Well, well, how time flies. It seems but yesterday. Well, actually, it does not, since the years 1975 to 1989 were taken up largely with all attention on the fight with Communism (and a few other matters that are too personal to discuss in this blog).
Still, I have to admit, I, too, voted no in that famous referendum. My reasons were, I think, prescient and, even though I say so myself, quite intelligent for someone who was still wet behind the ears.
To me it seemed absolutely clear that the Common Market was going to result in another layer of government and there was no need for that so far as I could see.
I did have an enormous advantage over many other people who voted in the referendum (and many more who did not bother). Politics was and is in my blood. My family is intensely political and all my parents’ friends were, too. All political issues were discussed heatedly and at great length and Britain’s possible membership of the Common Market was no exception.
I have written elsewhere about my upbringing and the intense Anglophilia instilled into me from an early childhood.
In the same piece I mention an interesting category, the “cold-war intelligentsia” that my parents were part of for the few years they lived in Britain. I think I may be a hereditary member of it, but let that pass.
The “cold war intelligentsia” that, despite the untrendiness of its ideas, consisted of the brightest and the best in academia, journalism, literature and politics, may have been united on its attitude to Communism and the need to fight it but was split on other issues. The idea that they all saw the Common Market as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and a necessary weapon in that fight is completely wrong – a theory propounded by people who have not bothered to find out what really went on.
They were split along several lines. Some, like my own parents and many of their immediate circle, were uncompromisingly against it. There was no need for it. It would link Britain into a unit that would be uncongenial to her own constitutional and legal structure and to her trade patterns; it would weaken links with the Commonwealth and the United States (this, despite the avowed American support for the EEC); it would strengthen the movement to greater and greater bureaucracy.
There were others who thought differently. Many, in those circles and outside them, looked at the power of the unions and their political agenda and posed the question acutely but despairingly: “What choice do we have? Rule by Brussels or rule by Moscow?” In the circumstances, rule by Brussels seemed preferable.
There were those, largely the economists around the IEA, who saw membership of the Common Market as the only possible way of opening up the British economy to free market reforms and destroying the socialism in all but name that had engrossed the country in the post-War years.
Their equivalent are the few French free-marketeers who are despairingly battling for the opening up of the single market and see the no vote as a set back to all their hopes.
And there were many who have come to Britain as a refuge from the totalitarian states of the Continent and were horrified by the growing tendency to look inward, to ignore the world, to feel scared. They thought of the EEC as a way of opening the country up again.
Like my colleague I do not recall a great deal of the actual campaign, beyond a sense of unfairness at the famous three documents that were sent to every household: in favour, against and the supposedly neutral government one, that was, actually, in favour.
I do, however, recall one particular radio discussion, which took place some time in 1971 or 1972, that is, before Parliament passed the European Communities Act. Usually, as we know, the BBC picked individuals from the no side who put people’s backs up with their various arguments that were easily demolished.
This time, they made a mistake. I think it was Angus Maude MP, but I may be wrong. He was arguing extremely ably and cogently that we should not go into this organization because it was not democratic.
Hmmm, I thought. That is interesting. I wonder what the opposing argument will be. It came fast and was unsatisfactory by any standards: of course, it is democratic, said whoever was arguing in favour, all its members are democracies.
This seemed to me so absurd, that I never took another argument in favour of membership seriously again. I remained convinced of the absurdity of it all during the referendum campaign (those cosmetic changes did not amount to much, after all) and am still convinced.
I do not think we shall have to mark another thirtieth anniversary. Against all odds, we have seen the collapse of the Soviet system, though not of socialist ideology. There is no question in my mind: very soon we shall see the collapse of this statist, corporatist political system as well. This time we must make sure that we scotch the ideology, too.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Determinedly Anglocentric
It is us heretics – or Eurosceptics, as we are more commonly but less accurately known – who are so often dismissed as "little Englanders", but when it comes to that narrow, nationalistic perspective of which we are so often accused, there is very little to beat the British media.
That has come over with some force over the least two days, with no end of drivel, not least from yesterday's Sunday Times, about how the current crisis gives the opportunity variously for Blair or Britain to "take the lead in Europe".
Together with that, there is the tendency of the media to reduce everything to soap-opera personalities, and "biff-bang" comic-book style confrontations, invariably described in terms of "plucky Britain" fighting its corner against these evil continentals.
That is very much the framework of the piece in the Beano this morning, aka The Times, which headlines: "Battle lines drawn up as leaders get ready for a war over EU".
"A battle for the leadership of the European Union is expected to burst into the open today", goes the "biff-bam" commentary, masquerading as news, adding – you guessed it - "when Britain defies France and Germany by suspending its referendum on the European constitution."
Only further down do we get to anything particularly interesting, which is the idea "said to be gaining ground among the EU's new Eastern European members". This is for a "a nine-month 'ratification holiday' that would see the process extended from November until the summer of 2007, beyond likely changes of leader in Germany and France."
But the drivel is not confined to The Times, as even the otherwise sober Scotsman succumbs to the disease (do we call it the "little Scotlander"?), reporting that "allies of Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, also believe that his personal position has been enhanced" by the current crisis.
Then there are the wild optimists, like William Rees-Mogg in The Times, who argues that "Europe was on its way to a bureaucratic prison camp" but now believes that: "it can choose a more attractive destination."
In the depression of the morning after the night before – actually the morning after the week before – in the cold light of day, nothing substantial has changed. The existing treaties are still in place, the march of integration continues apace and, in the fullness of time, the "colleagues" are going to get their constitution in place - even if it is a line at a time.
As for Britain, it – as always – will do as it is told, while the media will continue drivelling about Europe "going our way", while running the never-ending soap opera about the next "battle" and the one after that, each one which we contrive to lose.
But, as long as "plucky Britain" goes down fighting, all is well in the make-believe world of a media that is determinedly Anglocentric.
That has come over with some force over the least two days, with no end of drivel, not least from yesterday's Sunday Times, about how the current crisis gives the opportunity variously for Blair or Britain to "take the lead in Europe".
Together with that, there is the tendency of the media to reduce everything to soap-opera personalities, and "biff-bang" comic-book style confrontations, invariably described in terms of "plucky Britain" fighting its corner against these evil continentals.
That is very much the framework of the piece in the Beano this morning, aka The Times, which headlines: "Battle lines drawn up as leaders get ready for a war over EU".
"A battle for the leadership of the European Union is expected to burst into the open today", goes the "biff-bam" commentary, masquerading as news, adding – you guessed it - "when Britain defies France and Germany by suspending its referendum on the European constitution."
Only further down do we get to anything particularly interesting, which is the idea "said to be gaining ground among the EU's new Eastern European members". This is for a "a nine-month 'ratification holiday' that would see the process extended from November until the summer of 2007, beyond likely changes of leader in Germany and France."
But the drivel is not confined to The Times, as even the otherwise sober Scotsman succumbs to the disease (do we call it the "little Scotlander"?), reporting that "allies of Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, also believe that his personal position has been enhanced" by the current crisis.
Then there are the wild optimists, like William Rees-Mogg in The Times, who argues that "Europe was on its way to a bureaucratic prison camp" but now believes that: "it can choose a more attractive destination."
In the depression of the morning after the night before – actually the morning after the week before – in the cold light of day, nothing substantial has changed. The existing treaties are still in place, the march of integration continues apace and, in the fullness of time, the "colleagues" are going to get their constitution in place - even if it is a line at a time.
As for Britain, it – as always – will do as it is told, while the media will continue drivelling about Europe "going our way", while running the never-ending soap opera about the next "battle" and the one after that, each one which we contrive to lose.
But, as long as "plucky Britain" goes down fighting, all is well in the make-believe world of a media that is determinedly Anglocentric.
The music has stopped…
That is the theme from The Times leader this morning, which enjoins "EU leaders" not to play "pass-the-parcel with a dead constitution".
With Schröder and Chirac declaring that the ratification process should continue, the paper suggests that this can, logically, only mean that they favour pursuing one of two strategies:
If indeed the music has stopped, it would explain, as The Business remarked yesterday, that "many British eurosceptics are feeling strangely depressed this weekend."
Interestingly, one person who did express relief, if not delight at what he believes is the cancellation of the referendum is Lord Haskins, chairman of Britain in Europe, who last night told BBC's Westminister Hour that: "some of us feel a sense of relief that we no longer have this noose around our necks".
Yet the same Lord Haskins, just over a year ago was telling The Daily Telegraph that: "A positive vote on the EU constitution should finally dissipate the destructive scepticism which has prevailed in Britain about our relations with Europe."
For Haskins to revel in the cancellation, therefore, must mean that he is content that the "destructive scepticism" should continue for, without a referendum, there is absolutely no possibility of a vote, much less a positive vote.
Thus, while he and his colleagues may welcome a halt to the music, they should be aware that the boil has yet to be lanced. And while the absence of music can always be tolerated, untended boils can do very nasty things.
With Schröder and Chirac declaring that the ratification process should continue, the paper suggests that this can, logically, only mean that they favour pursuing one of two strategies:
They either hope that universal approval for the constitution elsewhere will force deviant voters in two countries into line or, more plausibly, they want to share the blame for the failure of this venture by having other governments endure the intense embarrassment suffered in Paris and The Hague. Neither approach is honourable or credible.If they continue, says The Times, the British government should "politely tell Paris and Berlin that the music has stopped."
If indeed the music has stopped, it would explain, as The Business remarked yesterday, that "many British eurosceptics are feeling strangely depressed this weekend."
Their immediate euphoria after last week's crushing rejection by the people of France and the Netherlands of the dreaded European Constitution is now a distant memory, replaced with a sense of dej vu at Tony Blair's remarkable ability to snatch victory from the jaws of what should have been a big defeat.Certainly, without a referendum, it will not only be Eurosceptics who will feel cheated, and the lack of a poll will leave a dangerous vaccum in British politics. Integration will continue apace, yet without legitimacy, leaving the whole question of where the project is going unresolved.
Interestingly, one person who did express relief, if not delight at what he believes is the cancellation of the referendum is Lord Haskins, chairman of Britain in Europe, who last night told BBC's Westminister Hour that: "some of us feel a sense of relief that we no longer have this noose around our necks".
Yet the same Lord Haskins, just over a year ago was telling The Daily Telegraph that: "A positive vote on the EU constitution should finally dissipate the destructive scepticism which has prevailed in Britain about our relations with Europe."
For Haskins to revel in the cancellation, therefore, must mean that he is content that the "destructive scepticism" should continue for, without a referendum, there is absolutely no possibility of a vote, much less a positive vote.
Thus, while he and his colleagues may welcome a halt to the music, they should be aware that the boil has yet to be lanced. And while the absence of music can always be tolerated, untended boils can do very nasty things.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
The wrong sort of "no"
Idly reading the press releases on the Britain in Europe site, as one does, I came across this sequence:
Are we talking about the wrong sort of "no"?
Britain in Europe welcomes Spanish 'Si'The question is, if BiE were so convinced that Britain would be "isolated from Europe" if it voted "no", how come France is not… or Holland?
21-Feb-2005
Britain in Europe has welcomed the decision of the Spanish people to approve the European treaty by a margin of 3 to 1.
As more countries approve the treaty, it will become increasingly clear that Britain would be isolated from Europe if it voted against. Britain's relations with the rest of Europe would be thrown into uncertainty and confusion.
Britain in Europe statement on the French referendum
30-May-2005
Commenting on the result of the French referendum, Lucy Powell, Campaign Director of Britain in Europe, said today:
"The result of the French referendum is a huge disappointment. The issues the Treaty seeks to address - the consequences of enlargement, the need for reform of EU institutions and the economic challenges of globalization - have not been answered by the French vote."
Britain in Europe statement on the Dutch referendum
02-Jun-2005
Commenting on the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by Dutch voters, Lucy Powell, Campaign Director of Britain in Europe said today,
"The rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by a second founder member of the EU means that a referendum in the UK is now extremely unlikely. We await with interest the outcome of the European Council summit in June, but Europe's political leaders cannot ignore the democratic will of these referendums."
Are we talking about the wrong sort of "no"?
An apology
Helen apologies for her absence from the Blog over the weekend. She is having computer problems and hopes to be back on-line tomorrow - whence she will sort us all out.
And so to Booker…
Rather late this week, for which I apologise, here is the "traditional" analysis of the Booker column.
Concerned with "great events" as we are (Booker and I are currently writing the second edition of The Great Deception), it is both a useful and salutory reminder to come down to earth occasionally and look at precisely why, in a very practical way, the European Union is such a detestable organisation.
The reminder comes with the first story which, as Booker writes, is to affect hundreds of charities which are about to learn "with shock" of a recent ruling by a VAT tribunal.
This bureaucratic construct has ruled that HM Customs and Excise is right to demand up to £100,000 from a country house opera company, which thought it was exempt from VAT because all its profits go to charitable causes. The case arose because, in their interpretation of EU law, the Vat-men decided that a "profit" and a "loss" are the same thing and the tribunal has now agreed.
Since many of you will have by now, already read the story, there is little value in my repeating it here – and the link is also provided above. The point to make, therefore, is to emphasise that VAT, in form, is an EU tax, introduced in the UK as a condition of our joining the (then) EEC. It is the ultimate nightmare for businesses, and a bureaucrat's dream.
What is missing from the story, of course, is the mention of any politician. As an EU tax, VAT is "politician-proof" and it is pointless appealing to an MP or even a minister to get some sense. The rules have been created in Brussels and are interpreted by officials. However, mad or unjust they may be, that is the way it is. That is the way we are now governed – by mad laws and mad officials.
The second story is our "take" on the constitution drama, as it was on Friday when the story was filed. Booker counsels that, "Amid all the vapourings from media and politicians that 'the treaty is dead', we would be wise to heed the views of Messrs Schröder, Chirac, Barroso and Juncker, and the leaders of those 10 nations in whose name the EU constitution has already been ratified."
He is right, of course – or, at least – I think he is right. You, dear readers, are – for a short while yet – entitled to form you own opinions. Make the most of it.
The third story is a corker. PC running wild – yet another combination of mad Brussels and mad officials but, this time, gormless ministers as well. The net effect this time, is to require female quotas for science and engineering professors, more than the fair sex can possibly sensibly fill in the timescale envisaged. Is there anything that these bureaucrats can't mess up?
And for the final story, just a clarification – that an EC directive which is shortly to be imposed on Britain's 2,500 "small animal" veterinary practices is going to add £2,500 a week to the costs of each vet - which will of course have to be paid for by the owners of each cat, dog and hamster who requires their services. Yet another of those wonderful benefits of membership of the EU.
Concerned with "great events" as we are (Booker and I are currently writing the second edition of The Great Deception), it is both a useful and salutory reminder to come down to earth occasionally and look at precisely why, in a very practical way, the European Union is such a detestable organisation.
The reminder comes with the first story which, as Booker writes, is to affect hundreds of charities which are about to learn "with shock" of a recent ruling by a VAT tribunal.
This bureaucratic construct has ruled that HM Customs and Excise is right to demand up to £100,000 from a country house opera company, which thought it was exempt from VAT because all its profits go to charitable causes. The case arose because, in their interpretation of EU law, the Vat-men decided that a "profit" and a "loss" are the same thing and the tribunal has now agreed.
Since many of you will have by now, already read the story, there is little value in my repeating it here – and the link is also provided above. The point to make, therefore, is to emphasise that VAT, in form, is an EU tax, introduced in the UK as a condition of our joining the (then) EEC. It is the ultimate nightmare for businesses, and a bureaucrat's dream.
What is missing from the story, of course, is the mention of any politician. As an EU tax, VAT is "politician-proof" and it is pointless appealing to an MP or even a minister to get some sense. The rules have been created in Brussels and are interpreted by officials. However, mad or unjust they may be, that is the way it is. That is the way we are now governed – by mad laws and mad officials.
The second story is our "take" on the constitution drama, as it was on Friday when the story was filed. Booker counsels that, "Amid all the vapourings from media and politicians that 'the treaty is dead', we would be wise to heed the views of Messrs Schröder, Chirac, Barroso and Juncker, and the leaders of those 10 nations in whose name the EU constitution has already been ratified."
He is right, of course – or, at least – I think he is right. You, dear readers, are – for a short while yet – entitled to form you own opinions. Make the most of it.
The third story is a corker. PC running wild – yet another combination of mad Brussels and mad officials but, this time, gormless ministers as well. The net effect this time, is to require female quotas for science and engineering professors, more than the fair sex can possibly sensibly fill in the timescale envisaged. Is there anything that these bureaucrats can't mess up?
And for the final story, just a clarification – that an EC directive which is shortly to be imposed on Britain's 2,500 "small animal" veterinary practices is going to add £2,500 a week to the costs of each vet - which will of course have to be paid for by the owners of each cat, dog and hamster who requires their services. Yet another of those wonderful benefits of membership of the EU.
And your point is?
I am not sure what to make of the "healthy constitution" set out in The Sunday Telegraph leader today.
Purporting to set out a new constitution setting up a "European Commonwealth" (as opposed to the existing "Commonpoverty" I suppose), and anulling the existing EU treaties, we would not argue with the idea of "an association of parliamentary democracies that collaborate one with another for mutual benefit", with all that that entails.
The problem is that the point The Telegraph is making is not clear. If it is suggesting that the treaties are actually replaced by a loose association of nation states, it must know that this will not happen. And, if that is the case – as indeed it is – is it then suggesting that, in the absence of such a transmutation, we leave the EU? If that is its intention, it would have been better if it had said so.
As it stands, this "back of the envelope" constitution is all great fun – the sort of thing we all sketch out from time to time, most often on the back of a beer mat. But where does it take us?
Purporting to set out a new constitution setting up a "European Commonwealth" (as opposed to the existing "Commonpoverty" I suppose), and anulling the existing EU treaties, we would not argue with the idea of "an association of parliamentary democracies that collaborate one with another for mutual benefit", with all that that entails.
The problem is that the point The Telegraph is making is not clear. If it is suggesting that the treaties are actually replaced by a loose association of nation states, it must know that this will not happen. And, if that is the case – as indeed it is – is it then suggesting that, in the absence of such a transmutation, we leave the EU? If that is its intention, it would have been better if it had said so.
As it stands, this "back of the envelope" constitution is all great fun – the sort of thing we all sketch out from time to time, most often on the back of a beer mat. But where does it take us?
Blair – the suicide bomber of Europe?
Don't get me wrong – I am not suggesting that the prime minister is going to turn up in Brussels with explosives strapped to his midrift. But the effect of today's pronouncement in The Sunday Telegraph – if true – will be roughly similar.
Blair, it says, "has given up on Europe as an issue worth fighting for", or so say "senior allies of the prime minister".
Therein lies the analogy. The nightmare of any security forces is the determined terrorist who does not care if he is killed in a bombing attempt. An intruder with a sense of self-preservation is more easily thwarted, as you tilt the survival equation to make it unacceptable, but if the potential bomber does not care, then the problems multiply.
Thus it is with Blair. If an assessment of his reaction to the Dutch and French rejections of the EU constitution is based on him caring deeply about the outcome of talks, and on his being personally concerned to find a successful resolution, then his options are fairly limited and his behaviour is fairly predictable.
But, if it turns out that he does not care – that he his quite happy to see “Europe” flushed down the pan – then all the calculations change. That which would be unthinkable in a "care-Blair" suddenly becomes not only possible but likely. He could just as easily tell Straw to trash the constitution tomorrow, putting it into eternal limbo, never to be recovered.
The implications are, of course, profound. The Chirac/Schroder duo – who we now know have reaffirmed their commitment to the ratification process – "red mist" could hardly even begin to describe Chirac's condition as he "greeted" Blair at the European Council, shaking him warmly by the throat.
But, if we now have a no-care-Blair, would it matter to him – apart from the bruises? If Blair, the suicide bomber of Europe, sees the G8, his "mission to Africa" and other affairs as more important, and is simply prepared to shrug his shoulders and walk away, what can the "dynamic duo" do about it?
There is the rub. We could find ourselves heading for that "Milan moment" where the European Council, by majority decision, instructs Blair to continue with his referendum. That would leave the prime minister to chose between a humiliating climb-down or outright defiance – either precipitating a domestic crisis as his showpiece policy of being at "the heart of Europe" crashes and burns.
The test will come tomorrow, when Straw rises in the House to make his statement. Isn't this fun?
Blair, it says, "has given up on Europe as an issue worth fighting for", or so say "senior allies of the prime minister".
Therein lies the analogy. The nightmare of any security forces is the determined terrorist who does not care if he is killed in a bombing attempt. An intruder with a sense of self-preservation is more easily thwarted, as you tilt the survival equation to make it unacceptable, but if the potential bomber does not care, then the problems multiply.
Thus it is with Blair. If an assessment of his reaction to the Dutch and French rejections of the EU constitution is based on him caring deeply about the outcome of talks, and on his being personally concerned to find a successful resolution, then his options are fairly limited and his behaviour is fairly predictable.
But, if it turns out that he does not care – that he his quite happy to see “Europe” flushed down the pan – then all the calculations change. That which would be unthinkable in a "care-Blair" suddenly becomes not only possible but likely. He could just as easily tell Straw to trash the constitution tomorrow, putting it into eternal limbo, never to be recovered.
The implications are, of course, profound. The Chirac/Schroder duo – who we now know have reaffirmed their commitment to the ratification process – "red mist" could hardly even begin to describe Chirac's condition as he "greeted" Blair at the European Council, shaking him warmly by the throat.
But, if we now have a no-care-Blair, would it matter to him – apart from the bruises? If Blair, the suicide bomber of Europe, sees the G8, his "mission to Africa" and other affairs as more important, and is simply prepared to shrug his shoulders and walk away, what can the "dynamic duo" do about it?
There is the rub. We could find ourselves heading for that "Milan moment" where the European Council, by majority decision, instructs Blair to continue with his referendum. That would leave the prime minister to chose between a humiliating climb-down or outright defiance – either precipitating a domestic crisis as his showpiece policy of being at "the heart of Europe" crashes and burns.
The test will come tomorrow, when Straw rises in the House to make his statement. Isn't this fun?
Silence
An ominous silence has descended over the outcome of the Chirac/Schröder talks held in Berlin last night. Although widely flagged up in advance, by midnight British time there had been no reports on its conclusions and the most recent EU story on Google News was over four hours old.
It goes almost without saying that what these two political "lame ducks" decide by way of their joint approach to the Dutch and French referendums will have a major impact on the coming European Council meeting of 16/17 June. The silence may be significant, as we usually get some clue of the "common position" fairly shortly after these Franco—German talks, by way of a joint communiqué.
Without any detail to hand, one of the crucial pieces of the jigsaw is missing, in trying to assess what is going on. However, from the responses and events of the last few days, some sort of a picture is beginning to emerge.
Firstly, it seems clear that Blair has seen in the Dutch "nee" and the French "non" an opportunity to ditch the UK referendum, which he believes he cannot win and which would be damaging to his premiership. However, equally clearly, it is evident that he does not want to be the first (or only) one to take action which would have the effect of ditching the constitution, and thus taking the sole blame for the collapse.
With his ministers and officials, he has therefore been working behind the scenes with the member states most likely to share his views, in an attempt to get a working (or sufficient) majority for the European Council meeting – safety in numbers, so to speak – which will support him in ditching the constitution, without the UK taking the blame.
In that context, the much heralded statement by Jack Straw on Monday, and the unattributed briefings by officials and allies of Blair, can be seen as pre-Council manoeuvring by Blair, to put pressure on his potential allies and opponents, in order to force a favourable (to him) decision on the Council.
Despite newspaper reports to the contrary, therefore, it is most unlikely that Straw will actually suspend indefinitely the UK referendum, although he may make the token gesture of suspending it until the Council meeting, in the hope that the decision will go his way, and he can make the suspension permanent.
On the other hand, the Commission, Juncker – holding the UK presidency – and, so far, France and Germany, have been trying to hold the line, insisting that the ratification procedure should continue, invoking Declaration 30 to support their case.
With what we know, it would appear that the Franco—German line will hold, unless the president and chancellor decide to cut their losses, although neither of them seem to have anything to lose by so doing. If the line does hold, it is unlikely that Blair can attract enough allies to form a majory. "Wobblers" will be whipped into line, and Blair will be facing a hostile majority intent on forcing the UK referendum.
Against this background can be seen the recent intensification of the rhetoric on Britain's budget rebate, which can be seen as a means of pressurising Blair. But it could also serve as a bargaining counter, with the prime minister being offered a "softer" settlement on the rebate, in return for a commitment to hold a referendum.
For the moment, though, precise analysis is difficult, although this Blog retains the position that Blair will almost certainly be forced to continue with a British referendum. As the situation develops, though, the balance of power could change, easing the pressure somewhat. We will continue to watch and wait.
And who said EU politics was boring?
It goes almost without saying that what these two political "lame ducks" decide by way of their joint approach to the Dutch and French referendums will have a major impact on the coming European Council meeting of 16/17 June. The silence may be significant, as we usually get some clue of the "common position" fairly shortly after these Franco—German talks, by way of a joint communiqué.
Without any detail to hand, one of the crucial pieces of the jigsaw is missing, in trying to assess what is going on. However, from the responses and events of the last few days, some sort of a picture is beginning to emerge.
Firstly, it seems clear that Blair has seen in the Dutch "nee" and the French "non" an opportunity to ditch the UK referendum, which he believes he cannot win and which would be damaging to his premiership. However, equally clearly, it is evident that he does not want to be the first (or only) one to take action which would have the effect of ditching the constitution, and thus taking the sole blame for the collapse.
With his ministers and officials, he has therefore been working behind the scenes with the member states most likely to share his views, in an attempt to get a working (or sufficient) majority for the European Council meeting – safety in numbers, so to speak – which will support him in ditching the constitution, without the UK taking the blame.
In that context, the much heralded statement by Jack Straw on Monday, and the unattributed briefings by officials and allies of Blair, can be seen as pre-Council manoeuvring by Blair, to put pressure on his potential allies and opponents, in order to force a favourable (to him) decision on the Council.
Despite newspaper reports to the contrary, therefore, it is most unlikely that Straw will actually suspend indefinitely the UK referendum, although he may make the token gesture of suspending it until the Council meeting, in the hope that the decision will go his way, and he can make the suspension permanent.
On the other hand, the Commission, Juncker – holding the UK presidency – and, so far, France and Germany, have been trying to hold the line, insisting that the ratification procedure should continue, invoking Declaration 30 to support their case.
With what we know, it would appear that the Franco—German line will hold, unless the president and chancellor decide to cut their losses, although neither of them seem to have anything to lose by so doing. If the line does hold, it is unlikely that Blair can attract enough allies to form a majory. "Wobblers" will be whipped into line, and Blair will be facing a hostile majority intent on forcing the UK referendum.
Against this background can be seen the recent intensification of the rhetoric on Britain's budget rebate, which can be seen as a means of pressurising Blair. But it could also serve as a bargaining counter, with the prime minister being offered a "softer" settlement on the rebate, in return for a commitment to hold a referendum.
For the moment, though, precise analysis is difficult, although this Blog retains the position that Blair will almost certainly be forced to continue with a British referendum. As the situation develops, though, the balance of power could change, easing the pressure somewhat. We will continue to watch and wait.
And who said EU politics was boring?
Saturday, June 04, 2005
How Britain fell
Yes, I did watch the BBC2 documentary on "How Britain fell for Europe", by Michael Cockerill. Lightweight, is perhaps the best description, it actual film adding little of substance to what was reproduced in the article in The Independent this morning.
I did, however, enjoy the recantation from a very much older but still Sloaney Caroline de Courcey Iceland, who had played such a central part in the "yes" campaign, now admitting that, if she was asked again about membership of the EU, she would now vote "no". Her and Margaret Thatcher, have a lot in common.
And how instructive that the unreconstructed Marxist, who was then so much against the EEC, is now, in his own words, "a committed Europhile".
Other highlights were the director of the "yes" broadcasts, Justin Cartwright, who admitted that, as a matter of "conscious strategy", we "clearly wanted to frighten"; Paul Johnson's comment on Thatcher: "In those days she knew very little about foreign affairs"; and the admission from McAlpine that the "banks put in very large sums of money" to the "yes" campaign.
I enjoyed Peter Clarke's description of the "no" campaign: "…a shambles – an ichoate network… we had to keep reminding outselves who the enemy was, as we were natural enemies" and, "a tiny group of people with no money… trying to put up a proper case". Nothing changes.
But what was really missing was the pivotal role of Bob Worcester, the MORI pollster who carried out continuous polls, guiding the campaign to concentrate on "bread and butter issues", ignoring the "sovereignty" issue because that did not play well with the voters.
It was his organisation that determined the approval ratings for the main "yes" and "no" campaigners, making sure the media gave most publicity to those of the "yes" side whose approval ratings were highest, and ensuring that the "no" campaigners with the lowest approval rating also got the most coverage. It was not an accident that Tony Benn was seen as the face of the "no" campaign.
In that and many other ways, the campaign was rigged. That could and should have been on the programme but, on balance, there was enough there to demonstrate that, by no means, could the 1975 referendum have been regarded as a fair or accurate reflection of public opinion on such an important matter as staying in the EEC.
If, incidentally, the comments section of the post below, for "the great debate" gets full, continue it here, and I'll pick them all up together.
I did, however, enjoy the recantation from a very much older but still Sloaney Caroline de Courcey Iceland, who had played such a central part in the "yes" campaign, now admitting that, if she was asked again about membership of the EU, she would now vote "no". Her and Margaret Thatcher, have a lot in common.
And how instructive that the unreconstructed Marxist, who was then so much against the EEC, is now, in his own words, "a committed Europhile".
Other highlights were the director of the "yes" broadcasts, Justin Cartwright, who admitted that, as a matter of "conscious strategy", we "clearly wanted to frighten"; Paul Johnson's comment on Thatcher: "In those days she knew very little about foreign affairs"; and the admission from McAlpine that the "banks put in very large sums of money" to the "yes" campaign.
I enjoyed Peter Clarke's description of the "no" campaign: "…a shambles – an ichoate network… we had to keep reminding outselves who the enemy was, as we were natural enemies" and, "a tiny group of people with no money… trying to put up a proper case". Nothing changes.
But what was really missing was the pivotal role of Bob Worcester, the MORI pollster who carried out continuous polls, guiding the campaign to concentrate on "bread and butter issues", ignoring the "sovereignty" issue because that did not play well with the voters.
It was his organisation that determined the approval ratings for the main "yes" and "no" campaigners, making sure the media gave most publicity to those of the "yes" side whose approval ratings were highest, and ensuring that the "no" campaigners with the lowest approval rating also got the most coverage. It was not an accident that Tony Benn was seen as the face of the "no" campaign.
In that and many other ways, the campaign was rigged. That could and should have been on the programme but, on balance, there was enough there to demonstrate that, by no means, could the 1975 referendum have been regarded as a fair or accurate reflection of public opinion on such an important matter as staying in the EEC.
If, incidentally, the comments section of the post below, for "the great debate" gets full, continue it here, and I'll pick them all up together.
Should we have a referendum in the UK?
By popular demand, an open posting, to allow discussion. We'll publish a summary of the comments.
You can post any answer you like but, to conform with EU rules, it must be "yes". Anyone posting a "no" will, of course, be counted as a "yes".
Just kidding, but then you knew that.
You can post any answer you like but, to conform with EU rules, it must be "yes". Anyone posting a "no" will, of course, be counted as a "yes".
Just kidding, but then you knew that.
The voice of a believer
I was amused but unsurprised to hear on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions?, Marc Roche, UK and Irish correspondent for Le Monde, passionately declare (aren't they always soo passionate): "I would like to see this country [the UK] believe its future lies in Europe and not with the US".
Once again, we have the "belief system" in play – no rational arguments, simply one must "believe".
The great Shirley Williams was also on the programme, once again blathering about the EU having kept the peace in Europe since 1950. They never give up. When challenged by John Redwood – who asserted that NATO might have had something to do with it – she rounded on him saying that the Balkans had gone to war and they were NATO members. Really?
I am obliged, incidentally, to Christina Speight, who has kept us informed with developments on the Bilt survey, in which readers were asked to give their opinions on the EU constitution. Some 390,694 people rang and a whopping 96.9 percent were against the constitution. This contrasts nicely with the Bundestag just some three weeks ago, writes Christina, where some 95 percent voted for the constitution.
In Germany also, it seems the grip of the "belief system" is breaking down, the Dutch and the French "no" votes effectively having given people "permission" to think the unthinkable. Heresy, suddenly, is back in fashion.
Once again, we have the "belief system" in play – no rational arguments, simply one must "believe".
The great Shirley Williams was also on the programme, once again blathering about the EU having kept the peace in Europe since 1950. They never give up. When challenged by John Redwood – who asserted that NATO might have had something to do with it – she rounded on him saying that the Balkans had gone to war and they were NATO members. Really?
I am obliged, incidentally, to Christina Speight, who has kept us informed with developments on the Bilt survey, in which readers were asked to give their opinions on the EU constitution. Some 390,694 people rang and a whopping 96.9 percent were against the constitution. This contrasts nicely with the Bundestag just some three weeks ago, writes Christina, where some 95 percent voted for the constitution.
In Germany also, it seems the grip of the "belief system" is breaking down, the Dutch and the French "no" votes effectively having given people "permission" to think the unthinkable. Heresy, suddenly, is back in fashion.
Thirty years of "no"
Tomorrow, as we have been reminded, is the 30th anniversary of the first and only national referendum we have ever had, the referendum on whether we wished to continue our membership of the then EEC.
Voters were confronted with the question: "Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" Seventeen million voted "yes" and eight million voted "no", giving premier Harold Wilson a 67.2 percent mandate for remaining in what was, in the fullness of time, to become the European Union.
Rehearsing a complaint that we have been hearing in respect of the current Dutch and French referendums about the lack of focus on "Europe", one Conservative campaigner in the thick of the battle wrote afterwards:
At the time, I was a newly qualified public health inspector – soon to assume the grandiose title of "environmental health officer" and amongst my duties was the inspection of poultry slaughterhouses, and newly slaughtered fowl – together with red meat inspection.
Call me weird if you like, but I hugely enjoyed the work, much of it out on farms where the trade was mostly Christmas turkeys, and I found the enforcement of hygiene law on their premises intellectually and physically challenging.
After three years in college and two years of practical training, I was justly proud of my qualification and hard-earned skills – not least of which was the ability to sharpen my inspector’s knife to a level that I could have shaved with it (and then not permanently injure myself when I used it).
But, with our accession to the EEC and the introduction of Directive 71/118/EC, I found that my qualification was not recognised. What the Directive did was replace the established – and unique, local authority-based system of meat inspection – with the Continental, veterinary-based system, which required that all operations were monitored by "Official Veterinary Surgeons".
Literally overnight, I was no longer qualified to do my own job. I and my colleagues were subordinated to veterinary surgeons, many of whom had no meat inspection skills and little if anything in the way of practical experience in enforcing hygiene standards.
I did in fact form a campaign group, which we called the Food Law Action Group (FLAG) and we very nearly defeated the UK implementing regulations (one of the very few occasions where a "prayer" was debated on the floor of the House), but it was not to be, after the Conservative opposition front bench pulled out at the last minute and voted with the government.
However, the experience of the "one size fits all regime", which ever more people were to encounter, motivated me to buy a copy of the Treaty of Rome, for which I paid the handsome sum of £1.20. I read it from cover to cover, and still have that original copy, with the declaration on page 3 that: "His Majesty the King of the Belgians" and all the rest were "Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
I must have been one of the very few people who went to the polls having read the treaty, and my views formed then, thirty years on, have not changed one bit. Not that I am looking to the past. During those thirty years, I built up a successful food safety practice and even my many detractors would acknowledge that I became a leading authority on food safety issues.
Over term, however, I found that more and more technical issues were decided on political grounds, increasingly at an EU level, to the extent that it was impossible to become an honest practitioner. To resolve what should have been technical issues, one was sucked more and more into the political arena until the two became inseparable.
My initial opposition to "ever closer union", and to the "one size fits all" regime which forms the practical manifestation of the treaty ambition, has thus been steadily reinforced and remains as implacable as ever.
It is ironic, if not fitting, that thirty years on, we are again discussing "ever closer union". But it would be tragic if the British peoples were denied the chance of expressing their opinion on it again.
Voters were confronted with the question: "Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" Seventeen million voted "yes" and eight million voted "no", giving premier Harold Wilson a 67.2 percent mandate for remaining in what was, in the fullness of time, to become the European Union.
Rehearsing a complaint that we have been hearing in respect of the current Dutch and French referendums about the lack of focus on "Europe", one Conservative campaigner in the thick of the battle wrote afterwards:
What was notable was the extent to which the Referendum, certainly in its latter stages, was not really about Europe at all. It became a straight left versus right battle with the normal dividing line shifting further over than in general elections – hence the Labour Party split and their discomforture. In all the speeches I made to Conservative audiences the trump card was always – "beware Benn, Foot, Castle". It was this, more than anything else, which solidified the Conservative vote and increasingly negated the efforts of anti-EEC Conservatives.Oddly enough, although I voted in the referendum, searching back in my memory, I cannot remember anything of the campaign – not anything of the arguments or what drama there was. And, although I was one of those eight million who voted "no", it was not for any of the reasons adduced in the campaign. In fact, it was for one single reason – or the inferences I drew from it – the Fresh Poultry Meat Marketing Directive 71/118/EEC.
At the time, I was a newly qualified public health inspector – soon to assume the grandiose title of "environmental health officer" and amongst my duties was the inspection of poultry slaughterhouses, and newly slaughtered fowl – together with red meat inspection.
Call me weird if you like, but I hugely enjoyed the work, much of it out on farms where the trade was mostly Christmas turkeys, and I found the enforcement of hygiene law on their premises intellectually and physically challenging.
After three years in college and two years of practical training, I was justly proud of my qualification and hard-earned skills – not least of which was the ability to sharpen my inspector’s knife to a level that I could have shaved with it (and then not permanently injure myself when I used it).
But, with our accession to the EEC and the introduction of Directive 71/118/EC, I found that my qualification was not recognised. What the Directive did was replace the established – and unique, local authority-based system of meat inspection – with the Continental, veterinary-based system, which required that all operations were monitored by "Official Veterinary Surgeons".
Literally overnight, I was no longer qualified to do my own job. I and my colleagues were subordinated to veterinary surgeons, many of whom had no meat inspection skills and little if anything in the way of practical experience in enforcing hygiene standards.
I did in fact form a campaign group, which we called the Food Law Action Group (FLAG) and we very nearly defeated the UK implementing regulations (one of the very few occasions where a "prayer" was debated on the floor of the House), but it was not to be, after the Conservative opposition front bench pulled out at the last minute and voted with the government.
However, the experience of the "one size fits all regime", which ever more people were to encounter, motivated me to buy a copy of the Treaty of Rome, for which I paid the handsome sum of £1.20. I read it from cover to cover, and still have that original copy, with the declaration on page 3 that: "His Majesty the King of the Belgians" and all the rest were "Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
I must have been one of the very few people who went to the polls having read the treaty, and my views formed then, thirty years on, have not changed one bit. Not that I am looking to the past. During those thirty years, I built up a successful food safety practice and even my many detractors would acknowledge that I became a leading authority on food safety issues.
Over term, however, I found that more and more technical issues were decided on political grounds, increasingly at an EU level, to the extent that it was impossible to become an honest practitioner. To resolve what should have been technical issues, one was sucked more and more into the political arena until the two became inseparable.
My initial opposition to "ever closer union", and to the "one size fits all" regime which forms the practical manifestation of the treaty ambition, has thus been steadily reinforced and remains as implacable as ever.
It is ironic, if not fitting, that thirty years on, we are again discussing "ever closer union". But it would be tragic if the British peoples were denied the chance of expressing their opinion on it again.
How we were conned into Europe
Tonight at 8.25 pm, BBC2 is showing a documentary on the 1975 referendum, with director Michael Cockerill recalling ‘the wily tactics that won round a sceptical nation’.
A taster is offered in today's Independent, Cockerill giving some idea how the dirty tricks department worked. He writes:
Asked where the money had come from, the organiser admitted: "From the European Commission: it was a sort of special dispensation. I don't know how they fixed it, because one didn't ask too much. One just said 'Thank you very much' and got on with organising it."
And Alastair McAlpine, the campaign treasurer, later to become Tory Party treasurer, describes the tactics:
A taster is offered in today's Independent, Cockerill giving some idea how the dirty tricks department worked. He writes:
From the start, it was clear that there was nothing like a balance of power between the two sides. The "yes" campaign was well staffed, well funded and well organised and consisted of like-minded people from the centre ground of the three main parties. The "no"s by came largely from the left wing of the Labour Party, the right wing of the Tories and the far fringes beyond - from the National Front to the Communist Party. And they had minimal resources.The campaign organised plane-loads of pro-European speakers from all parties across the country to be flown for briefings by top level Eurocrats, chartering a series of 100-seater jet planes from British Caledonian airlines. Nearly 1,000 were given the treatment.
Asked where the money had come from, the organiser admitted: "From the European Commission: it was a sort of special dispensation. I don't know how they fixed it, because one didn't ask too much. One just said 'Thank you very much' and got on with organising it."
And Alastair McAlpine, the campaign treasurer, later to become Tory Party treasurer, describes the tactics:
The whole thrust of our campaign was to depict the anti-marketeers as unreliable people - dangerous people who would lead you down the wrong path. It wasn't so much that it was sensible to stay in, but that anybody that proposed that we came out was off their rocker or virtually Marxist.This much we already knew, and it has been the case ever since. As we are seeing today, for want of arguments of their own, denigration of their opponents has always been a key part of the Euro-luvvies' strategy. Now the boot is on the other foot – and it's open season. No mercy will be shown.
Don't give them ideas
It is bad enough having the Euro-luvvies reinterpret the results of the referendums but Guardian columnist Simon Hoggart is on very dangerous grounds when he extends their ideas into different territory. He writes:
In fact, it's amazing Clinton didn't think of it.
What part of "non" don't these people understand? I've loved the sight of EU panjandrums explaining how the referendums don't count because the electorate were voting for the wrong reasons. You could apply that to any poll. Suppose Labour were voted out of office in 2009. Prime minister Brown could say: "It is clear that people voted against us because of fears about the NHS. In fact, the latest statistics show that waiting lists are down, so they were mistaken. We shall ignore the result."He may be writing in jest but it's better to play it safe and not give our own politicians ideas. You never know where it might lead.
In fact, it's amazing Clinton didn't think of it.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Keeping the peace
It seems that Lord Haskins has again come up with that old chestnut about peace in Europe thanks to the glorious EU. I wish, I wish, but I wish in vain, that they would think of a few new lies … woops I mean new arguments … in favour of the project.
Still, there is one international treaty organization that can claim the credit for keeping the peace in some parts of Europe and helping the rest of it to free itself from its shackles a.k.a. as the unmentionable supranational system of Communism.
More recently, there have been certain questions posed about NATO, not least whether it can survive the influx of East European countries, including Romania and Bulgaria, whose military structures and equipment are hard to integrate and whose intelligence officers are perceived as unreliable.
NATO’s other big problem is the European Defence Identity, which is busy building rival structures without putting any real money into the nitty-gritty of defence. Thus, if it is ever challenged, NATO and, specifically, the Americans will have to come to its rescue, which they might or might not do.
There has been one more interesting development. A couple of weeks ago, the Israeli navy took part in joint exercises with NATO.
This Tuesday, during the spring session of the organization, held in Ljubljana, Israel became a member of the Parliamentary Assembly. In itself that does not mean a great deal, the Assembly not being one of the important decision-making bodies.
It does show, however, that NATO is looking towards other allies and even members as the main thrust of the struggle to protect that much-discussed peace in the West shifts away from the Soviet Union (if, maybe, temporarily) to Middle Eastern terrorist groups and states.
This raises some interesting political problems. One of the sources of tension between the EU and the United States has been behaviour in the Middle East. The EU has been resolutely anti-Israeli to the point of ignoring the welfare of the Palestinian Arabs (as for Israeli Arabs, they are not on the European radar screen) by supporting the late unlamented Chairman Yasser Arafat, who, single-handedly, destroyed all political and economic structures in the Palestinian territories.
Parallel to this there has been a worrying rise of very real anti-Semitism in Europe, coming mostly from the left as well as the Muslim communities in some countries.
The largest number of attacks on Jewish targets appears to have taken place in France. We are not, however, talking just about hoodlums desecrating cemeteries, torching schools or, even, attacking people.
We are talking about highly regarded publications. To no publicity whatsoever the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled last week that Le Monde was guilty of whipping up anti-Semitic feelings in an article published in 2002, entitled “Israel-Palestine: The Cancer”. No prizes for guessing what the cancer was.
According to an account by Tom Gross in the Wall Street Journal Europe yesterday, the article
Interestingly the court decision went almost entirely unnoticed. No coverage in the French press; Reuters and Agence France (in trouble in the past for their biased reporting from the Middle East) ran short stories in French but not on the English language news services. Associated Press did not run the story at all. Our own media, obsessed with the importance of Tony Blair in Europe, the ritual hara-kiri of the Conservative Party and the new series of Big Brother, did not touch it.
Yet, this is an important decision and should have triggered some sort of a discussion about the way Israel and its people seem to be exempt from all other considerations of fairness, decency and honesty.
We all know about the outrageous decision of the AUT to boycott two Israeli universities and its academics regardless of who they are and what they do. The decision, now happily for Britain’s reputation abroad, overturned, was based entirely on a tissue of lies supplied by what Harold Wilson would have described as “politically motivated group of people”.
We have all seen cartoons in the Guardian, which could have come out of Der Stürmer. We have all been assailed by articles, screeching statements that described Israelis as Nazis, Gestapo, SS, what have you. Sensible argument or discussion about the Palestinian problem is barely possible in most European countries and, alas, that includes Britain, where ridiculous plays are produced at the Royal Court about stupid American girls who get killed while helping terrorist organizations and even stupider reviewers drool about her beautiful soul and selfless humanity.
(One rather dumb critic quoted with approval the eponymous Rachel’s description of the Palestinians, especially the organization she was working with that built up a network for distributing arms, as being Gandhi-like. Whatever one may think of Gandhi, he did not advocate suicide-homicide bombings.)
Tom Gross lists a horrific number of articles in the mainstream European media that goes a long way beyond criticism of Israeli policies and erupts into neither more nor less than hatred of Jews.
Admittedly, some of this has lessened since the death of Arafat (apparently not quite the saintly character he was depicted in some West European media), the attempts made by Mahmoud Abbas to rebuild the shattered Palestinian community and the doomed attempts to retrieve Palestinian money from Arafat’s widow and other friends and relations.
Yet the basic antipathy to Israel persists, not least because of the erroneous European perception of that country as being an American client (more American money is pumped into Egypt and that is not investment) and the idea that somehow American foreign policy is motivated entirely by its desire to protect Israel. Actually it is motivated by a desire to protect America and its allies.
Somewhere along the line, the Europeans lost sight of the fact that Israel is a democratic pro-western state with a free media and free politics – a rarity in that part of the world.
Furthermore, Israel is a necessary ally in the fight against terrorism, indeed, the front-line country just as Germany was in the fight against Communism.
That Israel and NATO should draw closer together is entirely logical. But will it drive the wedge between those who want to build separate European defence structures (against whom, precisely?) and the rest of NATO even deeper in?
Still, there is one international treaty organization that can claim the credit for keeping the peace in some parts of Europe and helping the rest of it to free itself from its shackles a.k.a. as the unmentionable supranational system of Communism.
More recently, there have been certain questions posed about NATO, not least whether it can survive the influx of East European countries, including Romania and Bulgaria, whose military structures and equipment are hard to integrate and whose intelligence officers are perceived as unreliable.
NATO’s other big problem is the European Defence Identity, which is busy building rival structures without putting any real money into the nitty-gritty of defence. Thus, if it is ever challenged, NATO and, specifically, the Americans will have to come to its rescue, which they might or might not do.
There has been one more interesting development. A couple of weeks ago, the Israeli navy took part in joint exercises with NATO.
This Tuesday, during the spring session of the organization, held in Ljubljana, Israel became a member of the Parliamentary Assembly. In itself that does not mean a great deal, the Assembly not being one of the important decision-making bodies.
It does show, however, that NATO is looking towards other allies and even members as the main thrust of the struggle to protect that much-discussed peace in the West shifts away from the Soviet Union (if, maybe, temporarily) to Middle Eastern terrorist groups and states.
This raises some interesting political problems. One of the sources of tension between the EU and the United States has been behaviour in the Middle East. The EU has been resolutely anti-Israeli to the point of ignoring the welfare of the Palestinian Arabs (as for Israeli Arabs, they are not on the European radar screen) by supporting the late unlamented Chairman Yasser Arafat, who, single-handedly, destroyed all political and economic structures in the Palestinian territories.
Parallel to this there has been a worrying rise of very real anti-Semitism in Europe, coming mostly from the left as well as the Muslim communities in some countries.
The largest number of attacks on Jewish targets appears to have taken place in France. We are not, however, talking just about hoodlums desecrating cemeteries, torching schools or, even, attacking people.
We are talking about highly regarded publications. To no publicity whatsoever the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled last week that Le Monde was guilty of whipping up anti-Semitic feelings in an article published in 2002, entitled “Israel-Palestine: The Cancer”. No prizes for guessing what the cancer was.
According to an account by Tom Gross in the Wall Street Journal Europe yesterday, the article
“ … was a nasty piece of work, replete with lies, slanders and myths about ‘the chosen people’, ‘the Jenin massacre’, describing the Jews as ‘a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others’, ‘imposing their unmerciful rule’ and so on.”Le Monde has not yet published a condemnation of the article that the court requires from it.
Interestingly the court decision went almost entirely unnoticed. No coverage in the French press; Reuters and Agence France (in trouble in the past for their biased reporting from the Middle East) ran short stories in French but not on the English language news services. Associated Press did not run the story at all. Our own media, obsessed with the importance of Tony Blair in Europe, the ritual hara-kiri of the Conservative Party and the new series of Big Brother, did not touch it.
Yet, this is an important decision and should have triggered some sort of a discussion about the way Israel and its people seem to be exempt from all other considerations of fairness, decency and honesty.
We all know about the outrageous decision of the AUT to boycott two Israeli universities and its academics regardless of who they are and what they do. The decision, now happily for Britain’s reputation abroad, overturned, was based entirely on a tissue of lies supplied by what Harold Wilson would have described as “politically motivated group of people”.
We have all seen cartoons in the Guardian, which could have come out of Der Stürmer. We have all been assailed by articles, screeching statements that described Israelis as Nazis, Gestapo, SS, what have you. Sensible argument or discussion about the Palestinian problem is barely possible in most European countries and, alas, that includes Britain, where ridiculous plays are produced at the Royal Court about stupid American girls who get killed while helping terrorist organizations and even stupider reviewers drool about her beautiful soul and selfless humanity.
(One rather dumb critic quoted with approval the eponymous Rachel’s description of the Palestinians, especially the organization she was working with that built up a network for distributing arms, as being Gandhi-like. Whatever one may think of Gandhi, he did not advocate suicide-homicide bombings.)
Tom Gross lists a horrific number of articles in the mainstream European media that goes a long way beyond criticism of Israeli policies and erupts into neither more nor less than hatred of Jews.
Admittedly, some of this has lessened since the death of Arafat (apparently not quite the saintly character he was depicted in some West European media), the attempts made by Mahmoud Abbas to rebuild the shattered Palestinian community and the doomed attempts to retrieve Palestinian money from Arafat’s widow and other friends and relations.
Yet the basic antipathy to Israel persists, not least because of the erroneous European perception of that country as being an American client (more American money is pumped into Egypt and that is not investment) and the idea that somehow American foreign policy is motivated entirely by its desire to protect Israel. Actually it is motivated by a desire to protect America and its allies.
Somewhere along the line, the Europeans lost sight of the fact that Israel is a democratic pro-western state with a free media and free politics – a rarity in that part of the world.
Furthermore, Israel is a necessary ally in the fight against terrorism, indeed, the front-line country just as Germany was in the fight against Communism.
That Israel and NATO should draw closer together is entirely logical. But will it drive the wedge between those who want to build separate European defence structures (against whom, precisely?) and the rest of NATO even deeper in?
Straws in the wind
First it was the Germans, now it is the Italians. Or some of them. Earlier this week Stern magazine wrote of a meeting at which the German Finance Minister Hans Eichel and Bundsbank President Axel Weber had been present and where the possible break-up of the eurozone was discussed.
Subsequently Herr Eichel assured the world media that he thought the euro was in a very strong and healthy state, indeed, and participants assured Reuter’s journalists that neither Eichel nor Weber had participated in the discussion.
Maybe not. But neither did they flounce out of the room when such a heretical subject was raised.
Today the Italian Welfare Minister Roberto Maroni, of the reasonably eurosceptic Northern League, said that he thought Italy should go back to her own currency, the lira.
His comments came a day after Jean Claude Trichet, President of the ECB (he, whose appointment Blair was supposed to have fought or, maybe, not) made a statement to the press that the very idea that the eurozone could discombobulate was “absurd”.
Was it absurd, Signor Maroni was asked? Hmm, he growled, Trichet would say that. He was “one of those chiefly responsible for the disaster of the euro”.
There is no question that the Italian economy is in a severe crisis, showing negative growth for the second quarter. Maronis’s view is that much of the problem could be solved if the government regained control over the exchange rate and put up protective barriers round domestic industry.
So he really wants to go beyond simply leaving the eurozone and to take Italy out of the single market and, probably, the WTO. Whether that kind of protectionism would actually help anyone to achieve anything but a low level of subsistence is questionable.
Roberto Maroni is of relatively little importance even in Italy and nobody more senior in the government has made a statement on his comments. Still, straws in the wind, straws in the wind.
Subsequently Herr Eichel assured the world media that he thought the euro was in a very strong and healthy state, indeed, and participants assured Reuter’s journalists that neither Eichel nor Weber had participated in the discussion.
Maybe not. But neither did they flounce out of the room when such a heretical subject was raised.
Today the Italian Welfare Minister Roberto Maroni, of the reasonably eurosceptic Northern League, said that he thought Italy should go back to her own currency, the lira.
His comments came a day after Jean Claude Trichet, President of the ECB (he, whose appointment Blair was supposed to have fought or, maybe, not) made a statement to the press that the very idea that the eurozone could discombobulate was “absurd”.
Was it absurd, Signor Maroni was asked? Hmm, he growled, Trichet would say that. He was “one of those chiefly responsible for the disaster of the euro”.
There is no question that the Italian economy is in a severe crisis, showing negative growth for the second quarter. Maronis’s view is that much of the problem could be solved if the government regained control over the exchange rate and put up protective barriers round domestic industry.
So he really wants to go beyond simply leaving the eurozone and to take Italy out of the single market and, probably, the WTO. Whether that kind of protectionism would actually help anyone to achieve anything but a low level of subsistence is questionable.
Roberto Maroni is of relatively little importance even in Italy and nobody more senior in the government has made a statement on his comments. Still, straws in the wind, straws in the wind.
Shock, horror, Toby Helm gets it wrong
Toby Helm, of the Daily Telegraph, along with all British journalists, sees it all as a fight between gallant little Blair and the rest of them. One can’t help thinking that he has been reading a different set of news from the rest of us:
“His eight years as Prime Minister have seen him fight the French and Germans over the British rebate, the Common Agricultural Policy, tax harmonisation,European defence, who should be commission president and president of the European Central Bank, and much more.”
Well, I guess he has not lost the rebate yet, but only because that particular argument has not yet come to a head. The other great fights either did not really happen (Commission President – Barroso was quite a popular candidate with many who did not want Verhofstadt; tax harmonisation is being pushed forward by the ECJ) or Blair lost or gave away.
Who remembers what the CAP fight was about? Who cares? Nothing much changed in any significant way.
European defence was Mr Blair’s idea, or so he kept telling us after the St Malo meeting (actually he was tricked by the French but who’s counting?); the president of the ECB is Trichet, in defiance of the Maastricht Treaty but in accordance with French ideas on how things should run.
One wonders what the much more is.
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"
So spoke Mark Twain, but if the EU constitution could speak for itself, that would undoubtedly be its response to the Daily Telegraph headline this morning which proclaims: "Britain shelves vote on Euro treaty".
The substance of the report looks unequivocal – that Jack Straw is to address the Commons on Monday, when he is going to announce suspension of the Europe Bill and therefore any atempts to ratify the constitution. Although the Bill could be reintroduced at a later date, The Telegraph claims that "Whitehall officials" have said that "there was no prospect or intention of doing so."
Effectively, that means the constitution is dead. But there is more to this than meets the eye. Close scrutiny of the report reveals that: "The British Government's decision to drop the referendum Bill was taken after several tense rounds of discussions between Mr Straw and Tony Blair", and that: "Sources close to Downing Street said Mr Straw was far more eager than Mr Blair to declare the constitutional treaty dead after the French vote on Sunday."
But, we also learn that: "the Foreign Secretary was told by Mr Blair that any decision to do so had to be taken collectively by all EU leaders at the Brussels summit as the Prime Minister did not want Britain to be blamed for killing it."
On the other hand, there is Sir Stephen Wall, Mr Blair's former chief adviser on Europe and ex-ambassador to Brussels, who has long believed a referendum could be won. He said yesterday on Newsnight: "I think there is no hope now. It was only winnable if we left our referendum until others had all voted Yes, and argued we had to do the same to avoid isolation. We cannot do that now."
The important thing here is that that is not the official position and should not be confused with it. On the lunchtime World at One programme on BBC Radio 4, the Foreign Office was asked to field a spokesman but offered only the terse statement that Mr Straw will make a statement on Monday and has "nothing further to say" until then.
Earlier, World at One replayed an interview with Jack Straw on 18 May, when he said that, "the clear legal obligation that each member state signed up to was to ratify the constitution… unless the European Council decides to abrogate". He said as much on Sky News on Monday, stating that the "ownership" of the treaty rested with the European Council, and therefore the decision to abandon ratification could only be taken by the Council.
Nothing since, from the lips of either Straw or Blair has been said that would in any way contradict these statements. The rest is innuendo, speculation and unattributed sources. The best explanation for this torrent is that it represents an attempt by Blair to prevail upon the colleagues voluntarily to abandon the treaty, something he does not dare to force on them.
Thus, the report from The Times is slightly more helpful, as it only reports a "British move to suspend vote deepens European rift".
Britain, it says, "is leading moves to shelve the European constitution until EU leaders agree a way forward after the emphatic 'no' vote in France and the Netherlands." It claims that Straw is expected to tell MPs on Monday that legislation paving the way for a British referendum will be suspended “until there is 'clarity' from EU leaders."
Looking at this wording carefully, the report is entirely compatible with Straw suspending proceedings until 16 June, when the Heads of State and Governments have made their views known. It a long way from confirming that any suspension will be indefinite.
On this basis, the Times's own leader, which opens with the words: "The European 'constitution', that peculiar mixture of vanity and vacuity, is dead," is but an example itself of the "vanity and vacuity" which seems to be afflicting the entire British press corps as it blunders around trying to make some sense of the current situation.
The Guardian is more cautious, simply reporting that there are "Crisis talks as treaty nears collapse". But it does say that Jack Straw will announce that the government is to "put on hold legislation needed before a British referendum", although it adds that Straw will use sensitive language. He will probably avoid the word "suspend", says The Guardian, and will certainly not "withdraw" it.
That leaves The Independent to blether away and, as usual, it does not disappoint, headlining: "British plan to put EU treaty on ice gathers more support". So do rolling stones, chuck – but your point is?
The British idea, it seems is for Blair to ask France and The Netherlands whether they intend to put the question to their peoples in second referendums and, in the absence of any such commitment, he believes he can assume that the ratification process is dead.
That, however, is to reckon without the procedures of the European Council – which the hacks still insist on calling a "summit" and that buffoon Haskins on lunchtime radio referred to as "The Council of Ministers". As we have remarked before, should the Council be divided, and the issue be put to a vote, the decision will be made by simple majority. Even with the possible support of Portugal and Denmark – which are both "wobbling" – Blair cannot even dream of commanding a majority.
From there, there are two theoretical responses to the Council. Blair can defy it, effectively declaring war on the Union and taking the considerable opprobrium for being the one who destroyed the constitution. This would leave his European policy in tatters and consign him to the leper colony, making his forthcoming EU presidency a personal and political nightmare.
Alternatively, Blair could accept being over-ruled and come back to the UK with his tail between his legs, to tell Parliament that he has received his instructions from "Europe" and, like a good boy, he will have a referendum. Domestically, of course, that would be political suicide.
Thus, neither of these scenarios can happen. What Blair will do is manoeuvre and posture, testing the wind until he knows which way it is blowing, and then fall quickly into line so that he can maintain the pretence that he is still in charge. On that basis, there will be a fudge – there always is. There will be a token - i.e. meaningless - concession to Britain, such as the possibility of a short suspension, but the ratification process will go on.
What precise words will be used, heaven knows, and the precise order of events is impossible to predict at this stage, but the script has already been written and the die is cast.
The substance of the report looks unequivocal – that Jack Straw is to address the Commons on Monday, when he is going to announce suspension of the Europe Bill and therefore any atempts to ratify the constitution. Although the Bill could be reintroduced at a later date, The Telegraph claims that "Whitehall officials" have said that "there was no prospect or intention of doing so."
Effectively, that means the constitution is dead. But there is more to this than meets the eye. Close scrutiny of the report reveals that: "The British Government's decision to drop the referendum Bill was taken after several tense rounds of discussions between Mr Straw and Tony Blair", and that: "Sources close to Downing Street said Mr Straw was far more eager than Mr Blair to declare the constitutional treaty dead after the French vote on Sunday."
But, we also learn that: "the Foreign Secretary was told by Mr Blair that any decision to do so had to be taken collectively by all EU leaders at the Brussels summit as the Prime Minister did not want Britain to be blamed for killing it."
On the other hand, there is Sir Stephen Wall, Mr Blair's former chief adviser on Europe and ex-ambassador to Brussels, who has long believed a referendum could be won. He said yesterday on Newsnight: "I think there is no hope now. It was only winnable if we left our referendum until others had all voted Yes, and argued we had to do the same to avoid isolation. We cannot do that now."
The important thing here is that that is not the official position and should not be confused with it. On the lunchtime World at One programme on BBC Radio 4, the Foreign Office was asked to field a spokesman but offered only the terse statement that Mr Straw will make a statement on Monday and has "nothing further to say" until then.
Earlier, World at One replayed an interview with Jack Straw on 18 May, when he said that, "the clear legal obligation that each member state signed up to was to ratify the constitution… unless the European Council decides to abrogate". He said as much on Sky News on Monday, stating that the "ownership" of the treaty rested with the European Council, and therefore the decision to abandon ratification could only be taken by the Council.
Nothing since, from the lips of either Straw or Blair has been said that would in any way contradict these statements. The rest is innuendo, speculation and unattributed sources. The best explanation for this torrent is that it represents an attempt by Blair to prevail upon the colleagues voluntarily to abandon the treaty, something he does not dare to force on them.
Thus, the report from The Times is slightly more helpful, as it only reports a "British move to suspend vote deepens European rift".
Britain, it says, "is leading moves to shelve the European constitution until EU leaders agree a way forward after the emphatic 'no' vote in France and the Netherlands." It claims that Straw is expected to tell MPs on Monday that legislation paving the way for a British referendum will be suspended “until there is 'clarity' from EU leaders."
Looking at this wording carefully, the report is entirely compatible with Straw suspending proceedings until 16 June, when the Heads of State and Governments have made their views known. It a long way from confirming that any suspension will be indefinite.
On this basis, the Times's own leader, which opens with the words: "The European 'constitution', that peculiar mixture of vanity and vacuity, is dead," is but an example itself of the "vanity and vacuity" which seems to be afflicting the entire British press corps as it blunders around trying to make some sense of the current situation.
The Guardian is more cautious, simply reporting that there are "Crisis talks as treaty nears collapse". But it does say that Jack Straw will announce that the government is to "put on hold legislation needed before a British referendum", although it adds that Straw will use sensitive language. He will probably avoid the word "suspend", says The Guardian, and will certainly not "withdraw" it.
That leaves The Independent to blether away and, as usual, it does not disappoint, headlining: "British plan to put EU treaty on ice gathers more support". So do rolling stones, chuck – but your point is?
The British idea, it seems is for Blair to ask France and The Netherlands whether they intend to put the question to their peoples in second referendums and, in the absence of any such commitment, he believes he can assume that the ratification process is dead.
That, however, is to reckon without the procedures of the European Council – which the hacks still insist on calling a "summit" and that buffoon Haskins on lunchtime radio referred to as "The Council of Ministers". As we have remarked before, should the Council be divided, and the issue be put to a vote, the decision will be made by simple majority. Even with the possible support of Portugal and Denmark – which are both "wobbling" – Blair cannot even dream of commanding a majority.
From there, there are two theoretical responses to the Council. Blair can defy it, effectively declaring war on the Union and taking the considerable opprobrium for being the one who destroyed the constitution. This would leave his European policy in tatters and consign him to the leper colony, making his forthcoming EU presidency a personal and political nightmare.
Alternatively, Blair could accept being over-ruled and come back to the UK with his tail between his legs, to tell Parliament that he has received his instructions from "Europe" and, like a good boy, he will have a referendum. Domestically, of course, that would be political suicide.
Thus, neither of these scenarios can happen. What Blair will do is manoeuvre and posture, testing the wind until he knows which way it is blowing, and then fall quickly into line so that he can maintain the pretence that he is still in charge. On that basis, there will be a fudge – there always is. There will be a token - i.e. meaningless - concession to Britain, such as the possibility of a short suspension, but the ratification process will go on.
What precise words will be used, heaven knows, and the precise order of events is impossible to predict at this stage, but the script has already been written and the die is cast.
The nuclear option
Commission chiefs today, we are told, are gathering in a bunker deep under the EU headquarters in Brussels. They are considering whether to use the "nuclear option" – a large button marked: "Press Plan B to get your Monnet back".
Thank you CB.
Thank you CB.
A whiff of panic?
Schröder is to hold an "emegency summit" with Chirac this weekend to discuss what Deutche Welle calls "the crisis unfolding after the French and Dutch rejection of the EU constitution".
With L'Escroc enjoying – if that is the word – the lowest approval rating for any French president since surveys were started in 1979, standing currently at 24 percent after a fall of eight points in a month, the meeting is to be in Berlin on Saturday, when the two leaders will "take stock of the situation" at a working dinner.
This follows a flurry of meetings following the resounding Dutch "nee", with Schröder also having travelled to Luxembourg yesterday to hold crisis talks with the egregious Jean-Claude Juncker.
The only good news to have come their way is that the Latvian parliament ratified the treaty yesterday, by a margin of 71-5 with six abstentions, but this is seen against the background of support ebbing away in Luxembourg, with the latest poll now standing at 46-33 in favour of the "yes" vote, the first time it has fallen below 50 percent.
To add to the woes, a yet to be published opinion poll reports the "no" vote in Denmark at 39 percent, as opposed to 30 percent for the "yes" camp.
Senior German officials have now admitted that, even before the Dutch vote, Blair had begun lobbying to win over countries to call for an end to the ratification process and, yesterday, the British government called on France and the Netherlands to state publicly whether there was any future for the constitution.
Cracks are now showing with the "colleagues". Portugal and Denmark have indicated that they would suspend their referendums if Britain did so and unattributed reports abound that foreign minister Jack Straw will announce a UK suspension to the House of Commons on Monday.
Meanwhile, Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson said yesterday that it would be "dangerous" and "stupid" for other EU member states to ignore the rejection of the constitution by French and Dutch voters.
According to the Swedish news agency TT, he declared: "The most dangerous thing now, the most stupid and in my opinion, the least sensible political thing, would be to send a signal that we are not influenced by this. It is clear that we are." Persson added that there was a "current of thinking among European leaders" that the results of the referendums should be ignored. This was misguided, he said.
Nevertheless, Persson expects to continue his own country's ratification process, but his spokesman, Lars Danielsson, has acknowledged that pressure for a referendum, rather than a simple parliamentary ratification, will grow.
One by one, the dominoes seem to be falling and this Blog's prediction is beginning to look a teensy, weensy bit shaky – not that we could ever be wrong. Perish the thought.
With L'Escroc enjoying – if that is the word – the lowest approval rating for any French president since surveys were started in 1979, standing currently at 24 percent after a fall of eight points in a month, the meeting is to be in Berlin on Saturday, when the two leaders will "take stock of the situation" at a working dinner.
This follows a flurry of meetings following the resounding Dutch "nee", with Schröder also having travelled to Luxembourg yesterday to hold crisis talks with the egregious Jean-Claude Juncker.
The only good news to have come their way is that the Latvian parliament ratified the treaty yesterday, by a margin of 71-5 with six abstentions, but this is seen against the background of support ebbing away in Luxembourg, with the latest poll now standing at 46-33 in favour of the "yes" vote, the first time it has fallen below 50 percent.
To add to the woes, a yet to be published opinion poll reports the "no" vote in Denmark at 39 percent, as opposed to 30 percent for the "yes" camp.
Senior German officials have now admitted that, even before the Dutch vote, Blair had begun lobbying to win over countries to call for an end to the ratification process and, yesterday, the British government called on France and the Netherlands to state publicly whether there was any future for the constitution.
Cracks are now showing with the "colleagues". Portugal and Denmark have indicated that they would suspend their referendums if Britain did so and unattributed reports abound that foreign minister Jack Straw will announce a UK suspension to the House of Commons on Monday.
Meanwhile, Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson said yesterday that it would be "dangerous" and "stupid" for other EU member states to ignore the rejection of the constitution by French and Dutch voters.
According to the Swedish news agency TT, he declared: "The most dangerous thing now, the most stupid and in my opinion, the least sensible political thing, would be to send a signal that we are not influenced by this. It is clear that we are." Persson added that there was a "current of thinking among European leaders" that the results of the referendums should be ignored. This was misguided, he said.
Nevertheless, Persson expects to continue his own country's ratification process, but his spokesman, Lars Danielsson, has acknowledged that pressure for a referendum, rather than a simple parliamentary ratification, will grow.
One by one, the dominoes seem to be falling and this Blog's prediction is beginning to look a teensy, weensy bit shaky – not that we could ever be wrong. Perish the thought.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
A dictionary for EU commissioners
Below is a guide to help EU Commissioners interpret the results of EU constitution votes:
neeEach word, of course, means "yes".
nein
nem
ne
hayir
okhee
ei
nej
neen
nil
nao
nie
non
no
And now, ritual sacrifices
"The trouble with some European leaders is that they are not prepared to sacrifice national questions on the European altar".
A Finnish MP, speaking on BBC Radio 4's World Tonight.
What was that about the EU being a religion?
A Finnish MP, speaking on BBC Radio 4's World Tonight.
What was that about the EU being a religion?
Watching the cat-flap
From the Conservative Party website today – a statement by Liam Fox headed: "The Constitution is dead", with the following text:
These include setting up the EU's own worldwide diplomatic service and its police college in Hampshire, co-ordinating EU-wide police training and procedures, launching the EU's Galileo space programme and the European Defence Agency to co-ordinate the Unions' defence forces.
Don't these things matter?
In response to the Netherlands' rejection of the EU Constitution, ShadowBut, while the Conservatives are watching the cat-flap at the back door, the constitution is already marching in at the front, via those bits that have already been implemented.
Foreign Secretary, Dr Liam Fox MP, said:
The French voters gave the Constitution its death sentence.
The Dutch voters have now dealt a fatal blow.
The Constitution is dead.
The British Government must now give the lead and unpick the mess which Europe has become to create, instead, the Europe which the peoples of the continent want.
This was the Constitution which Tony Blair negotiated and put his name to. If his Government now tries to implement any part of the Constitution by the back door, they will be treating the British people with contempt. If that happens, the Conservative Party will insist on a referendum to give the British people their legitimate voice.
These include setting up the EU's own worldwide diplomatic service and its police college in Hampshire, co-ordinating EU-wide police training and procedures, launching the EU's Galileo space programme and the European Defence Agency to co-ordinate the Unions' defence forces.
Don't these things matter?
You cannot be serious
Not content with writing self-pitying, self-justifying nonsense on her blog, the fragrant Commissar has also spoken to EUObserver.
She has welcomed a plan from some NGOs that a European Round Table of Democracy should be established. Who are these NGOs, those self-selecting, unaccountable organizations that present themselves as arbiters of how democracy should be run?
And what did the fragrant but extremely foolish Commissar say?
She has welcomed a plan from some NGOs that a European Round Table of Democracy should be established. Who are these NGOs, those self-selecting, unaccountable organizations that present themselves as arbiters of how democracy should be run?
And what did the fragrant but extremely foolish Commissar say?
“I'm prepared for immediate support of such initiatives to develop more participatory democracy in Europe.”Well, how nice and how generous. The only thing is, we already have participatory democracy in Europe and it has developed over many centuries in some countries and slightly less time in others. It is called parliamentary democracy and consists of elected legislatures and executives that are responsible and accountable to the people who elect them and understand the principles whereby legislation is carried out.
Which part of "no" don't they understand?
Margot Wallström, let me remind our readers, gets a salary most of us cannot even begin to dream about as a Commissioner and Vice-President of the Commission. She also gets enormous expenses and a chance to travel round the planet: morning meetings with President Hosni Mubarak, crocodile tears shed over the Amazon rainforest; you name it, she's been there and we paid for it.
Then there is the staff. The fragrant Commissar seems to have an endless supply of spokespersons, minions, speech-writers (another one by the name of David Monkcom has just made his appearance), blog moderators and other odds and sods. To be fair, none of them seem to be able to prevent her from making a fool of herself but there is a limit to all human endeavour.
What is she supposed to do in return for all these goodies? Communicate. She is the Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation … woops … I mean Communication.
Her main job at the moment is to sell the European Constitution to the people of Europe. In this she has failed.
Despite endless wittering on the part of the politicians and the media, one cannot quite ignore the fact that all but one of the ratifications were carried out in countries where the governments refused to ask their people whether they liked the idea of a 400 page constitution.
Far from representing 50 per cent of the population of the EU, these ratifications represent nobody but the local political elites, who dream dreams of Margot-size troughs.
That left Spain, where under 40 per cent of the electorate bothered to turn out, so enthusiastic were they about the whole project.
So we come to the first hurdles: France and Netherlands. The European collective, led by President Barroso and Vice-President Wallström received a collective bloody nose.
Most of us would say that the propaganda chief … woops … Communications Commissioner (a.k.a. the fragrant Commissar) can be said to have failed.
Will she resign? In the words of SecGen Kofi Annan, father of Kojo of food-for-oil scandal, "Hell, no."
Nobody resigns these days. Annan would not dream of it, having presided over some of the most disastrous events in the disaster-prone history of the UN.
President Chirac might find himself in a criminal court if he resigns and retires into private life, so he resigned his Prime Minister instead.
Prime Minister Balkenende holds his head and wails but will manfully carry on with a project most of his countrymen dislike.
And the fragrant Margot? Well, according to her blog,
Guess which kind of no the fragrant Commissar thinks it is?
So, they are going to listen more. "We" have not been listening. Why not, for goodness' sake? People have been speaking up loud and clear for some time. But, of course, if listening means hearing comments like we voted no because we want more integration, then one rather wonders what the point of the exercise would be.
Some of us can still remember elderly judges, like Sir Quentin Hogg (later Lord Hailsham and Lord Chancellor) pronouncing in fruity tones during rape trials that in certain circumstances a woman who says no really means yes. Strangely enough, no woman ever agreed with that statement.
It seems that the fragrant Margot, a self-proclaimed feminist, who rejoices over Kuwaiti women getting the vote (though not managing to find out why more Egyptian women wear the veil) belongs to the same "no means yes" brigade.
Then there is the staff. The fragrant Commissar seems to have an endless supply of spokespersons, minions, speech-writers (another one by the name of David Monkcom has just made his appearance), blog moderators and other odds and sods. To be fair, none of them seem to be able to prevent her from making a fool of herself but there is a limit to all human endeavour.
What is she supposed to do in return for all these goodies? Communicate. She is the Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation … woops … I mean Communication.
Her main job at the moment is to sell the European Constitution to the people of Europe. In this she has failed.
Despite endless wittering on the part of the politicians and the media, one cannot quite ignore the fact that all but one of the ratifications were carried out in countries where the governments refused to ask their people whether they liked the idea of a 400 page constitution.
Far from representing 50 per cent of the population of the EU, these ratifications represent nobody but the local political elites, who dream dreams of Margot-size troughs.
That left Spain, where under 40 per cent of the electorate bothered to turn out, so enthusiastic were they about the whole project.
So we come to the first hurdles: France and Netherlands. The European collective, led by President Barroso and Vice-President Wallström received a collective bloody nose.
Most of us would say that the propaganda chief … woops … Communications Commissioner (a.k.a. the fragrant Commissar) can be said to have failed.
Will she resign? In the words of SecGen Kofi Annan, father of Kojo of food-for-oil scandal, "Hell, no."
Nobody resigns these days. Annan would not dream of it, having presided over some of the most disastrous events in the disaster-prone history of the UN.
President Chirac might find himself in a criminal court if he resigns and retires into private life, so he resigned his Prime Minister instead.
Prime Minister Balkenende holds his head and wails but will manfully carry on with a project most of his countrymen dislike.
And the fragrant Margot? Well, according to her blog,
I cannot hide that I'm disappointed with the result of the French Referendum. So are many of us who have been active on the ‘Yes‘ side and who have believed that the Constitution would give us better opportunities to work together in the European project. At the same time the result is clear and has to be respected.”Ummm. And how does she intend to respect this very clear result? Well, first of all by analyzing what kind of no it was. Was it a positive no or a negative one? Was it people saying go away, we do not want this constitution or was it people really saying, please, please, can we have more of this terrible farrago?
Guess which kind of no the fragrant Commissar thinks it is?
I have met a number of those who participated and said 'No' in this referendum but who believe in European integration. They say that they don't think that this Constitution is the solution but they want European integration to continue and they believe in the European project. It is clear that people voted 'No' for many reasons.One would quite like to know whom the fragrant Commissar met and who actually came up with that arrant nonsense? You never hear of people meeting her. Has anyone even admitted to seeing her anywhere? Come to think of it, has anyone admitted to hearing her infamous speech in Terezin?
So, they are going to listen more. "We" have not been listening. Why not, for goodness' sake? People have been speaking up loud and clear for some time. But, of course, if listening means hearing comments like we voted no because we want more integration, then one rather wonders what the point of the exercise would be.
On the 'Yes' side, this is not a time for blame games. We have been playing that game for too long, Institutions blaming each other, Member States blaming 'Brussels' and so on. Instead we all have to take responsibility and see how we can mend this as best as we can and look to the future. Europe has changed. European citizens are better educated, they are more demanding, including what they ask from their politicians and their elected leaders, and this requires great leadership for the future.”I suppose it would be too much to ask them to reconsider the whole project as being rather noxious, economically unsound, politically authoritarian and deeply unstable? No, I thought not.
Some of us can still remember elderly judges, like Sir Quentin Hogg (later Lord Hailsham and Lord Chancellor) pronouncing in fruity tones during rape trials that in certain circumstances a woman who says no really means yes. Strangely enough, no woman ever agreed with that statement.
It seems that the fragrant Margot, a self-proclaimed feminist, who rejoices over Kuwaiti women getting the vote (though not managing to find out why more Egyptian women wear the veil) belongs to the same "no means yes" brigade.
It's the Blogs wot done (some of) it
According to none other than the BBC website, it seems the unsung heros of the French referendum campaign were the bloggers.
The report singles out Marseille law teacher Etienne Chouard, dubbed by a French newspaper as "Don Quichotte du non". who did not much care for the EU constitution. Instead of simply voicing his upset to his neighbours, though, he wrote an essay and set up a blog to explain why he was voting "non". Just ahead of the vote, his blog was getting 25,000 hits a day and his anti-constitution broadside had been photocopied, faxed and blogged about across France.
The BBC remarks that, despite overwhelming support for the constitution by the governments of both France and the Netherlands and a huge media campaign by political leaders in both countries, voters have rejected the constitution. And just as the media and political establishment in the US found during last year's presidential election, European elites have now felt the sting of these online upstarts, the bloggers.
Mr Chouard, the teacher turned blogger, has become a folk hero for the "non" campaigners who rebelled against what they saw as an out of touch political elite. Fans posting to his blog have asked where they can send contributions to erect a statue of him in Marseille,
Needless to say, the "yes" campaign is crying foul. French internet consultant Stanislas Magniant claims that the blogs were perpetuating myths and half-truths (would we do this?) but the "antis" found the internet in general and blogs in particular as one of the ways to get their message out, he said. Because the mainstream media have been shamelessly in favour of the "yes", they found the internet was the main area where the democratic debate can take place, he added.
However both "yes" and "no" campaigners used the internet and blogs extensively, but the "yes" side's internet efforts were too late and too little. "The 'no' side, the extreme left, was very organised on the internet. The 'yes' side has been late in taking up blogs as interactive tools," said Magniant.
Magniant does not say that blogs were a determining factor in the referendum, but he does believe they dramatically lowered the barrier to entry to take part in political debate. "In terms of grassroots power, blogs have been an enormous force," he said.
The report singles out Marseille law teacher Etienne Chouard, dubbed by a French newspaper as "Don Quichotte du non". who did not much care for the EU constitution. Instead of simply voicing his upset to his neighbours, though, he wrote an essay and set up a blog to explain why he was voting "non". Just ahead of the vote, his blog was getting 25,000 hits a day and his anti-constitution broadside had been photocopied, faxed and blogged about across France.
The BBC remarks that, despite overwhelming support for the constitution by the governments of both France and the Netherlands and a huge media campaign by political leaders in both countries, voters have rejected the constitution. And just as the media and political establishment in the US found during last year's presidential election, European elites have now felt the sting of these online upstarts, the bloggers.
Mr Chouard, the teacher turned blogger, has become a folk hero for the "non" campaigners who rebelled against what they saw as an out of touch political elite. Fans posting to his blog have asked where they can send contributions to erect a statue of him in Marseille,
Needless to say, the "yes" campaign is crying foul. French internet consultant Stanislas Magniant claims that the blogs were perpetuating myths and half-truths (would we do this?) but the "antis" found the internet in general and blogs in particular as one of the ways to get their message out, he said. Because the mainstream media have been shamelessly in favour of the "yes", they found the internet was the main area where the democratic debate can take place, he added.
However both "yes" and "no" campaigners used the internet and blogs extensively, but the "yes" side's internet efforts were too late and too little. "The 'no' side, the extreme left, was very organised on the internet. The 'yes' side has been late in taking up blogs as interactive tools," said Magniant.
Magniant does not say that blogs were a determining factor in the referendum, but he does believe they dramatically lowered the barrier to entry to take part in political debate. "In terms of grassroots power, blogs have been an enormous force," he said.
Why they have got it wrong
It is a general truism that, if you start off an argument from a false premise, no matter how cogently expressed, it will be flawed. Equally, if you fail to understand the nature of an institution or organisation, and mistake it for another, completely different construct, any analysis or interpretation is going to be flawed. You will be looking down the wrong end of the metaphorical telescope.
So it is with the European Union. The many hacks and commentators who are struggling to make sense of recent events are trying to interpret them in the context of the behaviour of a political body. Most usually, they try to predict its responses by comparing it with the constructs with which they are most familiar – their own domestic political systems.
Where they are gone wrong, of course, is that the European Union is not a political construct. It is closer to, if not in fact, a secular religion, the only thing separating it from one of the more established, fundamental religions is that God does not lie at the core of its belief system.
Instead, the core of this religion is "European Union", this mythical, ill-defined entity that encompasses all, the attainment of which is the ultimate goal of the "project". European Union is no longer for anything – it does not have a purpose. It is the end in itself, the utopia, nothing less than heaven on earth. But, like the Holy Grail, it will never be found. Its acolytes simply strive, Bhudda-like, to achieve the ultimate level of attainment, without ever achieving it. There is always one more level, one more treaty, to attain.
As a secular religion, it of course has all the trappings of the more established religions. For its dogma, it has the sacred acquis communautaire. It has its High Priests in its European Commission, its Praetorian Guard, in the phalanxes of Monnet professors – the Jesuits of Integration – and, of course, its pastoral bishops and priests, its members of the European Parliament. And, of course, it has it temples, its churches and shrines, its saints and martyrs - and its mantras and incantations.
In many ways, therefore, attempting to give the EU the label "superstate", is to compound the error. People looking for parallels would do better to look to the way the Roman Catholic church grew and, for a real parallel, the Vatican is a better model than Rome. The EU is not so much a tool of the Vatican as some would have it, it is a replacement for it.
Crucially, like any religion, it does not obey the rules of politics. As a belief system, it divides the world into two camps, the believers and the unbelievers, the latter group encompassing a division known as "Eurosceptics" or "Europhobes". In the context, these should be better known as heretics, or perhaps "Euroheretics" - "Europrotestants" even.
Within its own framework, there can be no debate, and of course there is none. Approaches to the "unbelievers" are of an evangelical nature and, if you disagree with the true faith, there can be only one conclusion – you are wrong. You have only one option - to agree with that you are told, whence you become a "believer".
That is why the High Priests cannot take note of "no" votes in referendums. They cannot rethink, reform, or change their ways because that, in itself, would be heresy. Simply, if the people do not agree, they must be – as a matter of definition – wrong. They are to be pitied, cosseted and then guided back into the path of righteousness. No more could their false beliefs be accommodated than could an Inquisitor suddenly agree with the point of view of a heretic and release him from the rack or liberate him from the purifying fire.
And it is that which sets the framework for the current events, and will dictate the response of the "colleagues". They are not wrong; there is nothing wrong with the "project". It is simply that the people have misunderstood.
The True Faith must continue but now more effort must be expended to explain to people why they have strayed from the path of true redemption. The "listening" proposed is that of the confessional, where the people must be invited to admit their sins, do their penances and gain absolution. Only then can they be guided back into the fold and invited to recant.
Therein lies the response to the Constitution. In the mythology of the Holy European Union, this has about the same status as the Ten Commandments, handed down from God and delivered by Moses - in this case read Giscard - to the Hebrews. Moses would no more tolerate the tribes of Israel altering the wording of the Holy Writ than can his modern-day successor - who has the added complication of dealing with 25 instead of twelve tribes.
Once the assembled hacks begin to realise that this is the framework in which the Union is operating, they will be better able to understand what is going on. At the moment though, rather than political correspondents, the Union would be better covered by religious affairs correspondents, who would understand the dynamics involved.
Maybe they would realise that there is no turning back for the "project". Driven by religious zeal, it will go on and on until it is stopped, physically, and brutally, or the politicians which give it its sustenance drive a stake through its heart.
Now, that really would make a story.
So it is with the European Union. The many hacks and commentators who are struggling to make sense of recent events are trying to interpret them in the context of the behaviour of a political body. Most usually, they try to predict its responses by comparing it with the constructs with which they are most familiar – their own domestic political systems.
Where they are gone wrong, of course, is that the European Union is not a political construct. It is closer to, if not in fact, a secular religion, the only thing separating it from one of the more established, fundamental religions is that God does not lie at the core of its belief system.
Instead, the core of this religion is "European Union", this mythical, ill-defined entity that encompasses all, the attainment of which is the ultimate goal of the "project". European Union is no longer for anything – it does not have a purpose. It is the end in itself, the utopia, nothing less than heaven on earth. But, like the Holy Grail, it will never be found. Its acolytes simply strive, Bhudda-like, to achieve the ultimate level of attainment, without ever achieving it. There is always one more level, one more treaty, to attain.
As a secular religion, it of course has all the trappings of the more established religions. For its dogma, it has the sacred acquis communautaire. It has its High Priests in its European Commission, its Praetorian Guard, in the phalanxes of Monnet professors – the Jesuits of Integration – and, of course, its pastoral bishops and priests, its members of the European Parliament. And, of course, it has it temples, its churches and shrines, its saints and martyrs - and its mantras and incantations.
In many ways, therefore, attempting to give the EU the label "superstate", is to compound the error. People looking for parallels would do better to look to the way the Roman Catholic church grew and, for a real parallel, the Vatican is a better model than Rome. The EU is not so much a tool of the Vatican as some would have it, it is a replacement for it.
Crucially, like any religion, it does not obey the rules of politics. As a belief system, it divides the world into two camps, the believers and the unbelievers, the latter group encompassing a division known as "Eurosceptics" or "Europhobes". In the context, these should be better known as heretics, or perhaps "Euroheretics" - "Europrotestants" even.
Within its own framework, there can be no debate, and of course there is none. Approaches to the "unbelievers" are of an evangelical nature and, if you disagree with the true faith, there can be only one conclusion – you are wrong. You have only one option - to agree with that you are told, whence you become a "believer".
That is why the High Priests cannot take note of "no" votes in referendums. They cannot rethink, reform, or change their ways because that, in itself, would be heresy. Simply, if the people do not agree, they must be – as a matter of definition – wrong. They are to be pitied, cosseted and then guided back into the path of righteousness. No more could their false beliefs be accommodated than could an Inquisitor suddenly agree with the point of view of a heretic and release him from the rack or liberate him from the purifying fire.
And it is that which sets the framework for the current events, and will dictate the response of the "colleagues". They are not wrong; there is nothing wrong with the "project". It is simply that the people have misunderstood.
The True Faith must continue but now more effort must be expended to explain to people why they have strayed from the path of true redemption. The "listening" proposed is that of the confessional, where the people must be invited to admit their sins, do their penances and gain absolution. Only then can they be guided back into the fold and invited to recant.
Therein lies the response to the Constitution. In the mythology of the Holy European Union, this has about the same status as the Ten Commandments, handed down from God and delivered by Moses - in this case read Giscard - to the Hebrews. Moses would no more tolerate the tribes of Israel altering the wording of the Holy Writ than can his modern-day successor - who has the added complication of dealing with 25 instead of twelve tribes.
Once the assembled hacks begin to realise that this is the framework in which the Union is operating, they will be better able to understand what is going on. At the moment though, rather than political correspondents, the Union would be better covered by religious affairs correspondents, who would understand the dynamics involved.
Maybe they would realise that there is no turning back for the "project". Driven by religious zeal, it will go on and on until it is stopped, physically, and brutally, or the politicians which give it its sustenance drive a stake through its heart.
Now, that really would make a story.
We shall overcome
You've had your fun but it's all over now. The excitement is done and it's time to get back to work. Don't bother your pretty little heads about "Europe" any more – leave it to us grown-ups. In due course, we'll tell you what to think and then you can have another vote to tell us you agree.
That is, in effect, the underlying message conveyed by the leader in this morning’s Daily Telegraph, which starts with:
Anatole Kaletsky, in The Times, gets closest to this, writing: "…don't expect to hear much serious debate about the significance of this popular revolt against 'the idea of Europe' for many months. The first reaction will be to pretend, or even to believe sincerely, that nothing much has happened."
For the rest of The Times, there is only drivel especially from Bronwen Maddox, whose piece: "The constitution may be dead, but Europe will survive," amply illustrates the destitution of what passes for her thought processes.
The leader, with the somewhat predictable headline, "Dutch courage" isn’t much better – in fact, it isn't any better at all, opining as it does that the Dutch "no" is a rejection of the direction in which the constitution pointed the European Union. "It must be respected," says The Times.
By contrast, Barroso, on BBC Television, was wearing a smirk even more irritating that than he donned last night. Exuding confidence, he consigned the pious hopes of The Times onto the pile of tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers (EU directives permitting), stating that, "We have always overcome these difficulties in the past and will continue to overcome them in the future". As Churchill would have said, "Business as usual".
Nevertheless, The Guardian also joins the throngs of wannabe undertakers, with a leader headed: "Dead and buried". It has decided that Europe's leaders have to find ways to reconnect with disgruntled citizens – as if they had ever been "connected" in the first place. "If France's vote dealt the treaty a critical blow," it says, "the Dutch have now delivered the coup de grace." See Barroso, passim.
As for The Independent – well, who cares what it thinks, certainly not enough to pay for its leader that proclaims: "Mr Blair has the chance to forge a new consensus". At least we know where it is coming from. Anyhow, like the Europhile Guardian, it thinks – although one must use the word advisedly – that the constitution is "now dead and gone". If the slightest doubt remained after the French vote on Sunday, it was dispelled by the voters of the Netherlands, the paper says.
Oddly enough, it is a small piece in The Telegraph that gives the game away. Headed: "Blair holds back from burying the treaty," it then goes on to say:
That is, in effect, the underlying message conveyed by the leader in this morning’s Daily Telegraph, which starts with:
A curious consensus is emerging among the British political classes. It is said both by Government ministers and Europhile Conservatives that following the French - and now the Dutch - rejection of the European constitution, "Europe" is no longer an important domestic political topic.The rest is incontinent drivel which need not detain you, but the message is otherwise crystal clear: "We don't want to talk about Europe" or, more to the point, "we don't want you to talk about Europe".
Anatole Kaletsky, in The Times, gets closest to this, writing: "…don't expect to hear much serious debate about the significance of this popular revolt against 'the idea of Europe' for many months. The first reaction will be to pretend, or even to believe sincerely, that nothing much has happened."
For the rest of The Times, there is only drivel especially from Bronwen Maddox, whose piece: "The constitution may be dead, but Europe will survive," amply illustrates the destitution of what passes for her thought processes.
The leader, with the somewhat predictable headline, "Dutch courage" isn’t much better – in fact, it isn't any better at all, opining as it does that the Dutch "no" is a rejection of the direction in which the constitution pointed the European Union. "It must be respected," says The Times.
By contrast, Barroso, on BBC Television, was wearing a smirk even more irritating that than he donned last night. Exuding confidence, he consigned the pious hopes of The Times onto the pile of tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers (EU directives permitting), stating that, "We have always overcome these difficulties in the past and will continue to overcome them in the future". As Churchill would have said, "Business as usual".
Nevertheless, The Guardian also joins the throngs of wannabe undertakers, with a leader headed: "Dead and buried". It has decided that Europe's leaders have to find ways to reconnect with disgruntled citizens – as if they had ever been "connected" in the first place. "If France's vote dealt the treaty a critical blow," it says, "the Dutch have now delivered the coup de grace." See Barroso, passim.
As for The Independent – well, who cares what it thinks, certainly not enough to pay for its leader that proclaims: "Mr Blair has the chance to forge a new consensus". At least we know where it is coming from. Anyhow, like the Europhile Guardian, it thinks – although one must use the word advisedly – that the constitution is "now dead and gone". If the slightest doubt remained after the French vote on Sunday, it was dispelled by the voters of the Netherlands, the paper says.
Oddly enough, it is a small piece in The Telegraph that gives the game away. Headed: "Blair holds back from burying the treaty," it then goes on to say:
Downing Street and the Foreign Office refused last night to declare the European Union constitution dead, despite the unanimous view among ministers that the Dutch "no" had killed it off.Of course Blair is holding off. That is because the constitution is far from dead. But, as long as the great unwashed think it is, they can go back to sleep, the media alongside them, while the "colleagues" can get back to the serious work of bringing it into force. As the great man Barroso (nearly) said: "We shall overcome".
The People's Campaign
Not wishing to rest on its laurels (well, a semi-launch in Westminster) the People’s No Campaign is organizing a people’s demo in College Green this morning at 11 am.
Its purpose is to tell Mr Blair, the Prime Minister of this country and messenger boy of Commission President Barroso, that he must not even think of giving up on the idea of holding a referendum. The people of the United Kingdom must have their chance of kicking the project.
No discrimination, please. Why should the French and the Dutch have all the fun?
And there will be a show as well:
"Picture Opportunity:
Unveiling of "Don't You Dare...Mr. Blair" at College Green, Westminster, London. Thursday 2nd June 11am.
This high-profile visual image will shadow the Palace of Westmister and Downing Street Thursday and Friday and Monday when Jack Straw makes his statement to the House."
So what can I say but to quote that old-old text: Be there or be square.
Its purpose is to tell Mr Blair, the Prime Minister of this country and messenger boy of Commission President Barroso, that he must not even think of giving up on the idea of holding a referendum. The people of the United Kingdom must have their chance of kicking the project.
No discrimination, please. Why should the French and the Dutch have all the fun?
And there will be a show as well:
"Picture Opportunity:
Unveiling of "Don't You Dare...Mr. Blair" at College Green, Westminster, London. Thursday 2nd June 11am.
This high-profile visual image will shadow the Palace of Westmister and Downing Street Thursday and Friday and Monday when Jack Straw makes his statement to the House."
So what can I say but to quote that old-old text: Be there or be square.
Actually, the people got it wrong
Already the mice are nibbling away at the "no" votes. It is only a matter of time before the élites have convinced themselves that everyone who voted against the constitution actually meant to say "yes".
By no means in the vanguard with the first line of attack is our very own not-so-fragrant Margot who argues:
The one useful contribution to the debate made by Liam Fox, shadow foreign minister, has been to comment precisely on that. It is an arrogance, he proclaimed, to argue that the "no" voters did not know what they were voting for, while the "yes" camp were so perfectly aware of what they were doing.
In the few instances that "yes" voters have been asked why they voted, there has been an equal array of motives – from wanting to "counterbalance" the United States and improving the economic situation in Europe, to increasing democracy. There was even one idiot – a Dutch man – who thought that the constitution would reduce the bureaucracy. From her comments, it was evident that his wife did not agree.
Anyhow, the definitive line is now being put by Sir John (now Lord) Kerr, who so ably assisted Giscard in cobbling together the constitution. Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's World Tonight, he pronounced that the Dutch had not voted against the constitution. The had voted against the EU as it was now, reacting against the very problems that the constitution was intended to remedy.
On the back of that, we have a smug, grinning Barroso telling a perplexed Paxman on Newsnight that every member state has a right to give its opinion on the treaty and, in any event, all the 25 member state leaders had signed up to a procedure. All he wanted was for them to "respect the procedure".
That "procedure" is of course set out in Declaration 30, which the commission president argues means that all member states have committed themselves to attempting to ratify the treaty. On 16/17 June, the whips will be out to make sure that all those leaders reaffirm the sanctity of the procedure.
Thus, as did Balkenende, in his address half an hour after the exit poll result had been declared, call for all other member states to continue with the ratification process, so have all bar one of the other member states, especially Chirac and – this evening – Schröder. Tony Blair is now in a minority of one – the only leader of the 25 EU member states who has not committed to "respect the process".
He cannot now embark on a critical EU presidency, due to start on 1 July, at odds with every other head of state and government, marked down as the man who "pulled the plug" on the constitution. One way or another, he will fall into line, and the ratification procedure will continue.
Strangely, and contrary to all the wiffle emanating from the corps of hacks, that actually gets Blair off the hook. With the ratification procedure continuing, any broader discussion on the "direction Europe is taking" – or whatever – will be put on hold, pending the remaining countries doing their duty.
Over the next few days and weeks, we will of course continue to be swamped by the drone of ignorant hacks – who have never bothered to learn anything about the way the EU works and are now called on to interpret events they do not understand. There will also be endless vapourings from useful idiots like Denis MacShane, he who never misses an opportunity to parade his own stupidity. But the fact is, the ratification process will continue.
And what of the peoples of Europe (or of France and The Netherlands)? Well, they may have spoken. But they got it wrong.
By no means in the vanguard with the first line of attack is our very own not-so-fragrant Margot who argues:
We will probably now see a debate that follows with also interpretation of exactly what kind of No this was. I have met a number of those who participated and said "No" in this referendum but who believe in European integration. They say that they don't think that this Constitution is the solution but they want European integration to continue and they believe in the European project. It is clear that people voted "No" for many reasons.This approach is echoed by the phalanxes of dismal hacks (and, in the interests of gender equality, hackettes) who have been falling over themselves to ask "no" voters – in both the French and Dutch referendums – why they voted, then stentoriously pronouncing that they were all voting for different things – anything other than against the constitution.
The one useful contribution to the debate made by Liam Fox, shadow foreign minister, has been to comment precisely on that. It is an arrogance, he proclaimed, to argue that the "no" voters did not know what they were voting for, while the "yes" camp were so perfectly aware of what they were doing.
In the few instances that "yes" voters have been asked why they voted, there has been an equal array of motives – from wanting to "counterbalance" the United States and improving the economic situation in Europe, to increasing democracy. There was even one idiot – a Dutch man – who thought that the constitution would reduce the bureaucracy. From her comments, it was evident that his wife did not agree.
Anyhow, the definitive line is now being put by Sir John (now Lord) Kerr, who so ably assisted Giscard in cobbling together the constitution. Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's World Tonight, he pronounced that the Dutch had not voted against the constitution. The had voted against the EU as it was now, reacting against the very problems that the constitution was intended to remedy.
On the back of that, we have a smug, grinning Barroso telling a perplexed Paxman on Newsnight that every member state has a right to give its opinion on the treaty and, in any event, all the 25 member state leaders had signed up to a procedure. All he wanted was for them to "respect the procedure".
That "procedure" is of course set out in Declaration 30, which the commission president argues means that all member states have committed themselves to attempting to ratify the treaty. On 16/17 June, the whips will be out to make sure that all those leaders reaffirm the sanctity of the procedure.
Thus, as did Balkenende, in his address half an hour after the exit poll result had been declared, call for all other member states to continue with the ratification process, so have all bar one of the other member states, especially Chirac and – this evening – Schröder. Tony Blair is now in a minority of one – the only leader of the 25 EU member states who has not committed to "respect the process".
He cannot now embark on a critical EU presidency, due to start on 1 July, at odds with every other head of state and government, marked down as the man who "pulled the plug" on the constitution. One way or another, he will fall into line, and the ratification procedure will continue.
Strangely, and contrary to all the wiffle emanating from the corps of hacks, that actually gets Blair off the hook. With the ratification procedure continuing, any broader discussion on the "direction Europe is taking" – or whatever – will be put on hold, pending the remaining countries doing their duty.
Over the next few days and weeks, we will of course continue to be swamped by the drone of ignorant hacks – who have never bothered to learn anything about the way the EU works and are now called on to interpret events they do not understand. There will also be endless vapourings from useful idiots like Denis MacShane, he who never misses an opportunity to parade his own stupidity. But the fact is, the ratification process will continue.
And what of the peoples of Europe (or of France and The Netherlands)? Well, they may have spoken. But they got it wrong.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
It shows the establishment… all got it wrong
"The government, the opposition, the newspapers, the Dutch TUC (Unions) and the employers' federations. They are all very strongly in favour of the constitution."
Thus spoke a Dutch journalist from the BBC television studio in London. "A huge blow for the government," she said. "They expected 30 percent [turnout]".
Said another Dutch journalist, Gees Versteeg, speaking from The Hague: "It was the first time opportunity to make the politicians sweat… it was a confrontation between the people and the politicians."
And prime minister Jan Peter Deadender? Sorry, Balkenende. He say: "It's clear that we are not happy with this outcome."
You don't say!
Thus spoke a Dutch journalist from the BBC television studio in London. "A huge blow for the government," she said. "They expected 30 percent [turnout]".
Said another Dutch journalist, Gees Versteeg, speaking from The Hague: "It was the first time opportunity to make the politicians sweat… it was a confrontation between the people and the politicians."
And prime minister Jan Peter Deadender? Sorry, Balkenende. He say: "It's clear that we are not happy with this outcome."
You don't say!
A moment for mature reflection
An exit poll, timed minutes after the close of polls in The Netherlands, 8pm British time, gives the "nees" 63 percent, with the "ja" camp trailing badly at 37 percent - on a turnout of 62 percent.
I am not going to gloat.
I am really not going to gloat - to do so would be immature, irresponsible and grossly unkind to Margot. So it is time for a moment of mature reflection.
YEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAYAAAAAA.....
There, I told you I wasn't going to gloat.
I lied.
I am not going to gloat.
I am really not going to gloat - to do so would be immature, irresponsible and grossly unkind to Margot. So it is time for a moment of mature reflection.
YEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAYAAAAAA.....
There, I told you I wasn't going to gloat.
I lied.
Hell No!
Last update: 5.10 pm - new material in bold. (We will keep this post at the top for the time being, to track developments in the Dutch referendum as they occur - today's other posts, here and here, are immediately below.)
With thanks to our Dutch correspondent Marcel de Vries who tells us he voted early this morning. Of course I voted "NO", or rather "HELL NO", he says.
Early reports, he tells us, from several voting districts suggest that turnout is significantly up compared with last year's Euro-election (39.1 percent). At 11 am, it had been 12 percent (3 percent higher than at the Euro-election). By 2 pm, it was 24 percent (up 9 percent from the Euro-elections at the same stage), suggesting a minimum turnout of 50 percent. By 4 pm (local time) with five hours to go before the polls close (8 pm our time), the magic 30 percent turnout had been secured. Predictions of a 50 percent overall turnout remain.
The last little straw of comfort – that the turnout might fall below 30 percent, thus invalidating the referendum – has been stripped away. They can't even rely on the Wayampi-Parisian alliance (worth a read).
Marcel provides a link to an on-line news report although, unfortunately, this is in Dutch. The only word I can understand is "mediacircus", which perhaps says all you need to know. Time for babelfish I suppose, although that does rather spoil the fun of trying to guess what "slaap" means.
A Belgian blogger, studying in Vienna, Pieter Cleppe, tells us that a poll broadcast yesterday by the television programme Nova gave a 54-46 percent split in favour of the "nee". The "undecideds", according to this poll, were leaning towards "ja" although seven percent said they would only decide at the last minute.
However, according to Euractiv.com - which also offers a comprehensive analysis of the Dutch referendum - the most recent NSS poll indicates a "no" vote of 51 percent with 37 percent voting "yes". Another poll by TNS-NIPO puts the "no" vote at 60 percent. Any advance on 60?
Tim Franks, reporting for the BBC on the PM programme this evening (5 pm), ran a number of interviews which seem to indicate that sentiment is hardening against the constitution by the hour.
Incidentally, the soggy brain caught a Dutch "nee" campaigner being interviewed on this morning's BBC Today programme, telling the interviewer that the internet had played a surprisingly large part in the campaign. We are not surprised but it was rather funny how quickly the interviewer changed the subject, as if someone had just spat in church.
With thanks to our Dutch correspondent Marcel de Vries who tells us he voted early this morning. Of course I voted "NO", or rather "HELL NO", he says.
Early reports, he tells us, from several voting districts suggest that turnout is significantly up compared with last year's Euro-election (39.1 percent). At 11 am, it had been 12 percent (3 percent higher than at the Euro-election). By 2 pm, it was 24 percent (up 9 percent from the Euro-elections at the same stage), suggesting a minimum turnout of 50 percent. By 4 pm (local time) with five hours to go before the polls close (8 pm our time), the magic 30 percent turnout had been secured. Predictions of a 50 percent overall turnout remain.
The last little straw of comfort – that the turnout might fall below 30 percent, thus invalidating the referendum – has been stripped away. They can't even rely on the Wayampi-Parisian alliance (worth a read).
Marcel provides a link to an on-line news report although, unfortunately, this is in Dutch. The only word I can understand is "mediacircus", which perhaps says all you need to know. Time for babelfish I suppose, although that does rather spoil the fun of trying to guess what "slaap" means.
A Belgian blogger, studying in Vienna, Pieter Cleppe, tells us that a poll broadcast yesterday by the television programme Nova gave a 54-46 percent split in favour of the "nee". The "undecideds", according to this poll, were leaning towards "ja" although seven percent said they would only decide at the last minute.
However, according to Euractiv.com - which also offers a comprehensive analysis of the Dutch referendum - the most recent NSS poll indicates a "no" vote of 51 percent with 37 percent voting "yes". Another poll by TNS-NIPO puts the "no" vote at 60 percent. Any advance on 60?
Tim Franks, reporting for the BBC on the PM programme this evening (5 pm), ran a number of interviews which seem to indicate that sentiment is hardening against the constitution by the hour.
Incidentally, the soggy brain caught a Dutch "nee" campaigner being interviewed on this morning's BBC Today programme, telling the interviewer that the internet had played a surprisingly large part in the campaign. We are not surprised but it was rather funny how quickly the interviewer changed the subject, as if someone had just spat in church.
Ratification must go on
In a letter published by The Times today, Sir Stuart Bell, MP for Middlesbrough (Labour) states that the "no" vote in France in the referendum on ratification of the constitution "need give no one a nervous breakdown."
He cites Declaration 30 of the treaty, which states that:
Bell repeated his assertions on the World at One on BBC Radio 4 today, reaffirming that the ratification process cannot be stopped.
This contrasts with an article in The Sun today, which suggests that the expected Dutch rejection will "kill off the treaty".
However, in a, further development, Chirac has written to fellow EU leaders, calling on them to continue the ratification process. "While nine countries have already approved it, all the other member states should now state their views on this treaty," he writes.
For this and other obvious reasons, we believe The Sun and its fellow travellers are wrong. Bell has got it right and Chirac will prevail – we will see a British referendum.
He cites Declaration 30 of the treaty, which states that:
If two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four-fifths of the Member states have ratified it and one or more Member states have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council.According to Bell, this means that a European Council to review the ratification process must take place in November, 2006. Thus, he argues, our own referendum must go ahead. "We can then have our first public debate on Europe in 30 years," he adds.
Bell repeated his assertions on the World at One on BBC Radio 4 today, reaffirming that the ratification process cannot be stopped.
This contrasts with an article in The Sun today, which suggests that the expected Dutch rejection will "kill off the treaty".
However, in a, further development, Chirac has written to fellow EU leaders, calling on them to continue the ratification process. "While nine countries have already approved it, all the other member states should now state their views on this treaty," he writes.
For this and other obvious reasons, we believe The Sun and its fellow travellers are wrong. Bell has got it right and Chirac will prevail – we will see a British referendum.
And then to Luxembourg
After Holland, attention turns to The Grand Duchy, which is holding its referendum on 10 July. It is the fourth member state to attempt ratification of the constitution and, in normal times, the result would be a foregone conclusion.
But these are not normal times. To the distress of the political élites, who will vote for the constitution in the Luxembourg parliament on 30 June, support is waning, a development which is all the more surprising for the fact that Luxembourg is home to a great number of European institutions, whose workers and dependents account for up to 40 percent of the population.
But this is also a country of 160 banks and it is these, plus the country’s unique status as a tax haven within the Community, which is making the population of 450,000 begin to wonder about the benefits of membership of the Union. The causus belli is the "withholding tax" directive, coming into force on 1 July, intended to fight "detrimental tax competition" and to regulate the transfer of savings in the EU.
This has started to worry the financial establishments of Luxembourg which generate more of the third of the country's wealth and about half of public revenues. It is feared that, in order to preserve its sacrosanct prinsiple of bank secrecy, the banking sector will have to forego up to 35 percent of the income derived from funds placed by non-residents in the Grand Dutchy. No funds, however sophisticated, will escape this "European tax".
"We are victims of unrestrained European over-regulation," says Jean-Jacques Rommes, general manager of the Association of the Luxembourg banks. "The dilemma is terrible," adds Norbert Von Kunitzki, president of the Institute of European and International Studies. "If Europe does not progress, Luxembourg will die yet, if it is federalised, the advantages which gave us our prosperity will disappear."
And while much of the population is untroubled by this dillema, some have increasing doubts. To put it crudely, "people note that the dirty cow gives only as much milk as before", says Norbert Von Kunitzki (what a lovely phrase).
Before this referendum, there have been only two others, (on the maintenance of the monarchy, in 1919, and on the prohibition of the Communist Party in 1937). The participation in the 10 July poll is compulsory and prime minister Juncker has threatened to resign if he does not get his victory.
This "blackmail" has not gone down well and the response has been a 13 point fall in support for the constitution, according to an Ilres survey published on 25 May, although – by general standards – it remains high, at 60 percent. Nevertheless, the "no" vote has increased nine points which, as Le Figaro points out, "feeds the concerns of the political leaders."
Based on an article in today's Le Figaro.
But these are not normal times. To the distress of the political élites, who will vote for the constitution in the Luxembourg parliament on 30 June, support is waning, a development which is all the more surprising for the fact that Luxembourg is home to a great number of European institutions, whose workers and dependents account for up to 40 percent of the population.
But this is also a country of 160 banks and it is these, plus the country’s unique status as a tax haven within the Community, which is making the population of 450,000 begin to wonder about the benefits of membership of the Union. The causus belli is the "withholding tax" directive, coming into force on 1 July, intended to fight "detrimental tax competition" and to regulate the transfer of savings in the EU.
This has started to worry the financial establishments of Luxembourg which generate more of the third of the country's wealth and about half of public revenues. It is feared that, in order to preserve its sacrosanct prinsiple of bank secrecy, the banking sector will have to forego up to 35 percent of the income derived from funds placed by non-residents in the Grand Dutchy. No funds, however sophisticated, will escape this "European tax".
"We are victims of unrestrained European over-regulation," says Jean-Jacques Rommes, general manager of the Association of the Luxembourg banks. "The dilemma is terrible," adds Norbert Von Kunitzki, president of the Institute of European and International Studies. "If Europe does not progress, Luxembourg will die yet, if it is federalised, the advantages which gave us our prosperity will disappear."
And while much of the population is untroubled by this dillema, some have increasing doubts. To put it crudely, "people note that the dirty cow gives only as much milk as before", says Norbert Von Kunitzki (what a lovely phrase).
Before this referendum, there have been only two others, (on the maintenance of the monarchy, in 1919, and on the prohibition of the Communist Party in 1937). The participation in the 10 July poll is compulsory and prime minister Juncker has threatened to resign if he does not get his victory.
This "blackmail" has not gone down well and the response has been a 13 point fall in support for the constitution, according to an Ilres survey published on 25 May, although – by general standards – it remains high, at 60 percent. Nevertheless, the "no" vote has increased nine points which, as Le Figaro points out, "feeds the concerns of the political leaders."
Based on an article in today's Le Figaro.
Today's the day…
As the song goes... only they ain't teddy bears and this ain't no picnic – more like ritual slaughter in fact. Perhaps there should be an EU meat inspector present to ensure that the animal is put down humanely.
Actually, this is fantasy. For sure, the Dutch will almost certainly vote "nee" and the best of luck to them. Currently, polls are giving the campaign a 20 point lead and it is hard to see anything that could happen in the few hours left that will change the balance. If anything, as time passes, the "nee" vote will harden and some pundit are predicting a final score as high as 70 percent.
Nevertheless, The Times, amongst other newspapers, is predicting that this vote will kill off the treaty. I do not believe that for a minute. There, perhaps lies hubris, but I still don't believe it. Despite saturation coverage, I have almost given up listening to the broadcast media, unable any longer to tolerate the torrent of drivel.
Anyway, to support its case, The Times cites unnamed commission officials who are "privately conceding" that a second emphatic 'no' from a founding member would probably prove fatal. "There is a limit to what we can say before the Dutch vote. But things will change afterwards if they say 'no'," one commission source is claimed to have said.
The paper goes on to say that no country wants to be held responsible for killing the constitution by being first to abandon a referendum, but diplomats are saying that "everyone is talking to everyone" about how to proceed. "We don't want to be the first to say 'no'. We won't say 'no' unless there is a general decision not to go forward," says one diplomat from a state which has promised a vote.
However, all this is low grade stuff, although the paper does go on to cite Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary and Neil (now Lord) Kinnock, both arguing that the constitution is dead. Frankly, though, if either said it was raining, I would go outside to check.
More substantially, The Times admits that the UK is the only country not to commit itself to moving forward with ratification, with all other EU member states officially saying that their plans to ratify it have not changed. It is going to be very hard for any of these countries to break ranks.
In the meantime, the Swedes are said to be more enthusiastic about having their own referendum, at least according to one report.
This is based on an opinion poll by Sifo and published in the daily Aftonbladet. According to this, 65 percent of voters want a referendum, compared with 58 percent questioned in a similar poll three months ago. Only 27 percent believe that the planned parliamentary ratification would be acceptable.
Furthermore, some 41 percent of the 1,000 voters polled by Sifo said they would vote "no" in a referendum, with 23 percent saying they would vote "yes". The "undecideds" stood at 36 percent.
The contagion, it seems, is spreading and even little Luxembourg is reported to be "wobbling". If I didn't know so well how the "colleagues" thought, I might even have my doubts. But then, as I have observed, this ain't no picnic.
Actually, this is fantasy. For sure, the Dutch will almost certainly vote "nee" and the best of luck to them. Currently, polls are giving the campaign a 20 point lead and it is hard to see anything that could happen in the few hours left that will change the balance. If anything, as time passes, the "nee" vote will harden and some pundit are predicting a final score as high as 70 percent.
Nevertheless, The Times, amongst other newspapers, is predicting that this vote will kill off the treaty. I do not believe that for a minute. There, perhaps lies hubris, but I still don't believe it. Despite saturation coverage, I have almost given up listening to the broadcast media, unable any longer to tolerate the torrent of drivel.
Anyway, to support its case, The Times cites unnamed commission officials who are "privately conceding" that a second emphatic 'no' from a founding member would probably prove fatal. "There is a limit to what we can say before the Dutch vote. But things will change afterwards if they say 'no'," one commission source is claimed to have said.
The paper goes on to say that no country wants to be held responsible for killing the constitution by being first to abandon a referendum, but diplomats are saying that "everyone is talking to everyone" about how to proceed. "We don't want to be the first to say 'no'. We won't say 'no' unless there is a general decision not to go forward," says one diplomat from a state which has promised a vote.
However, all this is low grade stuff, although the paper does go on to cite Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary and Neil (now Lord) Kinnock, both arguing that the constitution is dead. Frankly, though, if either said it was raining, I would go outside to check.
More substantially, The Times admits that the UK is the only country not to commit itself to moving forward with ratification, with all other EU member states officially saying that their plans to ratify it have not changed. It is going to be very hard for any of these countries to break ranks.
In the meantime, the Swedes are said to be more enthusiastic about having their own referendum, at least according to one report.
This is based on an opinion poll by Sifo and published in the daily Aftonbladet. According to this, 65 percent of voters want a referendum, compared with 58 percent questioned in a similar poll three months ago. Only 27 percent believe that the planned parliamentary ratification would be acceptable.
Furthermore, some 41 percent of the 1,000 voters polled by Sifo said they would vote "no" in a referendum, with 23 percent saying they would vote "yes". The "undecideds" stood at 36 percent.
The contagion, it seems, is spreading and even little Luxembourg is reported to be "wobbling". If I didn't know so well how the "colleagues" thought, I might even have my doubts. But then, as I have observed, this ain't no picnic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)