And so it goes on…

There are only so many ways of saying it, and only so many times it can be said before it gets tedious. But today, after this Blog it is the turn of the The Daily Telegraph to say that the row over Britain's rebate is a diversionary tactic.

This is the view taken in the leader, written by Daniel Hannan, who also notes that commentators have been so dazzled by Chirac's outrageous demands that they have taken their eyes off what he is doing, so to speak, with his other hand.

Yet, writes Hannan, the case for Britain's budget rebate is as strong today as when it was negotiated. In 1984, Britain was the second largest net contributor to EU funds. In 2004, even with the rebate, it was still the second largest net contributor.

Britain does worse out of the EU's budgetary arrangements than any state except Germany. Far from increasing the UK's contribution to an even more iniquitous level, the EU should be seeking to cut its costs, so that everyone, not just the British, can "get their money back". End of story.

However, from there we part company. Hannan spoils it by arguing that it is an attempt to divert attention from the quiet resurrection of the EU constitution. This is hardly likely, and our own view is that Chirac is creating a "bargaining chip" to strengthen bid to get Britain to hold a referendum.

That notwithstanding, Hannan does make some useful points, not least that – as readers of this Blog already know - that the EU institutions are pushing ahead as though the "no" votes had not happened.

However, Hannan cites an example of the EU parliament, which he claims has voted through several "Bills" that cite the constitution as the source of their authority. Last week, he writes, MEPs proposed a unified EU seat on the UN Security Council, claiming that they "quoted as their legal basis 'the European Constitutional Treaty, which creates a legal personality for the Union and a European Minister for Foreign Affairs'".

Actually, this is not the case. Rather than a "Bill", this was a resolution (B6-0328/2005) - i.e., a non-legislative, "advisory" instrument. The text to which Hannan refers is in para 20, which is framed in the context of the proposal to extend the composition of the UN Security Council by adding new seats for each regional group, including "Europe". The parliament expresses the view that the:

…appropriate solution that would be coherent with the European Constitutional Treaty, which creates a legal personality for the Union and a European Minister for Foreign Affairs, would be to attribute an additional permanent seat to the EU.

It then calls on the Member States "seriously to consider this proposal in order to enhance Europe's influence in the world through a coherent and efficient Common Foreign Policy." This hardly supports the contention that the constitution is being "resurected".

Far more sinister, in fact, is the next paragraph (para. 21) which is worth citing in full. The EU parliament:

Considers, however, that in any case, irrespective of the procedure for reform chosen, some of the additional seats for "Europe" should be attributed to the EU as such; in this context, calls on the EU Council to establish the appropriate mechanism to designate the EU Member States who will execute their mandate as EU representatives in close coordination with the other EU Member States, the High Representative or future Minister for Foreign Affairs, the European Commission and the European Parliament until the conditions for an EU seat are met.

What effectively this means is that the two existing members of the Security Council – France and the UK - should cease to represent their own interests and, de facto, represent the EU interest.

This does support Hannan's thesis, that to our masters in Brussels, the goal of a united Europe is not simply desirable but inevitable. "Public opposition to that goal," he writes, "is thus an obstacle to be overcome, not a reason for changing direction. We may find their attitude laughable. But, when the laughing stops, they will still have their constitution."

This is the real issue to be addressed at the coming European Council, says Hannan (although, like others, he insists on calling it a "summit"). Instead of scrapping over the budget, EU leaders ought to be seeking to address their voters' concerns. During the recent referendums "yes" campaigners argued that a "no" vote would be a rejection, not simply of the constitution, but of the entire European project. Let them now stand by their own logic:

If the peoples of Europe have indeed voted against closer integration, let their leaders repatriate powers to the national capitals - starting with those parts of the constitution that they have already implemented. There is no point in holding referendums if we do not respect their verdict.

With that, we cannot disagree.

We can repress the… nationalism of Europeans only gradually

There you have it, the authentic voice of the Euro-élite, this one a voice from the past, Helmut Schmidt, former chancellor of Germany.

Writing in today's edition of the International Herald Tribune, under the heading: "Europe, slow and steady", he tells us that there is "no reason for pessimism" after the "no" votes from the Dutch and the French.

"Europe is nowhere near the end of the road," he writes. "The fact that so many diverse citizens and cultures have combined to create a union of their own free will and free of violence is a unique achievement in world history. The referendums' failure will not change that."

Schmidt thinks that a "variety of further developments are (sic) conceivable." The additional expansions currently under way may have to cease and it is "unfortunately possible" that the EU may shrink into an institutionally enriched free-trade zone – to the delight of the British. But it is also possible that in a few years time, he believes, negotiations could lead to the formation of an inner core of Europe from several governments and their nations.

Above all, Schmidt cautions, the Union cannot be brought to completion in just a few decades by ministers and diplomats:

The EU needs the consent and will of its citizens. The coming experience of increasing helplessness of smaller and medium-sized nations acting alone will increasingly convince their citizens of the need for the Union, but that will take time and perseverance.

Then comes the crunch: "Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Jacques Delors, many of the old guard knew: We can repress the historically created egocentric nationalism of Europeans only gradually. Today's statesmen and the overzealous Brussels commissioners should follow this example."

Yes, I am guilty of selective quoting, but I would contend that the omission of those four words, "historically created egocentric nationalism", from the title of this piece does not change the meeting. Schmidt and his fellow travellers mean to repress nationalism.

Like others, he now seems to think that the constitution was taking the "project" on too fast and he is counselling the slower – more deceitful – approach favoured by the "old guard". How he reconciles that with the "consent and will" of the citizens, he does not explain, when they have just expressed precisely that, in two resounding rejections.

But hey! That is what "leadship" is all about. When the people tell you they do not want to follow, you go ahead anyway, only more slowly. "The referendums' failure will not change that." Significant choice of word, that: "failure". The people failed. Time for some more leadership.

What a great title

Today’s editorial in the Mail enumerates wearily all the many things that have come Britain’s way from the EU and the many battles, lost and …. well, lost.

“The struggle for mastery never lets up. If it is not Maastricht it is Amsterdam, or Nice, and yet more demands for the abandonment of the veto.

If we fight off the single currency or the Social Chapter, we are faced with a unified foreign policy or a European Army, a European arrest warrant, a European police force, a Working Time Directive.”

Indeed, the last paragraph asks tentatively the question many of us have been posing for some years:

“Our membership of the EU, an endless headache, is like having a hangover without even having been to a party the night before. It is tempting to wonder if there is any point in Britain belonging to this organisation any longer.”

But the best thing about the article is its title. Who could possibly not laugh at the picture conjured up by the words: “We bar the door, so Europe climbs in the back window”?

And now for something completely different

This is totally OT, but such fun! Turn your speakers on and think of it as an antidote to the EU.

I can't believe they're still saying it!

Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski, noting that the Tour de France starts next month, has likened Europe to riding a bicycle. "If you stop, you fall off," he says.

Can't they think of anything more original?

It's not rocket science

Having just wasted an hour watching the BBC Politics Show, on the promise that there would be an interview with Barroso, I came to the conclusion that I would have been better off watching this.

Not that the Sunday newspapers are much better when it comes to divining what on earth is going on, but I was mildly entertained by Hannan's op-ed in The Sunday Telegraph, who puts his finger on the spot with the heading: "When in trouble, blame the Brits".

"The leaders of Old Europe are still reeling from their referendum results," he writes. "They cannot bring themselves to accept that their peoples have turned against them. Dazed and disoriented, they have lashed out at a familiar target: it is all the fault of Tony Blair." He continues:

Reading the French, Spanish or German press last week, you would have had the impression that Blair on his own - rather than 20 million French "no" voters - had blocked the European Constitution. The Continental political class is engaging in a collective act of what psychologists call displacement, externalising something which they do not like in themselves.

But, in many respects, Hannan – and many other commentators – are being far too polite. This whole rebate issue has been got up by one man, Jacques L'Escroc Chirac. This is the man of whom it was once said that he could steal a pot of jam and when challenged - with his fingers still in the jar and the booty smeared on his lips - he could look you in the eyes and say, without a blush: "Moi, monsieur? But I don't eat jam."

Not for nothing is the man called L'Escroc. His alternative moniker, of course, is "superliar", and the two epithets accurately describe the man. He is an inveterate liar, a thief and, as many who have had to deal with him will attest, a merciless bully. And he also happens to be president of France, a man who, in trouble in his own country, with the lowest approval rating for any president of France since records began, is seeking to divert attention from his own woes, a move so transparent that even Downing Street has noticed.

On this basis, Blair's rebuff, challenging L'Escroc to give up his farming subsidies before there could be any negotiations of the rebate was well judged. It is precisely the thing Chirac cannot and will not do – not least because the power base of his UMP party lies in the rural domains of France. Even to hint at touching subsidies would be political suicide.

What is amazing, though, is that anyone is prepared even to begin to take the prospect of agricultural report seriously. It is purely a negotiating ploy – a "stopper" if you like, with not the remotest prospect of getting anywhere. Yet we see earnest leaders in the Sunday Times today and The Guardian yesterday, their writers behaving, for all the world, as if the issue is seriously on the table.

The thing is that it really does not take rocket science to work out what is happening. We all know that frère Jacques wants the constitution ratification process to continue and, in particular, wants Blair to run his referendum. Behind the scenes, he has been building an alliance of other member states to support him, not least Austria yesterday. At the European Council at the end of this week, he will thus be able to confront Blair with a solid phalanx of leaders all demanding the same thing.

But, having raised the temperature on the rebate, he can then offer Blair a face-saver. Magnaminously, he can tell the British prime minister that the rebate is safe – the "colleagues" will let him keep it. But in return, monsieur, there is but one small concession, your referendum, s’il vous plaît.

Blair can come home a hero, having safeguarded the iconic rebate – which was never really at risk and – wholly in the democratic interest of allowing the British people to have their say, of course – will also announce that we are to have a referendum. He cares not whether he loses it and the Chirac will be praying that the British do their duty and throw out the constitution. Only then can he or his successor put it to the French people in a second referendum and get the "project" back on track.

All the rest is fluff.

Booker

The media last week were filled with Alistair Darling's plans to impose a system of road tolls, using satellites to charge motorists between 2p and £1.34 a mile for using our roads. The BBC, showing a picture of the US global positioning satellite (GPS) system, assured us the technology was all in place to make our transport minister’s scheme viable, and that it would help cut congestion on Britain’s roads and was altogether wonderful.

Booker, in his column today looks behind this story and reports – as indeed have we on this Blog - that there is a hidden EU agenda.

"What neither Mr Darling, the BBC or anyone else bothered to explain," he writes, "was that his plans are only part of an EU-wide scheme planned for several years, using the EU's own planned satellite system Galileo, and that an important part of its purpose is to provide the EU with an independent source of income worth billions of euros a year."

Detailing the story, Booker comments that it is "this deliberate practice of concealing how many national policies are now dictated by 'Europe' which gave rise to the description of the EU as 'the elephant in the room': a presence so vast that everyone pretends it is not there."

In an ironic twist, though, Booker refers to the the technical doubts about the system and, on the basis that the "practical complexities likely to beset this hugely ambitious project" raise questions as to whether it can be made to work at all. He thus dubs the scheme: "the white elephant in the room."

Actually, the more I think of it, the idea of keeping track of over 30 million vehicles, recording every journey, raising charges for each and every one of them and collecting the money, is such a stupendous task, that even if the technology worked perfectly (and when does it ever?) it would be hard to see how a system could be devised. Perhaps, taking Booker's cue, it ought to be called: "the mad elephant in the room".

For the second story, Booker quotes Jack Straw in the Commons on Monday: "Let me make it clear that there is no plan, proposal or intention to slip elements of the constitutional treaty through by the back door," in response to the charge that many provisions of the treaty are already being implemented before it is ratified.

Straw was then asked by Bernard Jenkin MP why, in that case, the EU had already set up its European Defence Agency, "a central provision of the constitution", only to get the reply that: "the defence agency is not in the treaty."

Yet there, in black and white, is Article I-41.3 of the constitution giving legal authorisation for the setting up of the "European Defence Agency". This, without waiting for the constitution, was launched last January to play a hugely important role in planning and co-ordinating an "EU defence identity".

The truth is that, on all sides, implementation of the constitution is busily rolling forward, obviously on the assumption that there was no need to wait until the treaty became law. Caught out by the French and Dutch "no" votes, ministers and officials have no recourse but to indulge in hopelessly disingenuous prevarication, as Mr Straw did with his subsequent claim that the defence agency was somehow authorised by a vague aspirational clause in the Maastricht Treaty committing the EU leaders eventually to frame a Common Defence Policy.

As a lawyer Mr Straw must be aware that a vague aspiration is not the same as a legal authorisation. Similarly, last Wednesday, when EU ministers held a "Space Council" in Luxembourg to plan "a European space policy", they were acting illegally, in that the only authorisation ‘to draw up a European space policy’ is contained in Article III-254 of the Constitution.

In other words, writes Booker: "they had no legal power to do what they were doing, by which they are committing EU taxpayers to spend 10 billion euros (£7 billion) a year. This is twice the size of the UK budget rebate which President Chirac and others are so keen should be taken off us because the EU is so strapped for cash."

"When ministers are caught acting illegally in this way," he asks, "what do we expect them to do? Come clean and admit they have made a mistake? Or just lie about it?"

You've guessed it: It is much easier to take the second course. But whether it is wise to base our system of government on such institutionalised dishonesty is another matter.

Story three is a tale about where power really lies in this country. We have a junior transport minister in this government called Karen Buck. When she was asked to help out on a matter which involved the EU, she lived up to her name – and passed the buck. Booker asks why, if she admits that, as a minister, she no longer has power to do the job she is paid for, why is she paid at all?

A minor setback

That is the view DefenseNews takes of the French and Dutch "no" votes and their impact on defence integration. Nothing about the rejection of the constitution will undo or likely even slow the EU progress towards a military force compiled from member contributions.

Thus, although the votes will delay wider cross-border defence co-operation by a decade, "voters cannot so easily put the brakes on destiny". This battle for a constitution has failed, but the potential for a more unified Europe remains.

This is echoed by Karl Von Wogau, German MEP and head of the European Parliament’s sub-committee on defence. "I am not discouraged for the European Security and Defence Policy," he says, "because it has its own fixed agenda and that will move ahead even if the constitution is not in place."

He sees "a positive will to move ahead in this area," adding: "Security and defence are the centrepieces of the EU's foreign policy ambitions and they will go forward".

Confirmation of this agenda comes from an anonymous official of the French defence ministry, who says that the European Defence Agency, the EU Gendarme force and the EU military planning office will continue to function as part of European co-operation.

As for a few "no" votes in a couple of referendums – like the man says: a minor setback.

A wholly different game

As purely political theatre, the current drama of the UK rebate is something the British media is quite good at covering. It has all the elements of a "biff-bam" soap-opera that the hacks can understand, and they get stuck into it with relish.

At one level, therefore, The Times today gives quite a good account of the twists and turns of the saga.

However, it also reports that Blair "will pit his authority as a newly elected leader against the weakened heads of Germany and France next week by demanding a fundamental overhaul of the way the European Union spends its money and conducts itself."

Blair, we are also told, will tell Chirac and Schröder that "they cannot allow the increasingly furious row over the budget to divert attention from the problems that Europe faces after the French and Dutch rejections of the constitution."

That, of course, is to miss the point entirely. The precise reason why Chirac, in particular, has escalated this spat into a major international crisis is to divert attention from his lamentable performance in the referendum campaign. More to the point, he is seeking to position Britain in its archetypal role in Community demonology as the "awkward partner", in the hope of cementing an alliance of all the other EU member states, to take on Blair at next week's European Council.

By framing Blair as the "black sheep", he clearly hopes that this will strengthen his arm in the battle to force a continuation of the constitution ratification process. Not least, this will ensure that the British prime minister has to share the pain of a humiliating rebuff in a referendum, a fate for which Chirac, in part blames Blair for forcing on him the referendum in the first place.

That much, actually, is acknowledged in The Times's piece, which cites British officials as accusing the two leaders of using diversionary tactics to make Britain "the bad boy" at the Council rather than face up to the facts.

The paper cites a "source close to Blair", saying: "The truth, is they will not get away with it… Most of the others there won't want just to be talking about the budget. They will want to know how M Chirac intends to help them to avoid getting 'no' votes in their own referendums if he is so keen that they should go ahead with them."

That again is to miss the point. Chirac is nothing if not focused on his own problems – French problems – and if he (or his successor) is ever to have a chance of getting his countrymen to accept the constitution, he has two possible scenarios. This first, which is no longer realistic, is for every other country to accept it, allowing him credibly to claim that France is "isolated". The second, more realistically, is to get Britain to reject it - thus allowing the claim that it is good for France. To that effect, of course, he must manoeuvre Blair into holding a referendum.

When it actually comes to Britain's rebate, this is, in fact, a storm in a teacup. The actual sum involved, in relation to the budget overall, is minuscule – and even less if the claw-back effect is taken into account. Moreover, funding the enlargement countries is not an issue. Most have been unable to develop the administrative systems to handle the vast sums (by their standards) pouring out of the EU coffers and have fallen behind in dispersing payments.

There is a massive surplus built up in the the EU bank account, and countries like Hungary, Slovenia and Poland have considerable credits, which they can feed into their systems, even if no new money is forthcoming for a while. And, if there is no immediate agreement on the budget, there is no crisis. EU law allows for a roll-over, based on a proportion of the previous settlement, which is more than enough to keep the Community ticking over.

In all, therefore, the "budget crisis" is artificial, which lends support to the view that its sudden eruption is an artefact, designed to put pressure on Blair. On that basis, the prime minister may have a great deal less leverage than he thinks, as the Chirac/Schröder duo could just as easily defuse the crisis by making last-minute concessions, in exchange for the thing they want most – a continuation of the ratification process.

What they may not have factored in, however, is that they are dealing with a "no-care-Blair". He may not actually give a fig whether there is a referendum or not. We could find him agreeing to one, but distancing himself from it, telling the protagonists get on with it, without engaging in the debate. After a lacklustre campaign, he could walk away from a "no" result with minimal political fallout and hand the mess back to the European Council with the same "don't care" attitude.

In other words, behind the headlines, a wholly different game may be being played out, one of far greater subtlety than the hacks even begin to suspect, for stakes that are much bigger than a paltry few billion. Very soon, we will start seeing the cards.

That Rebate

In the interests of keeping abreast of the debate on the UK rebate, I am sure our readers would appreciate knowing how it is calculated. Basically, it its simplicity itself, as secured by Margaret Thatcher at the Fontainebleau Council in June 1984.

It was then that she negotiated a reduction in the UK's net contribution, amounting to a sixty-six percent rebate of the budgetary imbalance, the excess paid in customs duties and agricultural levies, known as the Traditional Own Resource (TOR). Additionally, a 1.4 percent cap was placed on the VAT levy, known as the "rate of call".

However, that in itself led to further imbalances and the Commissions devised a system to adjust it, known as a "correction mechanism".

According to that great Europhile, Hugo Young, its complexity was such that it was "outside the comprehension of every normal European citizen" and even the Commission admitted that it "…inhibited transparency in the financial relationships between the Member States and the Community budget".

Of course, that did not stop the Commission making further adjustments to it on the back of the 1988 at the Brussels Summit, when further revisions were made to the funding system where what became known as the "Own Resources Decision" was made.

This provided for a reduced role of VAT in funding the Community and new system of payment based on each member state paying a proportion of its Gross National Product (GNP). This, in turn, created new distortions and required a new mechanism to calculate Britain's rebate.

How this worked was explained in a subsequent document produced by DGXIX of the Commission. Our readers, being of sterner stuff than average, will – I am sure – be anxious to commit this explanation to memory. The relevant passage goes as follows:

…the shares of the Member States in the VAT and GNP bases are not equal and the introduction of the GNP resource favoured some countries relative to others. The countries which desired to reduce further the role of the VAT resource, failing to obtain a reduction in its maximum call rate, obtained a reduction indirectly through the UK rebate mechanism. It was, in effect, decided to calculate the amount of VAT theoretically necessary to finance the UK rebate and not to call a corresponding amount of VAT.

The provisions of the Mode de Calcul determine an amount (called the "gross equivalent" and which is actually larger than the UK rebate) that must be left aside for the notional financing of the UK rebate. The percentage of the EU VAT base necessary to generate this amount (called the "frozen rate") is deducted from the maximum rate foreseen in the Own Resources decision to obtain the yearly rate of call. This rate of call changes every year depending on the size of, and shows the same high variability as, the UK rebate.

This situation creates additional complications every time the amount of the UK rebate is revised. An upwards or downwards revision of the UK rebate provokes a change in the opposite direction of the rate of call of VAT and in the amount to be called (or that [which] should have been called).

Given that the size of the budget to be financed remains the same, a change in the amount of VAT called must be compensated by a corresponding change of opposite sign in the amount of GNP called. Since Member States have different shares in the bases of the two resources, these changes are not neutral (this effect of the rebate on the VAT and GNP contributions of the Member States is usually called the "indirect effect").

If the amount of the UK rebate must be revised, it becomes necessary to compensate the Member States for the incorrect amount of VAT and GNP contributions that have been called. This calls for complicated calculations for each revision of the UK rebate and its budgeting in two different chapters… which produces the somewhat surprising result that the United Kingdom appears to participate in the financing of its own rebate (this author's italics).

Is that clear?

It is worth noting, incidentally that, while the Commission actually suggests that the amount of self-financing involves "very small amounts", the cumulative effects of the Brussels "adjustment" and the Fontainebleau accord resulted in a situation that, whenever funds are drawn down by the UK over and above the threshold level determined in 1984, the Commission – through its "correction mechanism" - is able to claw back a substantial proportion of the funds paid. Currently, this is of the order of seventy-one percent.

For matched-funding schemes like the rural development fund, when the UK's contribution is taken into account, the net cost to the Treasury is not the fifty percent or so that other member states have to pay, but eighty-five percent.

This has an interesting side effect in that, if the rebate was abolished the "claw-back" would also be abolished. If Britain then called down its full share of Community funds, to which it is entitled, the effect would be that the Community would only benefit to the tune of 29 percent of the notional British rebate. That is currently less than £1 billion – a lot less than is paid to France for its own share of the rural development fund.

But that, as they say, is another story.

Good start Dominique

According to this morning’s International Herald Tribune, Dominique de Villepin, the beautifully coiffed, poetic new French Prime Minister has begun his administration by annoying his own party, the opposition and the trade unions. That covers most of them, I guess.

In his maiden speech Prime Minister de Villepin announced a €4.5 billion (c £3 billion) job creation plan. In response the Communist controlled CGT (talk about being stuck in the by-ways of history) has called for a mass demonstration on June 21.

In fact, there was a large demonstration in Paris yesterday, to protect manufacturing jobs. (What manufacturing jobs? Unemployment is running at over 10 per cent in that country and yet more factories are planning to relocate.)

In particular, the unions do not like a measure that would give small companies the right to hire people for a two-year probationary period with no guarantee of a permanent job afterwards. In many ways, one must agree, that is a silly measure, as anything that tries to lay down different rules for small and large companies is.

Still, the Solidaires union went a little too far, when it announced that

“M Villepin has just invented fast firing.”

Surely not. It has been with us for some time. In any case, two years is hardly fast.

Villepin’s own party and the opposition criticized his remarkably democratic plan to pass various job-creating legislation by diktat, by-passing the Assembly. Then again, if the EU can pass regulations that by-pass all elected parliaments and assemblies, why can’t the French Prime Minister? Is that not what is meant by souverainité?

The Socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn has dismissed the entire proposal:

“Nothing, but nothing, in what was presented yesterday will stimulate growth and demand. What we urgently need is not a succession of mini-measures but an analysis of the economic situation. And what we need is to relaunch growth.”

Will it work in theory? M Strauss-Kahn, noticeably, has not proposed anything specific either.

In fact, all these debates and discussions have been very short on specifics. Exactly, what can be done to stimulate the French economy? Does anyone have the answer?

What a wag!

Oh dear, I shall miss Jean-Claude Juncker. Yes, I know he is not going anywhere but as of July 1, Luxembourg will not hold the rotating presidency and we shall have to make do with Tony Blair for entertainment. I bet those spoilsports will not even let Cherie out of wherever they keep her locked up most of the time for fear of her own particular brand of foot-and-mouth disease.

In response to Italian and German murmurings about the euro and assurances from finance ministers that the euro was alive, well and immortal, Mr Juncker has come up with his own brand of reassurance:

“It is just inconceivable that a country could envisage dropping out of the euro. The euro belongs to us all.”

What a curiously socialist idea. Still, other ministers have been just as troublingly reassuring. Hans Eichel, the German Finance Minister, informed the world that it was “nonsense” even to suggest that any country could withdraw from the euro.

Pedro Solbes, the Spanish Finance Minister, called the euro “irreversible”. (Reminds one of the time Mrs Thatcher told us that he Chancellor’s position was “unassailable”. We knew Lawson was for the chop.)

The new French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, assured all and sundry that the euro was a huge plus to the European economies, reminding the world of the problems they encountered in those far-off EMU days. (Personally, I do not think it is a wise policy to remind the Netherlands, for instance, of their pre-euro days, but then I am not the French Foreign Minister.)

“Do not call into question monetary Europe,” – he added, distinguishing it from any other kind of Europe that, presumably, can be called into question.

And, of course, we could not get by without a fatuous comment from Josep Borrell, the rather dubious President of the European Parliament.

“We must ask everyone to avoid frivolity and such brilliant ideas. Imagine the monetary turmoil that would be shaking the European Union today if it weren't for the euro.”

Imagine it, indeed. Then try to imagine a Europe that is economically successful and forward looking. The mind definitely boggles.

Beware of so many politicians denying something. It will surely come to pass.

Of course, it is fair to say that monetary union is not the only thing that is causing problems in European countries, though the “one interest rate for all” policy cannot be helpful when the economies are further apart than ever.

But is that not precisely what the derided euroceptics said back in the days the euro was being discussed and promoted as the answer to all our problems? As I recall, Bill Jamieson, then Economic Editor of the Sunday Telegraph compared the suggestion of the euro solving all those problems to the idea that you can remodel a car by smashing it into the wall first.

The European economies suffer from a great many ills that need root and branch reforms. The euro is not the greatest of these but neither is it negligible. However, as the euro was promised to be the panacea, so it is now blamed for all the problems that not only have not been solved but have actually deepened.

Like the euro, they belong to us all.

Turf wars

As the situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate, western European countries have finally decided on some more tangible help to the region, agreeing to fund and organise a humanitarian airlift. But, so sooner had the scheme been agreed in principle, it became bogged down in a "turf war" between the EU and Nato.

According to a report in The Independent today, the two parties have failed to resolve their dispute and the airlift will now be co-ordinated from two different centres in Europe.

The problem started several weeks ago when France insisted that the operation should be co-ordinated from one EU base in Eindhoven in the Netherlands - which is also used by Nato planners. But this was rejected by the United States and an impass ensued.

Now, countries contributing to the airlift will chose whether they want to have their operations planned from Eindhoven under an EU banner or from Nato's military planning headquarters at Mons in Belgium. "Since we were not going to do the operation together, it was not worth moving people from Mons to Eindhoven if they were not even going to sit together," one diplomat said yesterday.

France has offered support through the EU arm of the operation, while Germany says it is unclear whether its operation will be under a Nato or EU flag. The UK, typically sitting on the fence, said that it plans to use both.

Although the dispute has thus been resolved – albeit in a messy fashion – it sets an uncomfortable precedent for future operations. Despite the honeyed assurances that the EU planning arm was to be "complementary" to Nato, the reality is clearly that it is – and was always intended to be – a rival.

And if the rivalry has has such an impact on a humanitarian mission, where the providers have the initiative, the prospect of the two organisations working effectively in a shooting war seem remote. A separate EU military indentity was always a bad idea, and now the worst fears look like being realised.

The rain in Spain ....

…. is about to fall on Zapatero, friend of Castro and putative negotiator with ETA.

Last spring, Zapatero and his Socialist party reaped a political benefit from the horrendous Madrid bomb explosions and from the subsequent fumbling by Aznar’s government.

Interpreting the bombs as being nothing but response to Spain’s participation in the coalition of the willing in Iraq, Zapatero campaigned on a withdrawalist policy and won. He had said a year before that, in response to a large demonstration against the Iraqi war that the people must be listened to.

Of course, things never turn out quite how one expects them to. First of all, it is clear that the Al-Qaeda cells in Spain have been there for some years, predating 9/11, never mind the Iraqi war. So, the Spanish police and intelligence services have been busy building up various structures to fight the terrorist menace.

Secondly, the report into the bombing itself and surrounding circumstances has been shelved several times and there have been various political rows about it.

But, most of all, there is ETA. Though they were not responsible for last year’s Madrid bombs, they have not gone away. Until now, the Spanish governments, supported by the majority of the population, including the majority of the Basque population, have refused to negotiate with the terrorists, thus distinguishing themselves from the far more craven behaviour of the British governments.

Certain reforms that would satisfy the democratic Basque nationalists have been put through and, just as with the IRA, there are indications that, although ETA has not stopped its bombings and other attacks, militarily it has been growing weaker.

Both under Aznar and under Zapatero the security forces have managed to arrest many leading members. So, with consummate political skill, Zapatero has chosen this moment, soon after several explosions in the Basque country, to suggest that his government may well start talking to the terrorists.

A huge demonstration that consisted of Spaniards and Basques came out against such a suggestion, waving the familiar slogans: “No negotiations in my name”. There were close to a million people and, unlike in the famous demonstration in London, all or almost all were citizens of Spain.

The big question is will Zapatero listen to the people when they are protesting about something so close to home?

Will he accept the arguments that unless ETA disarms, there is no point even in talking to them? Will he look at the mess of Northern Ireland, where “negotiations” without any commitments from the IRA/Sinn Fein have brought about the expected results?

Or will Prime Minister Zapatero show that for him terrorism is seamless – and he is ready to surrender to it, wherever it may happen to be?

What about our salaries and expenses then?

As some of our readers have noted, the US House International Relations Committee has approved a proposed legislation that would withhold half of US dues if the tranzi organization-in-chief does not show that its ability to reform extends beyond fine speeches by SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo of food-for-oil fame).

The Bill, due to go to the full House, lists 39 specific changes that range from stricter budget and auditing procedures to changing the structure of the UN Commission on Human Rights, that has such freedom-loving countries as Sudan and Cuba on it. In fact, it has been chaired by Libya, also known as an advocate of human rights (in the Gaddafi family).

There is also the suggestion that the UN takes 18 of its programmes of the list of automatically funded ones, thus making them voluntarily funded and more amenable to control.

According to Bloomberg:

“The legislation takes aim at the UN's Public Information Office and ``General Assembly Affairs and Conferences Services,'' which consume a fifth of the UN's regular budget. It notes that diplomatic conferences cost ``upwards of $7,000-$8,000 per hour.'' Costs would be cut 10 percent in 2007, followed by a 20 percent reduction in 2008.

Hyde's bill would establish an independent board to oversee the existing Office of Internal Oversight Services and both bodies would have independent budgets. This new body would also oversee the UN's audit board, could investigate mismanagement and wrongdoing, take steps to protect whistleblowers and end single- bid contracts.

The bill would bar countries from human rights panels if they failed to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or had been sanctioned by the Security Council.”

The proposal is that the UN should implement at least 32 of the listed reforms within two years the US should withhold half its payment. This is not precisely draconian and, given that all supporters of UN are bleating about the need for reform, it should not be particularly controversial.

The US does provide 22 per cent of the annual $2 billion general UN budget as well separate large sums allocated for peacekeeping (of which the efforts in African countries and the Balkans are such sterling examples), international tribunals (who have not achieved much over the years, beyond sentencing a few unimportant participants of the Yugoslav wars), programmes such as the UN Development Programme and UNICEF (wonderful sources of funding for highly paid officials and subordinate NGOs).

Even if half of the 22 per cent is withheld, it will hurt the various UN officials or, as Democrat politicians prefer to put it, would land the US back in its funding wars of the eighties. Why that should matter, as victory will always lie with the US as long as they do not blink, is a mystery.

However, a great deal of squealing has been going on. Democrat Representative from California, Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the Committee, chaired by Republican Henry Hyde, came up with a splendidly vapid comment:

“It will be very important for us to resist the powerful temptation to withhold the payment of our dues in an attempt to leverage needed changes at the United Nations.”

He did not, however, suggest any other method of ensuring that those changes occur, given that the SecGen is somewhat uncomfortably close to the largest of the recent scandals, the food for oil one, and has flatly refused to resign or, even, acknowledge his responsibility.

Nor have there been any attempts to investigate any of the other scandals, like the food for sex scam in DR Congo and other African countries, the more straightforward sex scandals in the Balkans, the money that has disappeared in various projects etc.

But let us not try to pressurize that great and good organization. Let us just keep giving it more and more money and hope that one day they will wake up and reform themselves.

That is what Lantos and others are saying. Understandably, UN officials are not very keen on the idea either.

Stephane Dujarric, a UN spokesman put it the following way:

“The secretary general’s position on the use of withholding as a tool for reform is pretty clear. He feels it’s counterproductive, particularly at a time when reform is such a primary agenda item. I think the best way for member states to undertake reform is to engage in discussion among themselves.”

I wonder what that will do, beyond letting SecGen Annan and his various officials and spokespersons off the hook?

At the moment, the Bush administration, refusing to live up to its reputation among the great and the good of the tranzi movement, does not seem to be interested in such a drastic procedure.

The 2006 fiscal spending plan calls for $1 billion of UN peacekeeping on top of the standard contributions. It seems that President Bush and Secretary of State Rice prefer to indulge in gesture politics as far as the UN is concerned, refusing to attend various forthcoming celebrations of its 60th anniversary.

Or they may be hoping that the Bolton nomination goes through and John Bolton will be able to shake up that rich, ineffectual and extremely corrupt organization.

But the possibility of withholding dues in whatever proportion will not go away. At least one other country is watching this with interest. Japan, the second largest contributor to the UN budget is not feeling happy. Apart from the frustration with the lack of any real reform in the UN, Japan feels that her contribution should be recognized by a permanent seat on the Security Council. Unfortunately, every time this is suggested, China throws a hissy fit and the question is shelved. How long will Japan put up with that?

Nice one Jacques

"The time has come for our English friends to understand that they have to make a gesture of solidarity for Europe." So says the French president after talks in Luxembourg on the EU budget, at the same time flatly rejecting calls for France to give up its EU farm subsidies to help secure a deal. Says the man: "We cannot accept a reduction of direct aid to French farmers."

So, let me get this right. Jacques "L’Escroc" Chirac makes a total Horlicks of his referendum, going down in history as the man who brought "Europe" skidding to a halt. Now he wants the UK to bung its £3bn rebate into the EU coffers as "a gesture of solidarity", when we already pay 2½ times more than France, mainly to fund direct aid to French farmers.

Nice one Jacques. What do you do for an encore?

It's a done deal

"There is a constitution, and there will be a referendum."

Jack Straw, speaking on Channel 4 News this evening.

One minor detail – he was in Baghdad, speaking about the Iraqi constitution.

Mixed messages

Despite Chirac's stern injunctions, throughout the French referendum campaign, that the EU constitution could not be renegotiated, an opinion poll today gives a clear majority wanting renegotiation.

This is a poll by the CSA Institute compiled through 6/7 June, relayed from AFX (via Forbes which shows that 61 percent of French voters said the constitution should now be renegotiated. Only 35 percent said nothing more should be done with it.

Furthermore, around round three-quarters (74 percent) believe France could achieve major changes in the text, looking to "significant and positive changes" - whatever they might be. The poll also found, incidentally, that around two-thirds of French people were opposed to Turkey joining the EU, against just 28 pct who approved.

Reflecting the lack of appetite for enlargement, EU commissioner for enterprise and industry, Günter Verheugen, has told the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza that: "Following the fiasco of constitutional referendums in France and the Netherlands, there is no political climate for further enlargement. [The] window of opportunity for new entrants is closed."

Meanwhile, further east, the Slovak Spectator has reported that Slovakia and the Czech Republic continue to support ratification. This is from Slovak prime minister Mikuláš Dzurinda and his Czech counterpart, Jiøí Paroubek.

Paroubek says that if necessary, the EU should allow member countries more than the allotted two years to approve the EU treaty. He hopes political representatives "will show political courage and go for a repeat of the referendum in those countries it initially failed."

Although the Slovak parliament approved the EU constitutional treaty on 11 May, the Czechs have yet to decided formally whether they will opt for parliamentary ratification or go for a referendum.

The official Czech-Slovak stance seems to be backed by the Irish government. According to Irish Voice, Bertie Ahern is intent on ignoring the results of the French and Dutch referendums and is still planning on an Irish poll.

Fianna Fail minister Seamus Brennan feels the constitution is still "rescuable" and says Ireland should not make a decision on the issue until the European Council has met. Ahern is saying that, after five years work, the project could not be abandoned.

The way things are stacking up for the European Council, therefore, are quite interesting. No country has yet formally broken ranks and gestures of support are continuing. The weak link, perversely, is France. With his countrymen showing their enthusiasm for "renegotiation", Chirac is going to have a hard time convincing the "colleagues" that another referendum in France is a realistic proposition.

Of course, if the European Council opt to extend the ratification period, the decision may not be Chirac's to make. He may well be dumped in the 2007 presidency election and the job would be down to the new man. The game, therefore, is still alive although, with the poll result from Poland this morning, the Council is going to have to deal with mixed messages. Their way out of the crisis is by no means clear.

The best laid schemes of mice and men…

Using Poland as a counter-stroke to offset the bad news from France and Holland, holding the line on the EU constitution, rather seems to be backfiring.

According to the AFX Agency in Warsaw (via Forbes) public support for the constitution has plummeted in Poland.

This is the finding of a survey conducted by the PBS institution last week, which reports that only 40 percent now back the EU constitution compared with 54 percent before the French and Dutch votes.

It appears that 35 percent of respondents said they would vote "no" in a referendum, compared with 19 percent in May, while 25 percent expressed no opinion.

Provisionally, Poland is expected to vote on 9 October, after the Luxembourg referendum on 9 July and the Danish poll on 27 September. While Luxembourg can be expected to vote "yes" and the Danes "no", clearly Chirac had hopes that Poland might stem the flow of bad news. The prospect of this country turning will not be welcome in the Elysée Palace.

No! No! No!

This is not an academic issue. It strikes at the heart of that slimy, rotten, stinking excrescence which describes itself as the European Union. It is wrong, it is illegal, it is an abnegation of democracy and the height of arrogance, the very essence of hubris. It simply will not do.

Such is the European Union's space policy, the details of which are set out in the post below. Space policy is not currently a "competence" of the EU, and will not become so unless or until the EU constitution is ratified and comes into force, this being the legal instrument that authorises the Union to involve itself in this matter.

And the European Union, or so we are told, is nothing if it is not a treaty organisation, bound by the rule of law. Without a "legal base" specifically authorised by a treaty provision, it is acting outside the law. It has no authority whatsoever to deal with any matter not included in a treaty.

Here, not only does the EU have no treaty base, but the instrument on which it will rely has been rejected by two countries: France and Holland. Implicit in the referendum question, because space policy is an inherent part of the constitution, was the question: "can we set up a space policy?" And the answer was "no".

Yet here they are, heedless of the message of the people, entirely oblivious to the fact that their very acts are illegal, the commission ploughs ahead with constructing its policy, aimed for completion at the end of 2005, before the constitution was due to come into force, even had it been ratified.

Furthermore, we are not just talking about bits of paper and a few glossy brochures. In September 2004, research commissioner Philippe Busquin recommended increased EU funding on space research, to around €10 billion a year during the next Framework Programme (FP7), starting in 2007, the date to coincide with the projected adoption of the EU constitution, when space policy was supposed to become an EU competence.

That sum, in support of a policy which is not yet legal and which may well not become so, is considerably more than the UK rebate, over which so much political energy is currently being expended, and has been factored into the budget, part of which the UK will have to pay. Take away the space budget and there is no need to pursue the UK for its rebate – the commission would have cash in hand.

But that does not trouble the "colleagues". For all their fine talk, the law means nothing to them. Treaties mean nothing to them. The will of the people, expressed through referendums or otherwise, means nothing to them. They have an ambition and they have the power - that power is their law.

Yet, there is something which could stop them – one simple word. Margaret Thatcher famously used it three times in one go: "No! No! No!" The answer, you slimy, rotten, stinking excrescence which describes itself as the European Union, is No!

What's this… Scotch bloody mist?

The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe

Article III-254. To promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies, the Union shall draw up a European space policy. To this end it may promote joint initiatives, support research, technological development and demonstration programmes. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

The second meeting of the Space Council – concomitant meeting of the ESA Council at ministerial level and of the European Union Competitiveness Council (Internal Market/ Industry/ Research) – was held at the Kiem Conference Centre in Luxembourg today (Tuesday 7 June).

In consultation with private and public stakeholders, the Space Council is working on the definition of a coherent space policy and associated programmes, covering the activities of the EU, ESA and their Member States. The objective is to endorse, at the third Space Council meeting planned for November this year, a European space policy and European space programme for the period to 2013.

The orientations for a European space programme are based on the Framework Agreement between the European Community and ESA and on the ESA Convention. At this second meeting, the Space Council confirmed that the European space policy should cover mainly the following:

- a European space strategy,
- a European space programme matching the strategy and reflecting associated costs and funding sources,
- a commitment by the main contributors as to their roles and responsibilities,
- the key principles of implementation.

The aim of the strategy is to develop increasingly advanced space systems according to user needs. All the benefits derived from associated services will have to be shared by all. The EU will have to identify user needs and build a political will around them. ESA and its Member and Cooperating States will develop future space technologies and systems and pursue excellence in space-based scientific research.

Priorities within the European space programme see the EU focusing on space-based applications to contribute to the achievement of its policies, particularly Galileo and the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security programme ( GMES ). ESA will focus on space exploration and on the basic tools on which the exploitation and exploration of space each depend. Securing guaranteed access to space through a complete, competitive family of launchers, pursuing excellence in space science, and exploiting its know-how in the exploration of the planetary system and in developing technologies to maintain a competitive space sector will be among ESA's main tasks.

The investments needed for these priorities for the EU, ESA and Member States will be identified in the coming months and go through each organisation's normal budgetary and programmatic approval procedures. By coordinating efforts, the players will ensure that new investments bring additional outcomes. Financing sources for space-related activities for the EU are the Seventh Framework Programme of research, technology and development, the trans-European network programme, and the competitiveness and innovation programme. ESA draws on Member States' contributions to mandatory and optional programmes.

EU space-related programmes will be managed in line with an efficiency criterion, in accordance with the Framework Agreement, and will benefit from ESA's technical and management experience, in cooperation with the relevant agencies and entities in Europe. ESA programmes will be managed in line with its Convention. Decisions on future programmes taken at ESA's ministerial Council meeting in December this year, and discussions on future EU financial prospects, will make it possible to determine whether the programme is consistent with the ambitions of the European space policy.

The second meeting of the Space Council was chaired jointly by Ms Edelgard Bulmahn, German Minister for Education and Research and current Chair of the ESA Council at ministerial level, and Mr François Biltgen, Minister for Labour and Employment, Minister for Culture, Higher Education and Research in Luxembourg, and current Chair of the EU Competitiveness Council. The meeting was also attended by Mr Günter Verheugen, European Commission Vice-President, in charge of enterprise, industry, competitiveness and space matters and by Mr Jean-Jacques Dordain, Director General of the European Space Agency.

German Minister Edelgard Bulmahn said: "Today we are sending an important signal: ESA and EU are moving ahead on their way to put space at the service of the European citizen and the Policies of the EU. Building on the long-standing experience of ESA, the European Space Programme will enable Europe to face the political, economical and scientific challenges of tomorrow."

Luxembourg Minister François Biltgen said: "By agreeing on essential elements of the future European space policy, we have today taken a considerable step forward towards establishing a joint European space programme. Thus, the groundwork has been laid for the third Space Council planned for end-2005 to endorse a European space policy and programme."

Commission Vice-President Günter Verheugen stated : "I am grateful for the full support the Space Council has given the Commission today. We will now work full speed ahead and complete our proposal for a European space policy and programme. This will identify programme priorities for future European development of space applications."

ESA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain said: "ESA has just turned 30. Thanks to the continuous support of its Member States, it has grown to make the European space sector one of the foremost competitors in the world and at the same time has become a respected partner. Now the European space policy is being integrated within the wider ambitions of Europe and space is set to become a much larger and more integrated undertaking in our future. ESA is prepared to adapt in order to take on an even greater role for Europe."

Background:

The Space Council was established in order to coordinate and facilitate cooperative activities between the European Community and ESA through their Framework Agreement, which was adopted in 2003 and entered into force in May 2004.

The first Space Council meeting took place in Brussels on 25 November 2004.

The EC-ESA Framework Agreement has two main aims. The first is the coherent, gradual development of an overall European space policy, which will specifically seek to link demand for services and applications using space systems in support of EU policies with the supply through ESA of space systems and infrastructures necessary to meet that demand. ESA is acting de facto EU implementing agency.

The second aim of the Agreement is to establish a common basis and appropriate practical arrangements for efficient and mutually beneficial cooperation between ESA and the European Community, fully respecting the institutional and operational frameworks of each institution, to facilitate the setting up of joint initiatives and to provide a stable framework for EC-ESA cooperation to benefit all European citizens.

Over the last three years, the EU and ESA have worked together to outline a European space policy that identifies and prioritises objectives for space. The European space programme – expected to be endorsed by a Space Council session at the end of 2005 – will constitute a common platform including all activities and measures to be undertaken by the EC, ESA and other stakeholders in order to achieve the objectives set by the European space policy.

The European space programme will be drawn up in light of the overall recommendations set out in the White Paper on Space, an action plan adopted by the European Commission in November 2003 for implementing an enlarged European space policy. Drafted in cooperation with ESA, the White Paper includes proposals for joint EC-ESA initiatives and takes the Framework Agreement as its basis for implementation.

Excuse me, the Constitution is NOT ratified yet, and two countries just happen to have said "no" - or hadn't you noticed?

Plan D, sub-plan F (for fluffy)

The great thing about the fragrant Commissar is that she never gives up. When the going gets tough she gets fluffy.

Her latest blog is all about her travelling to Boston to get an honorary doctorate from the University of Massachussetts (for what precisely?), taking a couple of hours out of every working day to brush up her French (how nice – who is paying for that?), complete with cute little comments about the difficulties of French grammar, and even a comment about Jean-Claude Juncker being unable to give up smoking because of his worries about the ungrateful people …. oops, sorry … the Constitution.

And what of her job, that of being Commissar for Truth and Reconciliation? What of her failure to promote the Constitution to the people of Europe? Do we hear anything about that?

Oh a certain amount. She seems unable to accept that people said no for a certain reason: they did not like what was being rammed down their throats. Dear me, no. They were misguided.

“One re-occurring argument in the debate on the Constitution has been the dramatic changes that the EU has undergone lately: the Euro, enlargement… and so many people feeling left behind.

Democracy takes time. And it takes leaders who are willing to actively advocate and defend the decisions taken – also when they have had to make compromises – as well as listen more attentively to citizens concerns.”

I am beginning to feel slightly dizzy here. It was my distinct impression that a number of European countries, if not most of them, have actually achieved democracy, which includes elected leaders who are accountable to the people.

Why exactly is the unelected fragrant Commissar shaking her pretty blonde head sorrowfully about the lack of leaders “who are willing to actively advocate and defend the decisions taken”.

Exactly, what is this democracy that she in her wisdom is going to impose on us? And is she not the one who should have been advocating and defending instead of charging round the world, weeping over rainforests, taking coffee with President Mubarak, accepting degrees in Massachussetts?

Something stirring in the European Parliament

Some of our readers may have noted that there have been developments in the Roger Helmer case.

Last seen, our intrepid hero was being publicly dressed down by EPP Group Leader, Hans-Gert Pöttering for daring to sign up to Nigel Farage’s Motion of Censure of the free-loader (surely free-marketeer) Commission President Barroso and compounding his errors by revealing that pressure had been put on the Conservative MEPs to withdraw their signatures. Up with this the EPP will not put.

“You can’t just get up in the European Parliament and attack your own leadership,” – said one outraged spokesperson.

Why not, precisely? People in real parliaments do that all the time. Well, apparently it was a whip, just like it is in the British Parliament, to make people vote the right way and Mr Helmer did not do so.

Actually, people often do not in the British Parliament either. Apart from the odd occasion when a prime minister (such as John Major) throws his toys out of the pram, they do not get suspended. Or not often, anyway.

This was not an important enough issue. Or, rather, the ostensible issue of the vote of confidence was not, but the real one of group discipline (such as the Conservative Party was not going to have imposed on it when it joined the EPP-ED group) is immensely important. How dare Mr Helmer suggest that British MEPs should not be ordered about by German politicians?

Well, our hero has now been expelled from the EPP-ED group. Mr Helmer, with great flourish, voted for his own expulsion from the group.

In his press release he points out that he

“… remains a member of the Conservative party, and of the European Parliament,and insists that his new status as an unattached MEP will not prejudice his ability to represent his East Midlands constituents, nor to fight for Conservative principles”.

Rather the opposite, one would say, if being attached to a group means total obedience to the leaders of that group.

In his speech to the group before the vote for the expulsion he explained that he objected to the left-wing tendency of many of the group’s policies and, especially, to the assumption that all members must fight for further integration.

When the Conservative Party rejoined the group, it was promised, or so they told us, and Mr Helmer has just reminded them, that their different outlook would be respected. (Of course, even at the time there was the option of not joining but setting up their own right-wing more eurosceptic group with the new East European intake, but let us not remind them of such matters.)

We now await the decision on the other four Conservative MEPs who had signed the motion: Chris Heaton-Harris, Dan Hannan, Martin Callanan, David Sumberg. Perhaps, they, too, will vote for their own expulsion. They can start setting up a salon des refusés.

A reminder

Both my co-editor and I have been amused to see the occasional comment on this Blog, couched in terms of what amount to instructions to us to write about cetain topics, or complaining that we have not. And while we always welcome comments – which are taking on a character of their own and comprise, in some respects the better part of this Blog - we thought it appropriate to remind you all that we do both have "day jobs" to do as well.

For my part, life is particularly fraught as, with my co-author Christopher Booker, we are rushing to complete our second edition of The Great Deception, the final manuscript of which must be delivered to the publishers the day after the completion of the European Council on 16/17 June.

Written to be what we believe to be the definitive history of the European Union, with special emphasis on the EU constitution, the genesis of which lies not in the Laeken declaration of 2001, but the Ventotene Manifesto of 1942, the completion of this book requires a considerable amount of work, and therefore time, which necessarily detracts from keeping this Blog as up-to-date as we would like.

Not least of the problems is that I insist on the writing being "evidence-led", which means collecting all the available press cuttings - about 600 pages per month – and relevant reports, and then gradually boiling them down into a manageable brief which my co-author can then take as his draft from which he writes the final manuscript.

It was in fact that process which led to the creation of the Blog in the first place, as I felt that, since I was collecting so much material anyway, I might as well put it on the net. But the Blog has since taken on a life of its own which is not always complementary to the book-writing process.

Anyhow, for the next two weeks, I will be only keeping half an eye on the Blog, as we rush to the deadline, but will keep stories on key events posted, with analysis where possible. Feel free to post material on the Comments, with links where possible, which will help keep all of us informed.

Do we now get a referendum?

So, officials are already implementing parts of the constitution before it has been approved. There's a surprise!

Anyhow, it is nice to see The Times finally catching up on a story that this Blog has been banging on about for months, ever since in June last year, the government set up the Defence Control Agency in preparation for the constitution.

It has in fact been common knowledge that, as The Times asserts today, "European officials started working on many of the constitution's innovations as soon as it was written, insisting that they should not wait until it was ratified," and they have made no secret of it. It is just that the MSM, in its own slothful and ignorant way, hasn't bothered reporting it.

However, now that the French and Dutch have rehjected to constitution – for the time being - this suddenly becomes news and, lo and behold, The Times has discovered that the Eurocrats have been steadily working at setting up a European diplomatic service, a European president, a European foreign minister, a European space policy, a European defence agency, the implementation of the new European charter of fundamental rights by a European fundamental rights agency, and the scrapping of the national veto on immigration and asylum.

EU officials, it says, are already setting up the offices of Europe's first permanent president, an appointed post established by the constitution to replace the rotating six-month presidency, which is held by Europe's elected heads of government. "There is an awful lot of work to set it up: the office and all the support teams," an official said. "We can't just leave it to the last moment."

The EU is also forging ahead with a European diplomatic service, officially called an External Action Service, with EU embassies and ambassadors in every country to project EU foreign policy and issue EU visas. The service, which some governments hope will replace national diplomatic services, will answer to the European foreign minister, a post created by the constitution, but to which Javier Solana, the EU's current head of foreign policy, has already been appointed.

Officials have been told by member governments to start laying the groundwork for the European diplomatic service. One official said the work was continuing: "We are in limbo, but we are carrying on. What else can you do right now?" A British government spokesman said, however: "The external action service does not exist. The only thing happening is preparatory work, and it will not come into being without a treaty."

The European Defence Agency, established in the constitution to co-ordinate arms production, started operating a year ago, with a British chief executive, Nick Whitney. In order to start before the constitution came into force, EU heads of government agreed a special legal basis for it in 2004 under existing treaties. A spokeswoman said: "We carry on, we already have a legal basis. It doesn't affect us. If the constitution is ratified, it will just re establish our legal basis."

The constitution gives the EU its first space policy, and officials met in Luxembourg yesterday to agree how to fully implement it by the end of the year. However, as we remarked at the time, the first space council actually met in November last year, an event which was universally ignored by the MSM.

Then, although the constitution abolishes the national veto on immigration and asylum, national governments agreed last December that the issue was so urgent that they should implement it before the constitution was approved. Also, while it is the constitution which gives legal force for the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, but the commission has said that it will implement it across all EU legislation without waiting for it to come into force.

All of this points to the one thing – that democratic assent is irrelevant to the "project". But then you knew that anyway. But it also points to the utter, vacuous fatuity of the Conservative Party position, and that of its little lap-dog, the Yesno campaign, which is squeaking about wanting a referendum "if any parts of the Constitution still go ahead".

Since both the "Yesnos" and the Tories must now be aware that parts of the constitution are going ahead, presumably we will see a shift in gear, with them demanding an immediate referendum? Or will they continue to watch the cat-flap at the back door, while the forces of integration storm through the front?

Doing the "decent" thing?

Amazingly, The Financial Times is selling the line that Britain and France "are being pushed towards a possible deal over the next European Union budget." This is based on the unlikely premise that Blair is prepared to give up part of the UK's rebate if France agrees to a cut in the proposed €89bn (£59.9bn) rural development fund – the "unlikely" bit being that France would ever countenance such a cut.

It thus takes the Chinese press agency Xinhuanet to report that the finance ministers of the EU member states failed entirely in their meeting which ended yesterday to reach any agreement at all on the vexed question of the budget, with Britain holding the line on the rebate

Juncker is now to hold a last-ditch meeting with Blair next Tuesday, in an attempt to break the impasse. "It's a well organized coincidence," Juncker said of the timing of the talks, where he will present a revised, revised compromise proposal in the hope that the 2007-13 budget can then be agreed at a special meeting of foreign ministers in Luxembourg on 12 June.

Not least of those watching for any weakening of the presidency line, however, is Dutch finance minister Gerrit Zalm, whose own countrymen expressed their dissatisfaction at being the highest per capita contributors to the EU budget in the recent referendum.

He said it was "unacceptable" that the UK alone should enjoy a rebate on its EU budget contribution. "It is impossible to have a system that only benefits one country," he said.

Thus says one of Juncker's aides, "The British rebate is the key to everything," as if we did not know. "It is a psychological key. If it stays where it is, there are quite a few new member states from eastern Europe who would be financing the rebate, and to many eyes that is not quite decent."

Failing Blair doing the "decent" thing, however, he will find that he is going to take on the mess from Juncker and deal with it during the British presidency. And what will he do then poor thing?

One to remember

From yesterday's Hansard:

Mr. Straw: Everyone knows the reality after the French and Dutch referendums, but it is not for any one country alone to make a decision on the future of the treaty. That is for the European Council (6 Jun 2005: Col. 991).

Just in case you thought we were still an independent country.

We are Europe

Belgian PM Guy Verhofstadt is convinced that the Belgians would have voted in favour of the Constitution.

"Moreover, Brussels is the centre of Europe, in fact we are Europe. It is impossible to vote against oneself, isn't it?" he says.

(Bovendien: Brussel is het centrum van Europa, eigenlijk zijn wij Europa. We kunnen toch niet tegen onszelf stemmen?)

Interviewed in the Flemish weekly magazine Humo, 7 June 2005.

Carry on governing

Trying at the moment to unravel the labyrinthine twists and turns of the EU constitution drama is rather like trying to predict the winner in a game of three-dimensional chess, where you cannot see all the boards, most of the pieces are concealed and you don't know who is playing.

One thing that seems clear, though (note the "seems") is that a central player is missing, none other than Tony Blair Esq, who seems to be taking a very laid-back view of the gathering storm clouds.

As Finanical Times columnist, Philip Stephens, remarks today, "Europe burns; and Tony Blair heads for Washington," telling the paper that: "I think my responsibility is to carry on governing and let everyone speculate as much as they want... I have just decided to let it all wash over me and carry on governing really."

That is very much in line with the sentiments attributed to him by The Sunday Telegraph, suggesting that he had "given up on Europe", and was leaving everyone to get on with it. On current form, he can't even be bothered to have a row with the "colleagues".

But, if the no-care-Blair has decided to become the suicide bomber of Europe, showing a similar lack for appetite for the fight is Conservative shadow foreign minister Liam Fox.

With his insistence yesterday that: "this constitution is a case for the morgue if ever I saw one", and his determination to declare it "a dead constitution" (6 Jun 2005: Col 993), the abiding impression is of a man who cannot wait to ditch a rather embarrassing subject and move on to more "interesting" topics like his "Europe-free" Party leadership contest.

The problem is, as pointed out by both The Scotsman and The Telegraph, the foreign secretary – with or without the constitution – has every intention of continuing to introduce new measures. Furthermore, as we have already pointed out, key provisions which would have otherwise been brought in by the constitution are being steadily introduced under the aegis of intergovernmental agreements.

Thus, if Blair finally walks away from a referendum, with – it seems – the acquiescence of the Conservative opposition, it will make not one whit of difference. The zombie has shaken off what to normal beings would be the fatal blows of the French and Dutch referendums. The march of integration is continuing and will continue. Like Blair, in his own limited domain, the EU plans to "carry on governing", and will continue to do so until some brave souls put a stake though its heart.

Yet more holes in the Swiss agreement

For various technical reasons we cannot put up a detailed analysis of the Swiss acceptance of the Schengen and Dublin agreements, as we promised. However, we can direct our readers’ attention to an excellent analysis in today’s Washington Times.

Though it does not mean to, in my opinion it casts some doubt over the absolute virtue of the Swiss system of endless referendums. But I expect, our readers will disagree with that point of view

Stroke… and counter-stroke

In what is clearly a move to counter the fall-out from the British announcement to postpone the ratification of the EU constitution, Polish foreign minister Adam Rotfeld has come out strongly declaring that the constitution is still alive.

According to a report from AFX (via Forbes), Rotfield told a press conference in Warsaw yesterday that: "The position taken by the British does not change anything."

This followed a "high-level meeting" of Polish officials to reflect on tactics, when Rotfield added: "The British have delayed the ratification process, not renounced the treaty. The constitutional treaty is not dead."

Additional detail from Reuters confirms that the Poles are standing by plans to hold a referendum, which may now be on 9 October, alongside the first round of Polish presidential elections.

"The French, Dutch or British cannot make the decision for us," Rotfeld told Reuters. "We should decide for ourselves ... through a referendum," he said. His view was: "Regardless of what happens to the treaty, an unambiguous 'yes' by Poland in favour of European integration given through a referendum will greatly strengthen Poland's position."

His deputy, Jan Truszczynski, had earlier called on Britain to keep the constitution alive ahead of votes over the treaty by other EU members, telling Radio TOK FM that it: "should refrain from such a type of declaration ... I expect a reasonable voice, a voice that will not complicate the life of countries who face referendums in the coming months."

Commenting later on the British decision to Radio Polonia, Rotfield displayed no surprise, recalling the British had never been enthusiastic about the document.

On top of the assertion by Juncker that the treaty is not dead, together with last Saturday’s declation by Chirac and Schröder that ratification should continue, powerful forces are now ranged against Blair, which will be almost impossible to defeat at the European Council meeting.

However, despite The Times still playing silly games, reporting "sharp rivalry" between Britain and France, Blair's official spokesman in yesterday's scheduled No. 10 press conference was playing down any suggestion of rift.

Referring to Straw's statement, he said that it was "sensible" to have a "genuine period of reflection" and that "we came to a view and that we took that to the European Council." At the meeting, Blair would "explain that approach and debate it with our colleagues in Europe." He also suggested that there might not be "an overnight solution to the problems identified."

Reflecting the Polish view, about deciding for itself, a Populus poll, carried out for The Times shows that more than half the British public (54 per cent) still think that there should be a referendum here. Only two fifths (40 per cent) believe that it would be pointless to go ahead after last week's French and Dutch votes.

This is despite those oppposing the constitution having doubled from 24 to 50 percent over the past six weeks, with support for the "yes" side dropping from 29 to 18 percent over the same period.

Thus, while it seems that the constitution is very far from dead, the bulk of the British people seem keen to have a go at killing it. It will not only be the "colleagues" at the European Council, therefore, who will be wanting the ratification process to go ahead. Ironically, Blair could find himself not only "isolated in Europe" but isolated from the wishes of British voters.

Elephant on the road

There was a flurry of stories yesterday about Alistair Darling's "new" plans on road charging, ostensibly aimed at reducing "gridlock" or Britain's roads.

Needless to say, not one report mentioned the "elephant in the room", or perhaps "the elephant on the road" – the fact that road charging is an EU initiative, based on the Galileo satellite system. See here and here.

However, on his website is a report from Conservative MEP Philip Bradbourn who has today accused the government of "secrecy and spin" over the transport secretary's plans for road charging.

Bradbourn, who was opposition spokesman on a "European Road Pricing Plan" some five years ago, reveals today the extent to which Alastair Darling has been working in cahoots for over two years with the EU on this very issue.

Speaking from Strasbourg today, Bradbourn, now Conservative transport spokesman in the European Parliament, said:

I have documentary evidence of secret meetings which took place two years ago at a hotel near Heathrow Airport between HM Customs and Excise, the Department for Transport and a German tolling company in which the issue was debated and a contract for the digital mapping of every road in the UK discussed. It is quite clear that, despite Mr Darling's protestations that this is not official Government policy, his department has been heavily involved in planning just such an EU-inspired tax.

Not only is this idea completely insidious in tax-raising terms, to use the European satellite system, Galileo, to monitor every vehicle in the United Kingdom is nothing short of Big Brother at the wheel of your car and is tantamount to changing the nanny state so beloved of Labour Ministers into something far more sinister.

Now watch to see whether the MSM carries the story.

Trouble in the Low Countries

Those of our readers who remember their history books will recall that Belgium was created as a country by Lord Palmerston for what seemed like adequate reasons at the time (annoying the French, mainly).

Before that Flanders and Wallonia (plus a little bit more) belonged to the Netherlands and, it seems, a certain amount of resentment has remained between the two countries.

I suppose, there is also the point that the Netherlands managed to win their independence from the Spanish king and establish a large maritime empire. Belgium managed to have the Congo and even that was the Belgian king’s personal fiefdom. (And a right mess he made of it.)

Karel de Gucht, the Belgian Foreign Minister, raised hackles last week by describing the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, as

“…a mixture of Harry Potter and inoffensive small-mindedness, a man in whom I detect no trace of harisma”.

He also spoke of him as being a “brave rigid bourgeois”. Given Mr Balkenende’s well-known conservative attitude to life and social mores, he probably did not find that too bad, though “small-mindedness” may have hurt.

Balkenende has been compared to Harry Potter before and, indeed, he does bear an uncanny resemblance to the boy wizard and, even more so, the lad who plays him in the films. One wonders why Mr de Gucht should see that as an insult.

Harry Potter is an immensely popular character all over the world (a trait not shared by Mr Balkenende or, for that matter, Mr de Gucht); he and his friends win out after many arduous trials and adventures at the end of each book; and clearly the culmination of the series will be Harry taking his rightful hereditary and fully merited place as the chief wizard.

I suppose the funniest part of that attack was the phrase about Balkenende having no charisma. Pictures of Mr de Gucht reveal a man who, far from resembling a wizard of any age, looks like a middle ranking party official in Communist Eastern Europe of the eighties.

Not content with sneering at the Prime Minister, Mr de Gucht, (the Foreign Minister, let us recall) also managed to insult the Dutch people, whom he described as being “superficial and unreliable”. Well, I suppose, the people everywhere tend to be unreliable. They just will not do as they are told. Time to sack the people, as Bertolt Brecht said only half in jest after the 1953 uprising in East Berlin.

It seems that the Dutch people are ridiculously volatile, according to Mr de Gucht and one can’t help wondering about his home life. First they give their support to

“…an extravagant, militant homosexual with a deviating opinion and chauffeur-driven Bentley”,

then they elect Balkenende who is none of those things. Setting aside the fact that there was an extremely good reason why Pim Fortuyn (for it is he being so described) could not be elected, one wonders whether it is not Mr de Gucht who suffers from strait-laced small-mindedness.

Anyway, the upshot of all this mudslinging was the Belgian ambassador being summoned to the Dutch Foreign Minister and being told in no uncertain terms that these remarks were inappropriate.

Mr de Gucht then compounded the problem by saying rather huffily

“If Mr Balkenende has a problem with my statement, then I have no problem in apologising.”

As a devotee of the Marx Brothers I do rather hope that the apology will not be accepted in the way President Rufus T. Firefly of Freedonia refused to accept the apology of Sylvania’s devious ambassador in Duck Soup and led his troops (Chico, Harpo, Zeppo and Margaret Dumont) to war.

During the final battle scene they throw oranges, as I recall, which would be an entirely fitting weapon for the Netherlands.

Calling it as it is

Following Straw's statement to the House of Commons today, Jean-Claude Juncker has given his response, courtesty of AFX, conveyed by Forbes.

Speaking at the ECOFIN Council in Luxembourg, he told reporters that the constitution ratification process was not dead. The UK's decision to suspend (postpone, actually) plans to hold a referendum on the constitution has not killed the ratification process, he added.

"The British government has today not said that it won't hold a referendum, but that they have to wait for the summit [European Council] next week to see what other EU states think about the ratification," he said.

That it the truth of it. As Straw himself has said many times, the decision is "not for the the UK alone". Blair must now go to Brussels on 16/17 June and get his instructions. Juncker is calling it as it is.

Funny… us?

According to the BBC "Weblog Watch", our site is frequently updated and good with the links and – "we know you'll have to take our word on this - it's also funny".

Us? Funny? Perhap's they should have listened to Jack Straw this afternoon, telling the House: "The EU does now face a period of difficulty."

Now, that's funny.

The game goes on

At 3.30 pm, foreign secretary Jack Straw made a statement to the House of Commons on "why we have decided to postpone the 2nd Reading of the European Union Bill".

"Until the consequences [of the French and Dutch referendums] are clarified," he said, "it would not in our judgement be sensible to set a date for the 2nd Reading [of the European Union Bill]." He went on:

There is also the need for further discussions with EU partners and further decisions from EU governments. The first opportunity for collective discussion within the EU will take place at the end of next week when Heads of State and Government meet in the European Council.

But he cannot be said to have ditched the referendum. "We shall of course keep the situation under review,” he said, adding: "I should emphasise that it is not for the UK alone to decide the future of the Treaty," before telling the House, "We reserve completely the right to bring back the Bill providing for a UK referendum should circumstances change. But we see no point in proceeding at this moment."

As to the UK government's position at the European Council on 16/17, on that said Straw in answer to a question from Liam Fox: "We'll make judgements much nearer the time".

Given that no date had actually been set for the 2nd Reading, and there are no indications that it would have been scheduled for before the 16/17 June, what in effect the foreign secretary has done is… precisely nothing. He had already reserved the government's position for the European Council, whence a collective decision will be made as to whether to continue with the ratification, and. In his statement, he merely reaffirmed this position.

For all the media hype, the constitution is not dead. The UK government has not "killed it" and we are not one step further forward. The key event remains the Council and the game goes on.

The Swiss agreement is full of holes

The Swiss have voted in a referendum, not overwhelmingly but decisively, to sign up to both the Schengen and Dublin Agreements.

After the two no votes to the European Constitution, this is a clear indication that the European Union continues in its process of endless growth, no matter what. As we have argued before that is the only way it can survive.

The Swiss have in the past voted not to belong either to the European Union or to the European Economic Area. But that kind of thing has never stopped the political elite that is still clinging to the wreck of its ideas about European integration one day creating a European people.

The Schengen Treaty will make the Swiss dismantle their own extremely efficient border controls and submit to the less than efficient Schengen ones. (Unless, of course, they do what other member states do, which is drop in and out of the arrangement.)

As the BBC puts it somewhat fatuously:

“Schengen will allow Swiss police to share information with their EU colleagues about all sorts of crimes, from money-laundering to suspected terrorist organisations.

The Dublin accord, which has also been backed in the referendum, will give Switzerland access to Eurodac, the database which is supposed to prevent asylum-seekers making applications to more than one European country.”

Eurodac has had no effect whatsoever on the number of asylum seekers applying to as many countries as they would like and, presumably, the Swiss police has always been in the position to share information, should they wish to do so.

We are hoping to publish an article on the blog later on that will examine the whole development in detail. In the meantime, two points need to be noted.

The way is now open for the EU to try to impose some of the nannyish state control it so loves on the holding of guns in Switzerland.

And, of course, let’s face it, this referendum is not the end of the process. Very soon the Swiss government and political elite will start pointing out that having made the first step that wonderfully stubborn and independent country might as well go the whole hog and apply to join the European Union, no doubt, paying heavily for that privilege, economically as well as politically.

One can but hope that the Borg will deconstruct itself before that happens.