Back to work…

Listening to the midday radio news, having turned on the radio a few minutes into the bulletin, I heard a speaker talking about the foot and mouth outbreak and the emerging government failures in their supervision and control of the research and vaccine establishments at Pirbright. Increasingly, these seem to be the source of the outbreak.

As the speaker laid out his case, clearly, calmly and sensibly, I thought, "that sounds just like Cameron". Immediately, I resiled from that notion. He was speaking clearly, calmly and sensibly, and sounded as if he knew what he was talking about.

Intrigued, I listened to the end of what turned out to be an interview and, amazingly, it was indeed the Boy. Which just goes to show, I suppose, that if the man sticks to what was evidently a good brief, and cuts out the histrionics (and that wheedling tone he uses when he is trying to present himself as soft and cuddly), he can make a half-way respectable politician. (Tory Boy blog has a reasonably well-crafted statement from the Boy.)

Anyhow, if this outbreak really does originate from Pirbright, then there is a good likelihood that the infection will not have spread far. That means that even Defra vets have a good chance of containing the disease. That is some considerable relief as I was dreading having to clear the decks, as we did last time, not least writing with Booker what some consider to be "not the definitive report" on the 2001 epidemic (while my co-editor toiled with the Countryside Alliance). Already, much of yesterday was spent updating knowledge and going through the current legislation and reports.

To have had to continue this for some weeks or months at this time would have been extremely unfortunate, to say the least, as this EU treaty constitution is going to take a lot time and effort if it is to be defeated. Therefore, we will leave the day-to-day reporting of the current foot and mouth episode to the excellent Warmwell site run single-handedly by the amazing Mary Critchley, our admiration for whom knows no bounds.

We will look in at the issue occasionally but, for us, it is back to work.

COMMENT THREAD

What you are not allowed to know…

Regular readers of Booker's column might detect a rather curious lack of detail in his story about the murder of a soldier driving a Pinzgauer Vector in Afghanistan.

We can only speculate as to why that might be but, those with an idle moment might care to look at this entirely unrelated site which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the Booker story.

Remaining in speculation mode, the thought occurs that the MoD might possibly be keen to conceal details about what is known in the trade as a "cock-up", spending huge amounts of money on sending a dangerously vulnerable vehicle to Afghanistan, putting our troops unnecessarily at risk.

However, it surely cannot be because the MoD wants to conceal this information from the terrorists. They have been highly adept at producing detailed video training films, which they post on the internet, identifying coalition force vehicles, their weak points and the tactics for destroying them. Routinely, they film their own IED hits and post them on websites as well.

Thus, one might just speculate that the real concern of the MoD is to conceal their own failures from the British public and taxpayers, and from the soldiers who must ride in these "coffins on wheels", in procuring inadequate vehicles when cheaper, better vehicles are readily available.

But then, we must emphasise, this is pure, idle and totally unfounded speculation. That cannot possibly be the real reason at all. The experts at the MoD could not possibly be wrong. How could anyone think otherwise?

All of that goes to show how irresponsible and ill-informed bloggers really are.

COMMENT THREAD

The story so far…

Master tailor Christopher Booker has stitched together some of the key components of the EU's "reform" treaty, to make a coherent story, and identify the dangers of this attempted coup d'etat.

With or without the "red lines" Brown inherited from Blair, and whether or not the new treaty contains 90, 94 or 96 percent of the original EU constitution, what is on the table is extremely dangerous and represents a real threat to the sovereignty and independence of this country.

This is what Booker shows, displaying a depth of analysis that comes from the extensive study of the European Union that gave us The Great Deception, a perspective which leaves many of the amateur analysts floundering.

With that, it is now time to move on from bleating about "red lines", the sterile, "yes it is – no it isn't" comparisons with previous draft treaties and the "veto counts". We need to deal with what the EU – with the willing assistance of Gordon Brown – is actually trying to foist upon us, under cover of what is rapidly degenerating into a rather tired little parlour game.

Click the pic to enlarge.

COMMENT THREAD

Turkey's new parliament sits

The new Turkish Parliament has been sworn in and there are many uncertainties. The AK Party that leans towards Islam has a comfortable majority and that has caused some worries.

The Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, proclaimed immediately after the election that his party was determined to preserve Turkey's secular values.

This was repeated at the opening of the Parliament:

The oldest member of parliament, Sukru Elekdag, of the secular People's Republican Party, was given the traditional honor of chairing the opening session. In his address to the newly elected deputies, he appealed for unity by directly quoting the words of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of the ruling Justice and Development party. He said "We have common values and goals that unite us." quoting a statement by the prime minister after his party's recent victory. He continued with the rest of Mr. Erdogan's remark: "We will improve our republic which is a democratic, secular, social state of law, and we will never make concessions on these values."

The question of the President remains outstanding and a constitutional referendum has been promised for October 22, which may well decide that there should be direct presidential elections in the country in future.

In the meantime a great deal of attention is focused on the 21 Kurdish MPs, all but one of whom are members of the Kurdish Democratic Society Party that has been accused of having links with the PKK, which is on European and American lists of terrorist groups. Aylat Akat Ata is one of the Kurdish MPs.

The Kurdish MPs were banned from the Turkish Parliament in 1994 because of the alleged links with the PKK and their return is seen as a hopeful sign that some solution will be found to the Kurdish problem. Over the last few years the Turkish government has made several concessions to the Kurds, allowing them to use their language and to be educated in it.

Unfortunately, other news from the Kurdish region is not good. Eight people have been kidnapped by the PKK a couple of days ago. Three soldiers have been killed and one wounded by a roadside bomb blast also set up by the PKK.

The Turkish army has said repeatedly that terrorist groups were organized and terrorist activity was planned in Iraqi Kurdistan, threatening to invade the area to deal with the PKK and its supporters.

With the PKK indulging in terrorist activities the government and the army are unlikely to indulge in an open rift.

COMMENT THREAD

A trip to Tripoli

At first the release of the Bulgarian medics after eight years of incarceration and torture by the Libyan government was greeted joyfully by all believers in the European project and the need for “Europe” to have a common foreign policy. Here is a wonderful example, they chortled, of “soft power” that is sooooooooooo much more effective than the nasty hard power of the Americans.

An article in Transitions Online, a largely Europhile site that deals with Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, breathes a sigh of relief at Europe finally showing willingness to work together and exert pressure as a single entity after a period of discord, what with arguments about Turkey’s possible entry and those cheeky referendum results in France and the Netherlands.

As our readers undoubtedly expect, this blog does not precisely agree with that judgement. We are, as it happens, not alone. Here is a longish piece that sums up the situation as it appears at this point.

COMMENT THREAD

Blogger round-up

Away from the foetid smugness of the self-referential "big hitters" in the so-called (British) political blogosphere, individual bloggers are beginning to stir on the EU referendum. And, as the political temperature increases, we expect that more and more bloggers will join in the fray.

Thus, we have decided to run a weekly round-up of blogs which run stories (not forgetting the pictures) on the referendum and allied issues.

Most recent is from Not a sheep from London, who declares that he is "not a sheep" and adds: "I am fed up with being treated as one". In a piece headed, "Poor Gordon, Poor us", he speculates on the possibility of an early election, noting that one of Gordon's problems is the EU Constitution Treaty becoming a newsworthy story and the increasing calls for a referendum.

Not a sheep thinks that if Gordon calls an election soon enough then maybe he can have the election before the referendum calls become even louder, or perhaps he can do a Tony and promise a referendum to reduce the Conservative vote.

A similar theme is rehearsed by Open Democracy (one of several pieces), which has Anthony Barnett of London offering a piece under the heading, "Snap election – no easy snip".

A quick election now, he writes, may have a booby-trap built in: the EU referendum issue. If Brown went to the voters this autumn before 18 October and won, he could claim a Sarkozy-like mandate to sign the treaty. But he'd have to campaign on it saying that it is a necessary continuity of our role in Europe and no great change. It's hard to say this with a straight face when no other leader in Europe agrees.

If Brown holds an election in the Spring after 18 October, when he and other EU heads of government have met to ratify the treaty, it still hands the Conservatives a great issue: "You say you are for democracy, Prime Minister, but you have gone back on your word about giving us a say over the EU". Brown badly needs a positive policy on Europe. There is no sign of this.

Encouragingly, Pajamas Media picked up our piece on the Self-amending treaty, demonstrating the multiplier-effect of the blogging network, which means our pieces have a reach far beyond that which our hit rate suggests. It is not dissimilar to viral marketing.

Curly's Corner Shop is another example of that as he too picks up one of our pieces, plus the one and only reference from the Iain Dale blog, which manages to tear itself away from self-absorption long enough to throw a few gushing paragraphs in the direction of Open Europe as the approved voice of Euroscepticism.

This reference is to the EU treaty being published in English and the Open Europe estimate that, out of 250 proposals, only ten differ from the original constitution rejected by the voters of France and the Netherlands. Thus, 96 percent of the current treaty is the same as the rejected constitution.

Curly also offers comment on the news that the Conservative Party might commit itself to holding a private referendum, which he believes "must be greeted with some welcome." The Treaty, of course, writes Curly, is nothing other than the European Constitution rejected by millions of voters earlier. "Dressing it up in different words," he adds, "will not prevent many of us from campaigning to secure the rights of our Parliament to hang on to its legislative capacity."

That is certainly what Glyn Davies is doing, writing in his blog, A view from rural Wales, "We were promised a referendum on a new EU 'constitution' by Labour. No 'ifs', no 'buts'. It was a cast iron promise - with no wriggle room."

A left of field contribution comes from Klein Verzet who, for some reason, insists on calling the treaty the "Turnip". He links to our piece on the Supreme government of Europe and adds "yet another reason why a referendum on the Turnip is crucial for those that value their freedom." In his view, we will lose even more of our freedom of expression and a big chunk of our ability to defend ourselves against those parts of the Muslim community that see Western Europe as an Islamic colony.

The Huntsman is running his own "referendum news" series and in his latest piece remarks:

As a lawyer, I have to confess great admiration for the drafting skills of those who put the various documents together. It is not merely the incomprehensible language which attracts one's attention, but the sheer skill in producing something which looks, at first blush, wholly innocuous but when you start trying to draw all the strings together, actually amounts to the wholesale take-over of your country.

Armed with such a document, which must cost all of a fiver, who needs a billion pounds worth of tanks to park on someone else's lawn, especially when you have a compliant Quisling Government to slip it past a flock of particularly ovine MPs called The Parliamentary Labour Party, aided and abetted by 63 LibDem Turkeys?

On the transatlantic front, there is the Jurist blog, produced by the School of Law at the University of Pittsburgh. It produced a piece on Hague's calls for a referendum on the treaty, one of several it has published on the theme, slightly more, in fact, than Tory Diary, for instance, which has been more than a little sparing in its coverage of the EU referendum campaign.

Other bloggers on this issue have been Purple Scorpion, who reviewed the Stelzer piece in the Telegraph and PJC Journal, which reproduced our piece on the supreme government of Europe.

An intriguing piece came from Rhod on Public Affairs, a self-confessed Labour Party activist, who thought the privately funded referendum on the EU treaty a good idea and considered it "a rare show of wisdom on the part of the UK Conservative Party."

Norfolk Blogger, a Lib-Dem activist, thought otherwise, declaring that he would not waste the shoe leather to vote, preferring to see "a full referendum, a binding one called by the government."

But Martin Curtis, in his Spin Blog, himself a Tory activist, thought it a great idea. "Not only is it something that might capture the imagination,” he wrote, "it would be a step towards David Cameron reinforcing his credentials as an EU sceptic; it might also help to shore up support from some of the disaffected grass roots."

Curtis is perhaps articulating something many of us agree with, which does make you wonder why so many Tory bloggers are silent on this issue. This is especially strange since Daily Referendum applauds the Conservatives for doing a good job pushing for a referendum and Tony Sharp, in his Waendel Journal thinks the Tory promise of a referendum if Brown calls an election will be greeted with relief by many Tory activists.

But then, the momentum is growing and, if any of our readers have picked up a blog that we have missed, let us know and we will include it in our next round-up, same time next week.

COMMENT THREAD

Not again!

Cattle at a farm in Surrey have been found to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease. Some 60 animals on the farm near Guildford have tested positive for the disease which wreaked havoc in 2001. A 3km protection zone has been put in place around the premises and a UK ban imposed on movement of all livestock.

Gordon Brown has cancelled his holiday in Dorset and taken part in a meeting of the government's Cobra emergency committee by telephone about the issue. Meanwhile, our government – aka the EU commission – has been informed.

Last time it happened, it took a very large chunk out of my life, and I am not sure I could cope again with the stress and trauma that I witnessed then. It was one of the most disgraceful episodes of governmental mismanagement that I have ever witnessed.

We pray that this is an isolated outbreak.

For the latest information, this is the site to watch.

COMMENT THREAD

And the power ebbs away...

One of the most powerful members of the supreme government of Europe is the president of the EU commission and, if the new "reform" treaty goes through, he will become even more powerful. But he (there has not yet been a female president) was not always so powerful.

In the beginning, under the Treaty of Rome (Articles 158 and 161), he was appointed "by common accord" by the Council – i.e., the Member States - from amongst the members of the commission. Commissioners, likewise, were appointed by the Council by common accord – their appointment coming first. The member states, therefore, had total control of who became a commissioner, and who then became president – each member able to exercise a veto.

The term of office, incidentally, was two years, but could be renewed indefinitely, once again by common accord, making the president beholden to the Council for his position. This was soon to be increased to four years.

Then, following its first elections by direct universal suffrage in 1979, the EU parliament began to flex its muscles, demanding a role in the appointment of the president. The pressure was to have its effect and, in 1984, 1988 and 1992, the European Council (which by then had taken on the role of appointing the president) submitted the nomination of Jacques Delors to the "enlarged bureau" (the governing body) of the EU parliament for consultation.

However, the Parliament itself had already decided to deliver a "vote of confidence" on the appointment, which it first delivered in 1981. As is so often the case, with the treaty following the practice, this procedure was enshrined in the text of the Maastricht Treaty. This stipulated that the European Council must consult the parliament and not just its enlarged bureau on the choice of the president and that whole parliament should hold a vote on the appointment.

The Maastricht Treaty also increased the commission's term of office from four to five years and brought it into line with parliament's own term of office, so that the endorsement of the president by the parliament would become its first major political acts after every election.

On 21 July 1994, the appointment of Jacques Santer was endorsed in the parliament by 260 votes to 238 with 23 abstentions. Also, the parliamentary committees then, for the first time, held individual hearings on the candidate commissioners. These hearings were held in public, which increased still further the role of the parliament, lessening the grip of the member states over the appointment process.

As to the appointment of the president, the Amsterdam Treaty further strengthened parliament's power by granting it a right of approval, rather than merely a consultative role. The Nice Treaty (Article 214) then even further reduced the power of individual members states by requiring the European Council to nominate the president by qualified majority vote instead of by consensus (common accord).

That is how it remains to this day but, under the EU constitution, the candidate for president was to have been selected after "taking into account" the results of the European elections. In other words, the politics of the person nominated had to reflect the dominant make-up of the parliament, making him a more political animal and, at the same time, restricting the choices available to the member states. Additionally, the candidate had to be approved by parliament not by a simple majority of votes cast but by a majority of members.

These provisions have been transferred into the "reform" treaty, without change. Under the amended Articles 9a and d, the European Council is obliged to take into account the elections to the parliament and the nomination is decided by qualified majority voting. This candidate then has to be elected by the parliament by "a majority of its component members".

By this means, from being a creature of the member states – which had sole authority to decide on who held the office, the president has become a creature of the parliament – the institution of the European Union which, traditionally, has been the most aggressive supporter of political integration.

Through the years, the progression has been in one direction only and this treaty is but another step, draining away the powers of the member states, pulling them into the centre to strengthen the powers of that supreme government of Europe.

And what a perfect illustration this is of the sustained, incremental power grab embodied in the treaty process, a process that has so aptly been called a slow motion coup d'etat.

COMMENT THREAD

Harvest time

The picture is of a combine harvester in Buckinghamshire, published today by Farmers’ Weekly.

The combine belongs to a local contractor who had been called in to help get the crop of oilseed rape cut before it rained again, whence it got well and truly stuck.

A team of five tractors and nine men worked for eight hours each to try to pull the combine out, but to make matters worse, four of the tractors also got stuck. Fortunately the fifth tractor managed to pull the others out when a 40ft chain was brought in and connected to all.

They might have been better off calling the RAF - witness this remarkable photograph (also courtesty of FW) of an RAF Chinook lifting a pea viner out of the mire. But wouldn't it have been better off in Afghanistan (the Chinook, this is), supporting our troops there?

Don't ask - think Photoshop!

(More pics, incidentally, on the FW site.)

COMMENT THREAD

A footbridge to power

There has been much ado (well, some) about what William Hague is calling "the ratchet clause". Also known by the "colleagues" as the passerelle (literally, a footbridge - hence the title and illustration), this is a provision in the "reform" treaty which allows the European Union to revise parts of the treaties without having to go through the trauma of an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC).

For very good reasons, Open Europe, amongst others, is labelling the document the "self-amending treaty".

Currently, treaty revision is accommodated by means of a single article, Article 48, which deals with the convening of the IGC (precisely the mechanism being currently used to amend the treaties). However, the new treaty also extracts two particularly contentious provisions from the failed constitution (Articles 444 & 445), known as the "simplified revision procedure".

Now to become Article 33 in the "reform" treaty, this states that, in addition to what is now termed the "ordinary revision procedure" (which has also been modified), the treaty may be revised using the "simplified" procedure.

In fact, there are two such procedures. The first applies to "revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union," this being the Part which encompasses most of the Union's policies. The procedure allows the European Council, acting by unanimity, to make the changes.

Crucially, there are then two caveats: the changes cannot take effect until approved by the member states "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" and the procedure may not be used to increase the Union's "competences".

The second part of the procedure allows for a more limited change, in which the European Council, again acting unanimously, may remove vetoes from Part III of the treaty but, also from the foreign affairs provisions, paving the way for foreign policy to be determined by QMV. Here, the only caveat is that this cannot be done where there are military implications or in "the area of defence".

However, it is in the "ratification" process that there is the biggest change. Any initiative taken by the European Council has to be notified to national parliaments and if any national parliament opposes the initiative, within six months, it is blocked. Thereby, not only it there a veto on the European Council, but each parliament has one as well.

The main effect of both procedures, therefore, is to sideline the IGC and hand the power to the European Council, which as we know, is to become an institution of the Union – part of the supreme government of Europe. This sets an important legal precedent in allowing a treaty organisation to amend its own governing treaty.

And, despite the fact that the same people attend both the IGC and European Council, the important legal distinction remains – the members of the European Council do not represent their own states. They represent the Union. As such, they will be duty bound to advance the objectives and serve the interests of the Union. In strict terms, if revising the treaties is couched in terms of advancing the objectives of the Union (or serving its interests) the European Council will be obligated under the terms of the treaty to approve any moves proposed. The veto, therefore, is of only symbolic effect.

As regards the "ratification" requirement, the provision for the approval "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" can, in countries like Ireland and Denmark, trigger a referendum, so it can be a stiff hurdle to surmount. But the parliamentary veto by-passes that problem, and allows the removal of vetoes in the treaties to be achieved that much more easily.

As such, these two provisions represent a significant increase in the power of the Union, especially in relation to foreign affairs. Reflecting on the whimsical sense of humour of the "colleagues", therefore, in calling this a passerelle, one might think it is more like a two-lane by-pass.

COMMENT THREAD

Is this wise?

Again to give credit to the media, they are pushing the agenda on the EU treaty, well into the "silly season", far beyond the point when one would have thought they would have forgotten about it.

Today, it is the turn of the Daily Mail, which picks up on William Hague's interview with the BBC yesterday (without actually revealing that that is the source).

Under the headline, "Britain powerless to lose further vetoes in EU constitution, say Tories," the Mail tells us that Britain could surrender the right to veto diktats from Brussels in a vast range of new areas under the terms of the revived European constitution.

The Tories, we are told, said the small print of the draft "reform treaty" would allow the EU to extend its powers further in the future, without having to draw up any new agreement.

This is the framing for the "warning" from Hague that a little-noticed (really?) "ratchet clause" in the treaty would allow the EU to abolish vetoes in almost all areas where unanimous agreement is still specified in the new treaty.

Hague is cited as saying, "Member states would not have to ratify a new agreement even in their national parliaments, but would simply have to notify MPs of what was happening … All vetoes other than over defence can be abolished by agreements between European governments in future, without having to go through the whole process of negotiating a fresh treaty or ratifying that in any formal way."

Now, while Hague is perfectly right to draw attention to this provision in the new treaty – a new Article 33 – what he is saying about ratification is simply not true. For sure, in the treaty, it is stated that any decision to abolish a veto must be notified to all national Parliaments. But it does not stop there. The treaty continues:

If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted.

In other words, any one of the 27 national parliaments has a veto on the provision and can stop it dead in its tracks.

This is certainly less secure that a full IGC process and national ratification – which the procedure replaces – but it is a far cry from the simple notification of MPs that Hague asserts. Even bearing in mind that he is playing a propaganda game, one still wonders whether it is wise to over-egg the pudding, making assertions that are not only wrong, but can be easily rebutted.

Furthermore, decisions to abolish vetoes are not taken by "agreements between European governments," as Hague also claims, but by the European Council which, as we have explained, is an institution of the Union – part of the government of the Union.

One also wonders, therefore, whether Hague fully understands what he is saying, and whether he has picked up the importance of the changes to the status of the European Council.

And, while it is possible to be too pedantic when dealing with the rough and tumble of politics, it does seem better tactics to make accusations watertight, allowing the enemy no wriggle room. In this instance, Hague is in danger of letting Brown off the hook.

COMMENT THREAD

Not altogether surprising

News outlets and blogs that pay attention to the Middle East are buzzing with the story published in the Jerusalem Post two days ago.

An unnamed Hezbollah officer has gone on Israeli Channel 10 TV and said several things that we, on this blog, have affirmed in the past, particularly last year during and after the Israeli war against Hezbollah.

In the first place, he stated that Hezbollah would have surrendered within the next 10 days if the Israelis had not agreed to the peace drive insisted on by the "international community". Secondly, he pointed out that Israeli responses to katyusha attacks were bewilderingly fast and accurate. Thirdly, he explained that this speed and accuracy could be used against Israel in the other war - that or propaganda - when the rockets were fired from among the civilian population.

None of this is particularly surprising but confirms what this blog has said about the Middle East, the Gulf and Afghanistan, as well as matters nearer home: it is not enough to have the upper hand in military terms if you lose the propaganda war and have that wonderful tranzi weapon, "international public opinion" against you.

Red lines! Red lines!

Does anyone remember the first Gremlin film, and that wonderful catch-phrase: "Bright lights! Bright lights!"? Nothing brings that more to mind that shadow foreign secretary William Hague, who was on the Radio 4 Today programme, shrieking "Red lines! Red lines!".

Actually, he wasn't shrieking and he only used the words "red lines" once – but what is a blog for if you cannot indulge in poetic license now and again?

The interview was summarised on the BBC website and picked up by the Guardian under the heading, "Fresh demand for EU treaty referendum." The paper reported that Hague had "claimed" the reform treaty was "predominately and overwhelmingly the same as the constitution". He also referred to pledges by all three main political parties at the last election to hold a referendum before signing up to a new constitution.

"The government should honour that promise and they have no democratic mandate for this unless they do," he told the BBC.

According to the Guardian report, Hague then "claimed" the document conferred the ability to extend EU powers without the need to enter into additional treaties. He also dismissed the so-called "red lines", suggesting some of the opt-outs would not be legally binding. "The red lines are unravelling by the day, every time we get more detail about this," he said.

One should be grateful that Hague is actually batting for a referendum, but the interview was rather flat and the themes repetitive. The impression is that the shadow secretary has a standard, all-purpose script which he rolled out for the occasion, not really engaging with the subject.

He could, for instance, have pointed out that the "red lines" were in fact "red herrings" and broadened out the attack to pick up issues (such as the European Council) which are unarguable and demonstrably dangerous. Instead, he let himself be led by the nose through a lacklustre interview that failed to inspire.

One clarification, though, was welcome. If there is a referendum, Hague said the Conservatives would campaign for a "no" vote. That, I do not think we have heard before and it represents some sort of progress.

COMMENT THREAD

Shum mishtake shurely

When in 1992, as the Yugoslav war raged in Bosnia, John Major appointed David Owen as the British (I mean EU) co-chairman of the Conference for the Former Yugoslavia, I was not alone in thinking gloomily that if ever there was a man who could make a bad situation worse, this was it.

After all, as Brendan Simms, author of "Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia" pointed out, David Owen was known as the man who had balkanized a few British political parties in his day.

Sure enough, his various plans (Vance-Owen and Owen-Stoltenberg) achieved absolutely nothing, the war continued in its bloody course and Lord Owen lost what little authority he had. As a result of the catalogue of failure that was Owen's activity in former Yugoslavia he was awarded the CH (Companion of Honour) a fairly highly rated gong in the British system.

This came after a rather lacklustre record as Foreign Secretary and the extraordinary achievement of undermining one political party and destroying two.

Lord Owen is not a man to rest on his laurels. Oh no. After testifying that Slobodan Milosevic was the only Yugoslav leader to have consistently supported peace in that benighted country (ex-country by that stage) Lord Owen turned his attention to British politics again and decided that clearly nobody in the whole country understood the European Union or euroscepticism apart from him and it was his bounden duty to explain these matters to all.

This all included people who had been involved in eurosceptic activity inside and outside Parliament for some years and they did not take kindly to Lord Owen's stance. Lord Stoddart, who was of the opinion that he had lost his parliamentary seat in 1983 because the SDP candidate had split the vote, was not particularly impressed, suggesting rather mildly for him that Lord Owen had really a very good opinion of himself.

Good opinion or not, it was easy to deflate him as his knowledge of what was really going on in the EU in the late nineties and around 2000 - 2002 was no better than his understanding of the situation in Bosnia.

I was reminded of all this and much more when I received an e-mail from Politico's bookshop (on line only) which, among others, advertised a book by David Owen, entitled "The Hubris Syndrome". An autobiography, surely, I exclaimed and this view was supported by a number of other people.

It seems not. After a superlative career of complete political failure and self-satisfaction, David Owen has produced a book that proves how insufferably full of hubris Tony Blair and George W. Bush are.

I particularly liked the last sentence in the blurb:

Their messianic manner, excessive confidence in their own judgement, and unshakeable belief that they will be vindicated by a 'higher court', have doomed what the author believes could have been a successful democratic transformation of Iraq.

Errm, exactly who are we talking about?

[Photograph of Lord Owen and Mr Stoltenberg is published by permission from NATO Photos.]

A "binary" treaty

Part of the game in analysing EU draft treaties is to go through the text to count up all the additional powers ("competences" in Euro-speak) that the Union is seeking to award itself, coming up with a satisfying round number to spice up the debate and, hopefully, grab the odd headline or two.

In this new so-called reform treaty, however, the "colleagues" have excelled themselves, secreting into the text an amendment which gives them powers to do just about anything. For a nice round number of additional powers, therefore, perhaps we should settle for "infinity".

Now, such is the skill of the "colleagues" (and you have to give them that – they are supremely skilled in mounting their power grabs), the "hit" does not come in one simple little statement, but comes with the combination of two widely separated amendments to existing articles.

This is akin to the hi-tech "binary" nerve gas weapons – two chemicals which, on their own, are relatively harmless but, when combined, become deadly.

The first of the two Articles in question is our old friend Article 308, which we have met before, the so-called "catch-all" article which allows the EU to make laws where there is no specific power to take action. This has already been abused but, within the context of existing treaties, there are at least some limitations, the text being confined (in theory) to the "operation of the common market". This is the text:

If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.

Now look at the new, amended text:

If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined by the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out by the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.

The most obvious difference, of course, is the removal of the "operation of the common market" caveat, giving the Article universal application across the whole field of Union activity. That is bad enough, but the real power of this "binary weapon" is not spelled out. To give it its force, you must pick up the phrasing, "…to attain one of the objectives". The Article gives the Union carte blanche to make laws to attain any of its objectives.

To find the objectives, one has to go right to the front of the new treaty document and look at Article 3 – the two articles could hardly be more widely separated. But, again, to appreciate the extent of the power grab, one again has to contrast the existing with the new. The existing article (currently numbered Article 2) reads as follows:

The Union shall set itself the following objectives:

to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve balanced and sustainable development, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty,

to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17,

to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union,

to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime,

to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it with a view to considering to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community.

Now look at the new list of objectives:

1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties."

At this point, of course, the eyes glaze over – this is redolent of the high-flown rhetoric that typifies community documents – and one moves on rapidly to study the more substantive pieces (or not at all). But, far from rhetoric, this is a shopping list for new powers, beautifully dressed up as "mother and apple pie" aspirations.

For instance, the Union is required to contribute to "the sustainable development of the Earth". What that actually means is anyone's guess but, given the inventiveness of commission officials, it can mean anything you want. And if there is no power written into the treaty to allow the specific action? No problem – Article 308.

Then, the Union shall take measures "aiming at full employment and social progress". What does "social progress" mean? Well, given the inventiveness of commission officials … And if there is no power written into the treaty to allow the specific action? No problem – Article 308.

And, how do you interpret the requirement to "promote scientific and technological advance"? Well, given the inventiveness of commission officials … And if there is no power written into the treaty to allow the specific action? No problem – Article 308.

How about upholding and promoting "the strict observance and the development of international law"? If anything was a blank cheque, that certainly is. Effectively, the EU can decide to implement any number of provisions promulgated via "international law". And if there is no specific power in the treaties? No problem – Article 308.

That is the effect of the "binary" treaty. Mix and match the articles and you can achieve things that no single article will allow. And the beauty of it all is that the effect of single articles is never wholly apparent, keeping the full extent of the power grab under the radar. Who would go to the barricades over Article 308? Don't mean nuffink, guv – until …

COMMENT THREAD

Gazprom is at it again

They say it is because Belarus has not been keeping the payments up and that is almost certainly true up to a point. After all, you sign a contract, you stick to it. But somehow, none of this mattered as long as the country and its ineffable leader, Alexander Lukashenka, stuck to a strictly pro-Russian line. Now that he has become a little unreliable in his pronouncements, contracts become very important.

As things stand Gazprom is all set to cut supplies to Belarus by 45 per cent as of today. Of course, there is a slightly bigger problem of the pipe that runs through the country and delivers about 20 per cent of the gas to Western Europe. Will Belarus do what Ukraine did and swore that it did not, that is, skim some of those supplies for their own purpose?

Whenever this happens there are calls across Western Europe to diversify the energy supplies so we do not have to rely on Russia, which is becoming more and more unpredictable in her behaviour. (The words North Pole spring to mind.)

There is no question that the much-vaunted restored Russian economic and political power depends entirely on energy supplies. They do sell arms but there is no particular evidence that their clients, Iran for instance, are becoming reliable allies.

On the other hand, Russia’s income and the consequent power exercised by Putin and the siloviki come from gas and oil. Her political power, when not exercised over polar bears in the North Pole depends on bullying neighbouring countries, often through the use of energy supplies, and contrariness in other forums such as the UN.

Over Kosovo, it seems, Russia has overplayed her hand and will, most likely, be by-passed in the future. This will add to their feeling of having every country’s hand against them that is being skilfully cultivated by Putin and his henchmen.

By the way, if the Russians really do take charge of the North Pole, then the presently growing population of polar bears probably will disappear.

Bolton sees the point

John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, is at it again – this time on the "special relationship" and the EU.

Writing for The Financial Times, he notes that successive British governments have taken Britain deeper and deeper into the European Union, all the while proclaiming that nothing fundamental about Britain's status was changing.

Now, he observes, the re-emergence of a European "constitution" – under whatever name – has brought Britain to a clear decision point. The long, slow slide into the European porridge has had few clear transition points. In the aggregate, however, the magnitude of changes in the status of the EU's formerly Westphalian nation-state members can no longer be blinked away.

He is not wrong.

His point is picked up by today’s Daily Mail, saying that Bolton has latched on to a truth that seems to have escaped our government: if we sign up to the revived EU constitution, Britain will cease to be an independent nation. The paper continues:

As far as the outside world is concerned, Europe will be a single superstate - and our special relationship with the US, like every distinctively British foreign policy, will become a meaningless irrelevance.

But can't we easily avoid that fate? At the last election, Labour solemnly promised to call a referendum on the EU constitution. As the entire world can see, the 'Reform Treaty' now being finalised in Brussels is identical to that document in every essential.

Keep your promise, Mr Brown - and let the people save our independence.

It will be interesting to see how much of this sort of thing Brown can withstand before he buckles – if at all. One thing is for sure though, the "colleagues" are not getting it all their own way.

COMMENT THREAD

It was bound to happen

Socialism creates so many problems. It even manages to create problems that are seemingly contradictory. For instance, one would think that the environment would suffer because a great deal of infrastructure – new roads, new railways – was built. Somehow, under socialism they managed to destroy a good deal of the environment without producing anything but the shabbiest kind of infrastructure.

Now that they have “rejoined the West” as the propaganda claimed during the referendum campaign, many of the East Europeans would like to sort out one or both of those problems, preferably with a bit of financial help from the ever so rich West.

This does not always work as the latest Polish kerfuffle shows. However, before I try to make some sense of that, I want to remind all our readers that yesterday was the anniversary of the start of the Warsaw uprising that ended tragically with thousands dead and most of Warsaw destroyed.

It is one of those unfortunate events in Eastern Europe that demonstrate how much more convoluted twentieth century history was there than in the West. Most urban uprisings in 1944 in occupied Europe took place in the West and were reasonably successful because the Allies raced to help them.

The Warsaw uprising failed, at least partly because of the non-action of the Soviet army that was ordered to stop on the other side of the Vistula, whence they watched the fighting and the suppression. Stalin had already decided that Poland would definitely be a Soviet colony after the war and had no intention to allow anyone else but his own soldiers to “liberate” the country.

Those members of the Home Army who had survived the ferocious German counter-action, were put on trial, imprisoned or executed by the Communist government. During my time in Oxford I knew reasonably well one of the military prosecutors of that period. She was married to an economist who took part in the terrible bullying that Communists meted out to non-Communist academics, in order to destroy their work and break their spirit before the secret police moved in.

Why were they in Britain? Ah well, what goes around, comes around. In 1968 the Polish government launched an attack on the few remaining Jews of the country and they found it necessary to leave for the West. By the 1980s these refugees were vocal in their support for the new trade unions who were dispensing with the Communist trade union officials. As, I believe I have said before, Communist history is full of such ironies.

Now, on to the problem of infrastructure and environment. The Polish radio reported

A group of inhabitants of Augustów, north-eastern Poland, have staged a picket in front of the European Commission and Greenpeace organization. It is a protest against a decision by the Polish Prime Minister to halt the construction of the controversial motorway from the ecologically unique Rospuda Valley in line with a request by the European Commission.

Their argument, which, if true, is perfectly valid that the particular section of the road, whose building has been suspended, is a necessary by-pass, to stop “tens of thousands” of heavy lorries from going through the town, killing and maiming children in the process.

The Mayor of Augustów has declared himself to be confident that they would win the case in the European Court of Justice where it has been sent by the Commission. One can’t help feeling that his other statement about not even considering alternative routes as these would take too long, might jeopardize his case.

The Times also reported the case, gleefully announcing that this was another example of Polish intransigence. As the Polish Prime Minister (one of those twins) has agreed to the suspension of the work, the intransigence does not seem to be all that great.

The disputed road is part of a planned motorway, which, when completed will link Warsaw to Helsinki through the Baltic States. A good deal of it is being financed by the European Union, though, of course, the Poles are expected to put up some of the money. In particular, they maintain, the Rospuda Valley section will be entirely funded by Poland because of the environmental aspects.

The Rospuda Valley seems to be a remarkable habitat and has been designated as a nature reserve in line with what the Poles perceive as greater care for frogs than for Polish children. Even if we discard the now familiar bout of self-pity, one is faced with a familiar story, the likes of which we have seen in England.

By-passes are built to protect towns and their inhabitants. Almost certainly they go through areas of natural beauty and there are protests. Who is one to side with, given that the inhabitants of those towns send up a wail of protest periodically about the destruction of the environment (when it is somewhere else)?

As the Times points out the story is only just beginning.

It [the Commission] announced that it had asked the European Court of Justice to intervene. The case is expected to be the first of a number of environmental disputes as Eastern European members modernise their roads and railways. The motorway would mark the first time that a member state had proceeded with an infrastructure project in defiance of an EU order.

The whole problem, as I said above, is complicated by the fact that a good deal of the modernization will be financed by the taxpayer of the EU’s net contributors, though the Commissioners may well regard the money as theirs to do with as they will.

There is another aspect that is rarely discussed. A number of Polish environmental groups are also involved in the campaign and are complaining about the fact that their representatives are prevented from going to the area and studying the situation. These organizations are often financed by the blessed EU but most of them are rooted in the last few years of the Communist regime when a good deal of the dissident opposition in all the East European countries and the Soviet Union centred on environmental issues in response to the damage that the socialist governments had done and continued to do. They were much disliked by the authorities and are rather proud of the fact that they helped to bring the Communist regime down.

It would be interesting to know, for instance, who exactly the Mayor of Augustów is and what his own political background might be.

COMMENT THREAD

A supreme government of Europe

Now that the official English version of the revamped constitution - the so-called "reform" treaty - has been published, we can get down to studying it in detail. And, as one of our forum commentators noted, we should avoid getting bogged down in the detail. As he wrote, "getting lost in the nitty gritty of EU law can lead one to missing the bigger overall picture."

The bigger overall picture is, in fact, hidden in plain sight, in the very first line of the preamble, which states: "Recalling the historic importance of the ending of the division of the European continent …".

This is, in fact, the equivalent of "towards ever closer union …" introduced in this form in the Nice Treaty, and not there by accident. It highlights the fundamental aim of the "reform" treaty and all those that preceded it – political integration.

It cannot be emphasised enough that that is the primary purpose of all EU treaties. They may aim to accomplish other things (such as "streamlining" the text) but those are always secondary, no less than in this "reform" treaty.

Now, for there to be a political union – and that is the ultimate objective of the European Union – it must have a government which has supreme authority over all the governments of the member states. Its development started with the Treaty of Rome, amplified by case law from the ECJ (which established the supremacy of community law), and it continues apace in this treaty, bringing the government close to the finished state.

This is to be seen in a new Article 9 of the treaty where the "Union's institutions" are set out. And it is here that the genius of the original draftsmen must be acknowledged, in their use of an anodyne term "institutions". Although linguistically correct, the more precise term would be "government". The moment you use that word, everything falls into place.

Turning to this new Article 9 then, we see the following, with our amendments (in italics) to make the text more precise:

1. The Union shall have an institutional governmental framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions. The Union's institutions government shall be:

the European Parliament

the European Council

the Council

the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"),

the Court of Justice of the European Union

the European Central Bank,

the Court of Auditors.

2. Each institution The government shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures and conditions set out in them. The institutions government shall practise mutual sincere cooperation.

By comparison with the previous treaty (Article 7 TEU), we see two additions, the European Council and the European Central Bank, both of which existed in previous treaties but now become fully-fledged institutions – i.e., part of the government – of the Union.

The key change, though, is the addition of the European Council. The significance of this, we have rehearsed in detail but certain elements bear repetition.

In short, the heads of states and governments of the member states, who comprise the European Council, cease to represent their own member state interests and become absorbed into a tier of the EU government, bound by its laws and obliged to further the aims and objectives of the Union.

This is actually set out in the first part of the paragraph, which states that it (and the rest of the government) "shall aim to promote its (the Union's) values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States…".

It is no coincidence that that, in the pecking order, the Union comes first, the "citizens" second and the member states third and last. That states the priorities and the order of preference. By this means, our heads of states and governments become subservient to the European Union.

The same, incidentally, applies to the council (of ministers). Currently, the commission website tells us that:

…each minister in the Council is answerable to his or her national parliament and to the citizens that parliament represents. This ensures the democratic legitimacy of the Council's decisions.

This is only theoretically the case but, under the new treaty, it can no longer be so, even in theory. As members of the EU's government, each minister is bound by treaty to "promote its (the Union's) values, advance its objectives, serve its interests…" before those of their citizens and own states. They no longer represent their states, but the European Union. They are not accountable to their own parliaments or peoples, but to the ECJ.

As we observed earlier, anyone who is looking for a change in the fundamental relationship between the European Union and the member states should start here, with Article 9.

By bringing the European Council into the maw of the EU, together with the full-time president (who is also a member of the European Council), and making both European Council and council of ministers subject to the Union's aims and objectives, the EU is that much closer to creating its supreme government of Europe, through which to rule us all.

All the "colleagues" need now is an elected president of the European Council (which will surely come if this treaty is not stopped) and they will be there.

COMMENT THREAD

A touch of obsession

Irwin Stelzer gets the op-ed in the Telegraph to write about the revamped EU constitution under the heading: "Brown must climb down on EU vote".

Brown, he writes, has painted himself into a corner by insisting that he will not submit the new EU Constitution to a referendum, a stance which "represents perhaps the greatest threat to his ability to win the next election." And it is not only that Brown's decision to bulldoze ratification through the Parliament will make most of the media line up against him. It is that Brown will with one stroke undermine his reputation as a straight-talking, spin-free politician.

Thus we see another writer struggling with the enigma that is Brown. The underlying puzzle here is why a man who has been single-minded to the point of obsessive in seeking power should now risk all for an EU treaty that has the potential to bring down his government and him with it.

Sketching out a scenario where the whole of the electorate might oppose Brown on the treaty, Stelzer posits that it can be broken down into three categories: those who oppose the treaty as nothing more than the old, rejected constitution masquerading under a different name; those who are indifferent to matters such as British sovereignty; and those who favour the treaty.

The first group, in Stelzer's view, will most certainly weigh Brown's willingness to sign on against such other virtues as they might deem him to possess; the second will have to decide the weight to accord to Brown's decision to walk away from his manifesto promise to give them a referendum on this question. And the third are likely to wonder, at least a bit, whether the adoption of the treaty through the back door bodes well for the future of the open, democratic, spin-free government that Brown has promised.

Evidently, Stelzer believes this an untenable position and his guess is that, as the untenable nature of his position becomes clearer to Brown, he might well seek a dignified way to re-examine (climb down from) his unfortunate and hasty statements denying the necessity of a referendum. On the other hand, writes Stelzer, Brown can stick to his guns, and refuse to give voters a chance to reject or approve a "treaty".

As analysis, that is what is known as "having your cake and eating it" – he might seek a dignified way out, or he might not. Nice work if you can get it.

Furthermore, there are other little niggles. Firstly, as we pointed out earlier, if Brown goes to the country with the treaty ratification hanging, it will be on the basis of a new manifesto which, presumably, will endorse the new treaty. The charge that Brown has broken a manifesto promise, therefore, will no longer valid.

Secondly, one might expect Brown to argue that the general election is in itself the appropriate electoral test, challenging voters to reject him in the ballot box if they disapprove of the treaty. Against what might be the continued weakness of the Tories, he could present the very fact that Cameron supports a referendum as evidence of that weakness.

Thirdly, from the evidence we have seen, Brown's government is determined to argue black is white – that the "Constitutional concept … has been abandoned", presenting that statement as evidence that the new treaty is not the constitution.

Then, of course, Brown will pack his new maifesto with other "goodies", asking the electorate whether they are prepared to ditch all those simply to reject a treaty which, he will argue, is "good for Britain" and, about which, the majority of people will be indifferent.

On that basis, any election would boil down to a traditional "us versus the Tories", with the treaty relegated to just another contested issue, the ultimate decision of the electorate resting on whether they prefer Brown or Cameron.

Inevitably, though, all these calculations rest on the supposition that Brown goes to the country early. But he could just as well plough on, ramming the treaty through parliament and holding off until 2010 before he calls an election. By then, he might calculate, the electorate would have largely forgotten the treaty and, being a "done deal", no longer would the Tories be running with it.

Cameron could, if he was so minded, spike that ploy by pledging a referendum if his Party is elected - whenever that might be - and promising to abrogate the treaty if the "no" vote prevails, but one somehow doubts he will do that.

All that leaves us with, therefore, is speculation as to whether Brown will call an early election – will he, won't he? We're getting as bad as the political hacks. But the substantive issue is what do we do about the treaty? There, we need the "perfect storm", growing outrage that indicates to Brown that ratifying the treaty without specific public approval is a step too far.

For once, we need to be as obsessive as Brown.

COMMENT THREAD

Europe united?

"RECALLING the historic importance of the ending of the division of the European continent … "

Er... When was the European continent last united - and was that a good thing?

Anyhow, that is the first line of the preamble to the new "reform" treaty, now available (at last) in English:

Draft preamble

Draft Treaty (145 pages).

Draft protocols (69 pages).

Draft declarations (63 pages).

And, as The Sun says, quoting William Hague, the EU Treaty is (a) "copy constitution".

COMMENT THREAD

A self-fulfilling prophesy

Even a few short weeks ago, the decided view in Westminster was that Brown was no gambler. He had waited ten years to gain the crown from Blair and wasn't about to risk all with an early election. With three years to run, he would go full term and call an election for the late spring of 2010.

The insistent murmuring from the media, however, is now building in intensity, with the Times today devoting a long leader to the timing of an early election, suggesting that, if Brown does go to the country, the best moment is early November.

That, by conventional wisdom, would break all the rules. With lengthening nights, the cold creeping in and people recovering from summer spending excesses while facing up to Christmas, they lack the optimism associated with Spring. Therefore, they tend to punish the incumbent who dares drag them to the polls and makes them think of the future.

With the polls currently giving Labour a clear lead, some even suggesting that Brown could increase his majority, the electoral calculus is shifting in favour of an early election, aided and abetted by what seems to be a meltdown in the Conservative camp.

Prime minister Brown, on the other hand, is consorting with the great and good – first Bush, then Clinton and then in the United Nations - presenting himself as the serious statesman, not least as the logjam on Darfur seems to have been broken and the Security Council has resolved to send 26,000 troops to the region – and event which is being projected as a triumph for Brown.

This leaves a diminished David Cameron, seemingly enmeshed in petty squabbles with his own Party, losing support rapidly and coming over as a tetchy lightweight. It seems almost impossible that he should be able to regain the lustre of his extended honeymoon, especially as the media are showing every sign of having turned against him.

Thus does the Times argue that Brown should wait for the Conservative Party conference when David Cameron will make his near-inevitable demand that he go to the country as soon as possible and then seek the dissolution of Parliament with the ballot held on November 1 (or perhaps 8). If Labour were to sweep to its fourth term in such circumstances, its opponents could not cry: "We were robbed."

But then the paper takes a surprising turn. Reviewing the "final intense deliberations over the EU treaty (constitution)" it argues that Brown cannot credibly dismiss a referendum if the end product did not safeguard British interests in a truly unambiguous fashion. But, it says, bargaining on the specifics of the text is likely, realistically, to continue to the end of this year. Brown could ask for a national mandate through an election before that point, and thus be more flexible about the referendum question which would not dominate the preelection debate in such conditions.

This is an odd assertion as the IGC summit is expected in mid October, when the final details are to be agreed. Therefore, unless The Times knows something we don't, its projected timetable would have the prime minister going to agree an EU treaty at the start of the election period, putting the EU high on the electoral agenda.

Again, the conventional wisdom is that no incumbent will want to go to the country with "Europe" as a central issue, in which case, Brown would be forced to concede a referendum.

However, if the Tory Party troubles do develop into a full-blown meltdown, then Brown might be confident enough to frame a new manifesto, supporting the "not-the-constitution" treaty, thereby negating the current accusation that he has broken a manifesto promise. He could then almost provoke Cameron into supporting a referendum, in the knowledge that his rapidly fading star could be contemptuously ignored.

Another factor – which has not yet been rehearsed – is that, with "Europe" high on the agenda, UKIP might be expected to do well, dragging sufficient votes from the Conservatives to make the difference. With UKIP widely credited with having cost the Tories 26 seats in the last election, a stronger showing could keep Brown in power.

It may be, therefore, that the roar of the media may create a self-fulfilling prophesy, sucking Brown into an early election campaign – but one in which he would have no need to offer an EU referendum. That would be a dark time for Eurosceptics, and one which is no longer looking unlikely.

COMMENT THREAD