds in the world.
There, the fishermen are no different – no better, no worse – than fishermen anywhere else in the world. Yet the fishery is a disaster. Some stocks are on the verge of collapse, the fleets are suffering, with vessels being scrapped wholesale, and fishermen are going bankrupt in their droves. What is the difference? EU member state fisheries are run under the aegis of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Looking at the successful fisheries throughout the world – as we have done – the remarkable thing is that there is no single system, and in fact no agreement as to what constitutes an ideal system. But there are constants.
Firstly, all successful fisheries managers place a great premium on obtaining accurate, reliable information on what is happening in their fisheries – and there is world-wide consensus that the most reliable source is landings data.
Secondly, all these systems have the ability to process this information extremely quickly, and have an equally rapid decision-making process which can enable changes to be made to the regime at very short notice (sometimes in a matter of hours).
Thirdly, they have the means of rapidly communicating their decisions, in the form of executive orders to fishermen and, finally, they have effective means of enforcing those orders.
When one examines the CFP, however, none of those management tools are in place. Furthermore, under the prevailing system, providing those tools is not actually possible.
In the first instance, the difficulties in obtaining reliable catch data are insuperable, arising out of the very nature of the CFP. The problem is, quite simply, "equal access". The member state waters are defined under the EU treaties as a "common resource". Fishing vessels from all member states are therefore allowed “equal access”, and there can be no discrimination on the basis of nationality.
Because some 80 percent of the fish lie in British waters, however – and the bulk of the rest in Irish – this effectively means that the fleets of all the other member states have access to British and Irish waters. This means that the home fleets have to be cut back, as does their fishing effort.
Unsurprisingly, domestic (i.e., British and Irish) fishermen object to this (arguing, quite correctly, that “their” fish have been "given away" for wholly political ends) and, as they see foreign fleets – in their terms – pillaging "their waters", often allocated more generous quantities than they are allowed, they react accordingly.
The fishermen take the view that the only sensible response to what has become (as a result of "equal access") a diminishing resource is to grab as much of that resource as possible, before it disappears. "Better we have it than let the foreigners take it", is the prevailing ethos. Put more simply, they cheat. Equally, the foreign fleets cheat, the cumulative effect of which is that the landings figures are unreliable.
But the situation is actually worse than that. In order to allocate fishing effort, the Commission relies on a system of quotas, which are allocated by species, to the different member states and thence to individual vessels. Skippers are then allowed to catch amounts of fish up to their quota level, but any in excess cannot be landed – on pain of criminal prosecution. And since, under the current regime, fishermen cannot avoid catching species for which they have no quota, unknown quantities of fish – known as "discards" are ditched overboard.
Annually, those quantities are estimated to amount to hundreds of thousands of tons and, for some species, may considerably exceed individual quota allocations, hugely distorting the catch figures. In the successful systems, however, discards are always banned, because of this distorting effect on landings monitoring. Fishermen are required to land what they catch.
As an aside, it was earlier indicated in this piece that modern net design was such that different species could be selected, in which case discards should be minimal. However, the problem here is that net conformation is specified by regulation and many of the advanced, selective designs are not permitted under EU regulations.
Furthermore, net designers cannot get permission to experiment with new designs because, by definition, these are not permitted by current regulations. To use them, even on a scientific vessel, requires a derogation, which the Commission is extremely reluctant to give and, without at least some sea testing, any design project cannot get grant funding for commercial development. Thus, much of the selective fishing gear theoretically available simply cannot be used.
There is also an allied problem in that, while it is possible to select between some species, such as cod and haddock, between others it is not technically possible at the moment. For instance, segregation between monk fish – a high value species – and cod, is virtually impossible. Therefore, while it is possible to fish in a mixed fishery for either cod or haddock, and possible to fish for monk fish and cod without catching haddock, it is not possible to fish for haddock and monk fish without also catching cod.
Yet, the Scottish white fish fleet, which specialises in haddock, only covers its costs from haddock, the profitability of the fleet relying on the incidental monk fish catch. To enable segregation, while maintaining profitability, there also needs to be a restructuring of the fleet financial base, so that it can use available techniques.
All this notwithstanding, the combination of cheating and discards renders the landings data as unusable for the purposes of fisheries management, the results often leading to underestimates of the fish available, resulting in catch quota reductions which further increase the pressure to cheat and the amount of discarding.
The EU's commission, which is responsible for making the rules, tries to compensate for the poor data by using survey data from research vessels, but this is a poor substitute. These data are often so wildly wrong – also underestimating the biomass - that they reinforce the spiral of decline where, faced with rules based on obviously unsound data, the fishermen are even more determined to cheat – making the landings data even more unreliable.
This problem is then exacerbated by the slowness of data collection. Instead of the hours it takes in the systems run by the Icelanders and the Faroese (and others), the tortuous process of collecting data from diverse national authorities, checking it, correcting it, collating it and assessing it, takes many months. Before it is in a shape to use, the data can be up to a year old, or even older. It is out of date before it even gets to the decision-makers.
Then there is the decision-making process itself. Set up historically, the system requires that the commission formulates proposals, and the Council, now comprising 25 members, makes the decisions – which it does once a year at the December fisheries council. Working with out of date information, the decision are then delayed and then heavily influenced by political rather than scientific considerations. The council often ends up in a tense bargaining session, with such pressure on quota allocations that it has been known for the ministers, collectively, to award themselves more fish than are theoretically available.
However it is judged, the decision-making process is not in any way geared to making the rapid decisions necessary for the demands of modern fisheries management.
Then there is the matter of communication. When Owen Paterson recently went to Iceland, he saw their system in operation. When excessive juveniles were reported in a particular fishery, the detail was radioed in to the fisheries directorate, who then made a broadcast on public service radio, closing the fishery. From initial report, to closure was a matter of hours.
The EU does not get near this. After the last December fisheries Council, it took two months for the regulations to be produced, and then more time for the explanatory notes to be produced by the member states – without which the rules were intelligible. And then there were errors in the regulations, which took until the May to sort out. Rapid communication it is not.
Then there is the enforcement problem. This, I deal with in Part III.
Stop blaming the fishermen – Part I
The article referred to below gives the opportunity to post a piece on the application of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. Because of its length, I have broken it up into several parts. This is part 1.
Make no mistake though. Although this is about the CFP, it is more than about fishing. The CFP embodies all that is wrong with the EU and thus serves as an object lesson as to why the larger system cannot work.
In today's Daily Telegraph, space is given to news articles on page two and to a comment section on page four by environment correspondent Charles Clover, coinciding with the publication of his book, End of the Line.
Of the various pieces, the comment, entitled "Fishermen are no Captain Birds Eyes", is especially objectionable, best described as garbage on stilts. It represents the very worst of environmental writing – ill-informed, prejudiced, dogmatic and plain unhelpful.
The particular relevance to this Blog, however, is that Clover takes a tilt at the Tories for wanting to repatriate the British fishing, taking it back from the dead hand of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, and restoring it to national control.
This Clover maintains, is "viscerally appealing" but the policy appears "backward looking and is almost certainly fantasy while we remain in the EU". So speaks the great sage, "It is also a distraction from the urgent task of making fishing sustainable".
Before taking Clover on, however, this writer - in the best tradition of journalism - must declare an interest. For more than six months, I have been retained as the researcher for the Conservative shadow fisheries team, tasked with developing and writing up a new fisheries policy, ready for the eventuality that a Conservative government is elected, and we are able to repatriate policy.
What Clover writes is so wide of the mark as to be almost complete parody and it is highly significant that, in writing his book, he never once contacted either me or anyone on the shadow team, the motivation of which he appears so knowledgeable. And his comments in his article are based on one short conversation with the shadow secretary of state. So much for objective journalism.
Anyhow, to return to the detail, Clover starts his piece – in the worst tradition of ill-informed environmental journalism - by making a spectacularly emotive attack on the fishing process, displaying to anyone with the slightest understanding of the issues, his total ignorance of the subject. "Imagine", he writes:
Only it isn't.
In his opening reference to a "mile of net", Clover is more likely thinking of a drift net, or some sort of fixed gear. Trawl nets are never that wide. There is not a boat in the world that could tow such a monstrosity.
A drift net does what its name implies. It drifts, catching fish that happen upon it, the type of species caught depending on where in the water column it is hung. Fixed gear, such as gill nets, are, as their name implies, fixed. They are not dragged across the bottom. Either, used intelligently, are highly selective, and have its place in the tool bag of the modern fishing industry.
But in Clover's litany or horror, not only is this net a mile wide; it has an iron bar across its mouth. It effect is to "break off every outcrop and uproot every bush, stirring columns of birds into the air". It leaves behind "a landscape like a harrowed field".
What Clover is describing here is a beam trawl – which gets its name from the "iron bar" or "beam" across its mouth. The very largest of these are no larger than 40 feet wide – they cannot be wider because of the enormous power required to tow them. Most are much narrower, down to 14 feet.
There are two basic types, one with what are known as "tickler chains", the other with "chain mats", the function of either being to dig into the sea bed and force out buried flat fish into the mouth of the net.
All types have a very low head-rope height, as they are designed specifically for catching ground-hugging flatfish. They are supremely efficient at the job, and highly selective.
"Beamers", as they are known, typically produce very low by-catches. Most of the other species, on hearing this trawl, clunking and churning along the sea bed, simply swim out of the way, something which is easy for them to do given the low height and limited width.
But yes, they do leave behind "a landscape like a harrowed field" - actually a strip, 14-40 feet wide. In coral or other environmentally sensitive areas, this can be highly damaging, which is why so many of these areas are conservation zones, off-limits to the beamers. On mud flats, they can also be damaging, which is why there are moves to restrict their use in these areas as well.
But, on the wide expanses of sandy sea bed in the Channel and parts of the North Sea, the harrowing effect is beneficial. Like cultivating the land, it stirs up the nutrients, lifts the compacted bed and breaks it up. The result is increased marine life and, in a properly controlled system, increased catches. It is not a zero-sum game.
With this analysis, one can see the game Clover is playing. He elides two entirely different forms of fishing, takes the worst features of both, exaggerates them, and then transposes them into a homely scenario in order to shock the reader and invoke horror and repulsion. It is cheap trick, tawdry and wholly irresponsible.
The facts are actually wholly different. Some time ago, myself and one of the shadow fisheries team, Owen Paterson MP, spent a day in Hull on a basic fishing course, at the flume tank run by Seafish, the fishing industry authority – something I bet Clover has never done.
The flume tank is the maritime equivalent of a wind tunnel and there, from stocks of hundreds of different designs of nets, we saw scale models of different trawls in action, learned how they worked, and in what circumstances they were used.
In that one day, we saw graphic visual demonstrations of that which fishermen had been telling us for years. Commercial fishing nets, are highly scientific, precision tools, the culmination of hundreds of years of experience and investigation, each superbly designed to meet the specific demands of a huge variety of tasks.
With the right nets, and the right rigging, you can catch haddock, and leave the cod alone – or vice versa - even though the two species co-exist in the same marine environment. Flatfish can be separated from round fish, shrimps from fish, and all species can be graded by age and size with infinite flexibility.
The last thing commercial fishermen want is Clover's "tangled mess of writhing or dead creatures… some too small, too mangled, or the wrong species". Time is money, fuel is expensive and boats have to earn their keep in a highly competitive market. Fishermen earn their living – where they are allowed to - by selecting the right fish, at the right grade in the right qualities, delivered in good condition to the market at the right time.
And, contrary to the myth of the "hunter-gatherers", braving the wild, untamed seas, fishermen are harvesters. They work in a highly controlled and managed environment, taking a crop from a closely monitored marine environment. They are bound by rigorous regulations, backed by draconian penalties, and work under constant supervision, both on land and at sea, with every detail of their work recorded, checked and cross-checked.
Herein lies the nub of the issue. Clover would have it that the fishermen are the cowboys of the sea, the problem lying in their rapacious behaviour. Stocks are suffering because, as the weary mantra goes, "there are too many (greedy) fishermen chasing too few fish". "Overfishing" is the cod environmentalists' one and only explanation for all ills.
On the other hand, the reality is that commercial fisheries are highly managed and controlled. To blame the fishermen, at the sharp end, for failures in fishing policy, is akin to blaming the industrious but ill-managed workforce, while the managers upstairs in their offices let their company go to wrack and ruin. If the policy is a mess, it is because the managers haven't got their act together.
Make no mistake though. Although this is about the CFP, it is more than about fishing. The CFP embodies all that is wrong with the EU and thus serves as an object lesson as to why the larger system cannot work.
In today's Daily Telegraph, space is given to news articles on page two and to a comment section on page four by environment correspondent Charles Clover, coinciding with the publication of his book, End of the Line.
Of the various pieces, the comment, entitled "Fishermen are no Captain Birds Eyes", is especially objectionable, best described as garbage on stilts. It represents the very worst of environmental writing – ill-informed, prejudiced, dogmatic and plain unhelpful.
The particular relevance to this Blog, however, is that Clover takes a tilt at the Tories for wanting to repatriate the British fishing, taking it back from the dead hand of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, and restoring it to national control.
This Clover maintains, is "viscerally appealing" but the policy appears "backward looking and is almost certainly fantasy while we remain in the EU". So speaks the great sage, "It is also a distraction from the urgent task of making fishing sustainable".
Before taking Clover on, however, this writer - in the best tradition of journalism - must declare an interest. For more than six months, I have been retained as the researcher for the Conservative shadow fisheries team, tasked with developing and writing up a new fisheries policy, ready for the eventuality that a Conservative government is elected, and we are able to repatriate policy.
What Clover writes is so wide of the mark as to be almost complete parody and it is highly significant that, in writing his book, he never once contacted either me or anyone on the shadow team, the motivation of which he appears so knowledgeable. And his comments in his article are based on one short conversation with the shadow secretary of state. So much for objective journalism.
Anyhow, to return to the detail, Clover starts his piece – in the worst tradition of ill-informed environmental journalism - by making a spectacularly emotive attack on the fishing process, displaying to anyone with the slightest understanding of the issues, his total ignorance of the subject. "Imagine", he writes:
...what those animal welfare people would say if a band of hunters strung a mile of net between two vast all-terrain vehicles and dragged it across the plains of Africa. This fantastical assemblage, like something from a Mad Max movie, would scoop up everything in its way: lions, cheetahs, elephants, rhinos, impala, wildebeest and wild dogs. Only the smallest juveniles would be able to wriggle through the mesh.Warming to this imaginary horror, he continues:
The effect of dragging a net with an iron bar across its mouth across the plains is to break off every outcrop and uproot every bush, stirring columns of birds into the air. Left behind is a landscape like a harrowed field. The industrial hunter-gatherers stop to examine the tangled mess of writhing or dead creatures behind them. Some are too small, too mangled, or the wrong species. These are dumped on the plain to be consumed by carrion.And, just in case you hadn't guessed, only does Clover now grandly inform us that "this efficient but unselective way of killing animals is called trawling".
Only it isn't.
In his opening reference to a "mile of net", Clover is more likely thinking of a drift net, or some sort of fixed gear. Trawl nets are never that wide. There is not a boat in the world that could tow such a monstrosity.
A drift net does what its name implies. It drifts, catching fish that happen upon it, the type of species caught depending on where in the water column it is hung. Fixed gear, such as gill nets, are, as their name implies, fixed. They are not dragged across the bottom. Either, used intelligently, are highly selective, and have its place in the tool bag of the modern fishing industry.
But in Clover's litany or horror, not only is this net a mile wide; it has an iron bar across its mouth. It effect is to "break off every outcrop and uproot every bush, stirring columns of birds into the air". It leaves behind "a landscape like a harrowed field".
What Clover is describing here is a beam trawl – which gets its name from the "iron bar" or "beam" across its mouth. The very largest of these are no larger than 40 feet wide – they cannot be wider because of the enormous power required to tow them. Most are much narrower, down to 14 feet.
There are two basic types, one with what are known as "tickler chains", the other with "chain mats", the function of either being to dig into the sea bed and force out buried flat fish into the mouth of the net.
All types have a very low head-rope height, as they are designed specifically for catching ground-hugging flatfish. They are supremely efficient at the job, and highly selective.
"Beamers", as they are known, typically produce very low by-catches. Most of the other species, on hearing this trawl, clunking and churning along the sea bed, simply swim out of the way, something which is easy for them to do given the low height and limited width.
But yes, they do leave behind "a landscape like a harrowed field" - actually a strip, 14-40 feet wide. In coral or other environmentally sensitive areas, this can be highly damaging, which is why so many of these areas are conservation zones, off-limits to the beamers. On mud flats, they can also be damaging, which is why there are moves to restrict their use in these areas as well.
But, on the wide expanses of sandy sea bed in the Channel and parts of the North Sea, the harrowing effect is beneficial. Like cultivating the land, it stirs up the nutrients, lifts the compacted bed and breaks it up. The result is increased marine life and, in a properly controlled system, increased catches. It is not a zero-sum game.
With this analysis, one can see the game Clover is playing. He elides two entirely different forms of fishing, takes the worst features of both, exaggerates them, and then transposes them into a homely scenario in order to shock the reader and invoke horror and repulsion. It is cheap trick, tawdry and wholly irresponsible.
The facts are actually wholly different. Some time ago, myself and one of the shadow fisheries team, Owen Paterson MP, spent a day in Hull on a basic fishing course, at the flume tank run by Seafish, the fishing industry authority – something I bet Clover has never done.
The flume tank is the maritime equivalent of a wind tunnel and there, from stocks of hundreds of different designs of nets, we saw scale models of different trawls in action, learned how they worked, and in what circumstances they were used.
In that one day, we saw graphic visual demonstrations of that which fishermen had been telling us for years. Commercial fishing nets, are highly scientific, precision tools, the culmination of hundreds of years of experience and investigation, each superbly designed to meet the specific demands of a huge variety of tasks.
With the right nets, and the right rigging, you can catch haddock, and leave the cod alone – or vice versa - even though the two species co-exist in the same marine environment. Flatfish can be separated from round fish, shrimps from fish, and all species can be graded by age and size with infinite flexibility.
The last thing commercial fishermen want is Clover's "tangled mess of writhing or dead creatures… some too small, too mangled, or the wrong species". Time is money, fuel is expensive and boats have to earn their keep in a highly competitive market. Fishermen earn their living – where they are allowed to - by selecting the right fish, at the right grade in the right qualities, delivered in good condition to the market at the right time.
And, contrary to the myth of the "hunter-gatherers", braving the wild, untamed seas, fishermen are harvesters. They work in a highly controlled and managed environment, taking a crop from a closely monitored marine environment. They are bound by rigorous regulations, backed by draconian penalties, and work under constant supervision, both on land and at sea, with every detail of their work recorded, checked and cross-checked.
Herein lies the nub of the issue. Clover would have it that the fishermen are the cowboys of the sea, the problem lying in their rapacious behaviour. Stocks are suffering because, as the weary mantra goes, "there are too many (greedy) fishermen chasing too few fish". "Overfishing" is the cod environmentalists' one and only explanation for all ills.
On the other hand, the reality is that commercial fisheries are highly managed and controlled. To blame the fishermen, at the sharp end, for failures in fishing policy, is akin to blaming the industrious but ill-managed workforce, while the managers upstairs in their offices let their company go to wrack and ruin. If the policy is a mess, it is because the managers haven't got their act together.
Edith Cresson can continue to enjoy her substantial pension
A Belgian court has dropped all charges against former French Prime Minister and former Commissioner Edith Cresson with the Assistant Prosecutor explaining that the charges were political and should not have been presented in a court of law. This does raise the question of who actually presented those charges. Not the Prosecutor or the Assistant Prosecutor?
The decision to drop all charges was taken after a meeting behind closed doors so the arguments presented by the defence are not available.
Mme Cresson was, naturally, delighted that the research contracts she had awarded her personal dentist as well as other contracts to other friends and relations, were not found to be in any way criminal or fraudulent. She happily explained that all this was a result of political tittle-tattle, gossip and hysteria. At the time, as some of our readers may remember, she shrugged her shoulders and wondered aloud why she should be persecuted by those puritanical Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxons for normal political practices.
Mme Cresson is not completely out of the woods. There was another hearing yesterday, also behind closed doors. The Commission has to decide whether Edith Cresson failed in her duties as a Commissioner. If they find that she did, the case may go to the European Court of Justice.
There is no need for our readers to hold their breath. Mme Cresson has already announced that the Commissioners, several of whom are her former colleagues were sympathetic to her point of view, understanding that:
On the other hand, the people of the European Union may not be entirely in agreement with Mme Cresson, the Belgian court or the Commission. It is notable that Paul van Buitenen, the whistle-blower who had triggered off the investigation into Cresson’s and others’ eccentric mode of accounting and awarding contracts is now in the European Parliament as is a colleague of his as part of a Transparency Party.
In the meantime there has been some plain talking from the Chairman of OLAF’s supervisory body. OLAF is the Commission’s anti-fraud organization that has been more interested in getting information about the sources for German journalist Hans-Martin Tillack’s stories than in dealing with dubious financial proceedings.
During a hearing in the House of Lords in the UK on 19 May, the Chairman of the supervisory body, Raymond Edward Kendall, said that OLAF had been given "enormous powers with no legal supervision".
He cited the case of Herr Tillack, as being an example of raids carried out and documents confiscated by the Belgian police on the basis of “hearsay” supplied by OLAF.
It is good to know that there are times when the Belgian law-enforcing authorities become very active and take even hearsay seriously.
Meanwhile Edith Cresson continues to draw a handsome Commissioner’s pension and complain about being a victim of a political witch-hunt.
The decision to drop all charges was taken after a meeting behind closed doors so the arguments presented by the defence are not available.
Mme Cresson was, naturally, delighted that the research contracts she had awarded her personal dentist as well as other contracts to other friends and relations, were not found to be in any way criminal or fraudulent. She happily explained that all this was a result of political tittle-tattle, gossip and hysteria. At the time, as some of our readers may remember, she shrugged her shoulders and wondered aloud why she should be persecuted by those puritanical Scandinavians and Anglo-Saxons for normal political practices.
Mme Cresson is not completely out of the woods. There was another hearing yesterday, also behind closed doors. The Commission has to decide whether Edith Cresson failed in her duties as a Commissioner. If they find that she did, the case may go to the European Court of Justice.
There is no need for our readers to hold their breath. Mme Cresson has already announced that the Commissioners, several of whom are her former colleagues were sympathetic to her point of view, understanding that:
“…as commissioner, you are at the mercy of no matter whom ... if Kafka forms part of European culture, they have had an example of it there."French politicians do seem to have a habit of parading their cultural sophistication, whether it is appropriate or not.
On the other hand, the people of the European Union may not be entirely in agreement with Mme Cresson, the Belgian court or the Commission. It is notable that Paul van Buitenen, the whistle-blower who had triggered off the investigation into Cresson’s and others’ eccentric mode of accounting and awarding contracts is now in the European Parliament as is a colleague of his as part of a Transparency Party.
In the meantime there has been some plain talking from the Chairman of OLAF’s supervisory body. OLAF is the Commission’s anti-fraud organization that has been more interested in getting information about the sources for German journalist Hans-Martin Tillack’s stories than in dealing with dubious financial proceedings.
During a hearing in the House of Lords in the UK on 19 May, the Chairman of the supervisory body, Raymond Edward Kendall, said that OLAF had been given "enormous powers with no legal supervision".
He cited the case of Herr Tillack, as being an example of raids carried out and documents confiscated by the Belgian police on the basis of “hearsay” supplied by OLAF.
It is good to know that there are times when the Belgian law-enforcing authorities become very active and take even hearsay seriously.
Meanwhile Edith Cresson continues to draw a handsome Commissioner’s pension and complain about being a victim of a political witch-hunt.
The carousel has turned again
We shall be hearing the name Bernard Bot a lot in the next six months; and the name Jan Peter Balkenende. The former is the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and the latter is the Prime Minister; and today Netherlands takes over the rotating Presidency of the EU.
Ireland has, it is said, completed its stint successfully, though if one looks too closely for the details of that success, they remain unclear. Enlargement went through without a hitch but it is hardly the ceremonies that matter. There are problems between the new members and the old, between some of the old members and within the new members. A success? By EU standards, yes. After all, the content never matters, just the structures and the ceremonies.
Then there is the Constitution. By dint of bargaining, fudging and flying across Europe and back several times each week, Bertie Ahern has achieved an agreement on a completely incomprehensible, deeply unpopular document that, if implemented, will set in stone all the problems the EU is facing already. Of course, its implementation will happen (or not) in the next few presidencies and it will not be Mr Ahern who will be facing the problems.
So what can we expect from the Dutch Presidency? Apparently they will concentrate on economics, enlargement and security. The wretched Lisbon process will be revived and reforms carried out to ensure that Europe’s economy becomes dynamic and successful. Oh good. We haven’t heard that one before.
No doubt, in order to cut the red tape that is stifling various European economies – and they are in plural not singular – more commissions, enquiries, scoreboards, reports and studies will be set up. As ever, the paper industry should do all right.
Once again, the onus is placed on the new members, who, with their dynamism will revive the tired economy of Western Europe. Not so long ago we were told that the East European countries needed to join the EU in order to bolster up their own fragile economies and political systems. Apparently, it is the western economy that is fragile and needs bolstering. Were the East European told this during the negotiations?
The basic inconsistency of what the EU is supposed to achieve was unwittingly summed up by Mr Balkenende:
Mr Balkenende also thinks that the new Constitution will be a great help in cutting back red tape, clarifying issues and creating a dynamic economy. One cannot blame him for not reading all the 130-odd pages of the minutely detailed set of rules and regulations, couched as often as not in incomprehensible gobbledy-gook or language so general as to be meaningless, but why make comments about it. The people of Netherlands will have a referendum. Let them read the document, when it appears in Dutch and decide.
Then there is enlargement. The only thing Messrs Bot and Balkenende can say about that is that the EU will treat Turkey fairly. That can mean anything and has meant anything in the past. After all, this, too, we have heard before.
We await the Dutch proposals for greater security and suggestions how that can be achieved at an EU level rather than by individual nations through genuine exchange of information and co-operation. Oh yes, and individual nations across the world, since terrorism is hardly a European problem alone.
But Mr Balkenende proudly announced that he has dealt with the most pressing problem of all: he told President Bush not to interfere in “internal” European matters. No, he did not tell President Bush to take all the American troops and technology without which security in Europe is impossible, home. No, no. He simply should not make comments about Turkey and its membership.
Ireland has, it is said, completed its stint successfully, though if one looks too closely for the details of that success, they remain unclear. Enlargement went through without a hitch but it is hardly the ceremonies that matter. There are problems between the new members and the old, between some of the old members and within the new members. A success? By EU standards, yes. After all, the content never matters, just the structures and the ceremonies.
Then there is the Constitution. By dint of bargaining, fudging and flying across Europe and back several times each week, Bertie Ahern has achieved an agreement on a completely incomprehensible, deeply unpopular document that, if implemented, will set in stone all the problems the EU is facing already. Of course, its implementation will happen (or not) in the next few presidencies and it will not be Mr Ahern who will be facing the problems.
So what can we expect from the Dutch Presidency? Apparently they will concentrate on economics, enlargement and security. The wretched Lisbon process will be revived and reforms carried out to ensure that Europe’s economy becomes dynamic and successful. Oh good. We haven’t heard that one before.
No doubt, in order to cut the red tape that is stifling various European economies – and they are in plural not singular – more commissions, enquiries, scoreboards, reports and studies will be set up. As ever, the paper industry should do all right.
Once again, the onus is placed on the new members, who, with their dynamism will revive the tired economy of Western Europe. Not so long ago we were told that the East European countries needed to join the EU in order to bolster up their own fragile economies and political systems. Apparently, it is the western economy that is fragile and needs bolstering. Were the East European told this during the negotiations?
The basic inconsistency of what the EU is supposed to achieve was unwittingly summed up by Mr Balkenende:
“The problem is that we are not pursuing our approach forcefully enough,” Mr Balkenende said. “Europe’s member states need to take firm action. We can’t put off measures to make Europe’s rigid labour market more flexible. That would be irresponsible. It would mean less growth and more lost jobs.”Is it “we” or is it “they”? Is it Europe or is it the member states? There are, as we have said before no pan-European solutions because there are no pan-European problems. So what is the purpose of all the EU-wide policy making and presidential waffle? To create those pan-European problems, one assumes.
Mr Balkenende also thinks that the new Constitution will be a great help in cutting back red tape, clarifying issues and creating a dynamic economy. One cannot blame him for not reading all the 130-odd pages of the minutely detailed set of rules and regulations, couched as often as not in incomprehensible gobbledy-gook or language so general as to be meaningless, but why make comments about it. The people of Netherlands will have a referendum. Let them read the document, when it appears in Dutch and decide.
Then there is enlargement. The only thing Messrs Bot and Balkenende can say about that is that the EU will treat Turkey fairly. That can mean anything and has meant anything in the past. After all, this, too, we have heard before.
We await the Dutch proposals for greater security and suggestions how that can be achieved at an EU level rather than by individual nations through genuine exchange of information and co-operation. Oh yes, and individual nations across the world, since terrorism is hardly a European problem alone.
But Mr Balkenende proudly announced that he has dealt with the most pressing problem of all: he told President Bush not to interfere in “internal” European matters. No, he did not tell President Bush to take all the American troops and technology without which security in Europe is impossible, home. No, no. He simply should not make comments about Turkey and its membership.
“I told the President that this was a decision for the European Union, not the United States,” Mr Balkenende said. “You can talk about Islam, the economy and general issues, but to talk about EU membership and to decide whether to start negotiations is the EU’s responsibility. I made that very clear.”Well, that’s all right then. We have an EU presidency that can distinguish important from unimportant.
A party of opposites
It looks like Jose Manuel Durao Barroso is leaving a terminal mess behind him for his party. Already packing his bags to take up his £177,000 a year job as commission president, Portugal's largest labour group is arranging a farewell, in the form of another party – a huge protest meeting to demand new elections
Joining the chorus are four left-wing opposition parties with representation in parliament. They also want immediate elections, despite Barroso’s party still having two years left to run.
However, it will be up to Portugal’s president, Jorge Sampaio, to make the decision. As a socialist, he comes from the opposite side of the political divide and can be expected to be sympathetic to left wing sentiment.
Since Barroso's Social Democrat-led coalition received a drubbing at the polls in the Euro-elections and trail the main opposition Socialists in the polls, Sampio might well opt for an election, rather than appoint a new prime minister, opening the way for a Socialist .
Once installed in Brussels, therefore, Barroso might well find himself having to deal with a government in his home country that is diametrically opposed to his philosophy. But he will at least be able to take comfort from the fact that he helped put it there.
Joining the chorus are four left-wing opposition parties with representation in parliament. They also want immediate elections, despite Barroso’s party still having two years left to run.
However, it will be up to Portugal’s president, Jorge Sampaio, to make the decision. As a socialist, he comes from the opposite side of the political divide and can be expected to be sympathetic to left wing sentiment.
Since Barroso's Social Democrat-led coalition received a drubbing at the polls in the Euro-elections and trail the main opposition Socialists in the polls, Sampio might well opt for an election, rather than appoint a new prime minister, opening the way for a Socialist .
Once installed in Brussels, therefore, Barroso might well find himself having to deal with a government in his home country that is diametrically opposed to his philosophy. But he will at least be able to take comfort from the fact that he helped put it there.
Almost there
The new President-designate of the Commission may be holding meetings with the Commission’s civil service chief, David O’Sullivan, but back in the European Parliament, trouble may be brewing. The Socialists are not happy.
As we have reported before the fact that President Barroso is a man of the right (sort of) has caused all sorts of complaints about lack of democracy and inadequate methods of choice. Some of us still remember the reluctance of the then largest grouping, the PSE (Socialists) to indict or even criticize the clearly corrupt Commission of Jacques Santer. He, of course, was of the left.
Some of the MEPs say that Barroso is so unknown in Europe that they cannot decide whether to vote for him or not on July 22. This is quite extraordinary. After all, nobody has actually heard of about 90 per cent of the members of the European parliament and, just a couple of weeks ago, they asked all of us to vote for them, often chosen on a closed party list, without knowing anything at all of them.
Then there is the complaint that the system is not geared to choosing the best person, unlike, presumably, the party lists that favour people entirely on merit. That is why we have a European parliament filled to the brim with people who are intelligent, knowledgeable, honourable … errm … just a minute …. well, there must be some who are reasonably intelligent, etc etc …. one or two maybe ….
Of course, what is really annoying the MEPs on the left is Barroso’s appearance as the last minute candidate. All their objections would have applied to Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium but they would not have voiced them. Verhofstadt is a man of the left, a convinced statist and vociferously anti-American. The left in the European Parliament would have accepted him.
The chances are that Barroso will get the vote on July 22 but, until then, there will be much gnashing of teeth in the wilderness of Brussels.
As we have reported before the fact that President Barroso is a man of the right (sort of) has caused all sorts of complaints about lack of democracy and inadequate methods of choice. Some of us still remember the reluctance of the then largest grouping, the PSE (Socialists) to indict or even criticize the clearly corrupt Commission of Jacques Santer. He, of course, was of the left.
Some of the MEPs say that Barroso is so unknown in Europe that they cannot decide whether to vote for him or not on July 22. This is quite extraordinary. After all, nobody has actually heard of about 90 per cent of the members of the European parliament and, just a couple of weeks ago, they asked all of us to vote for them, often chosen on a closed party list, without knowing anything at all of them.
Then there is the complaint that the system is not geared to choosing the best person, unlike, presumably, the party lists that favour people entirely on merit. That is why we have a European parliament filled to the brim with people who are intelligent, knowledgeable, honourable … errm … just a minute …. well, there must be some who are reasonably intelligent, etc etc …. one or two maybe ….
Of course, what is really annoying the MEPs on the left is Barroso’s appearance as the last minute candidate. All their objections would have applied to Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium but they would not have voiced them. Verhofstadt is a man of the left, a convinced statist and vociferously anti-American. The left in the European Parliament would have accepted him.
The chances are that Barroso will get the vote on July 22 but, until then, there will be much gnashing of teeth in the wilderness of Brussels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)