EU Referendum

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Of course they have immunity

Some time ago I wrote on my alternative outlet, the BrugesGroupBlog, that, unusually, the UN was being sued because the negligence and, let’s face it, incompetence and lack of understanding of what was going on, had resulted in the deliberate murder of 8,000 men and boys. Given the UN’s track record in peacekeeping operations (DR Congo and the Balkans in general spring to mind but others are not far behind) this was going to be an important decision. And it is.

Yesterday the International Herald Tribune reported that

A Dutch court ruled Thursday that it has no jurisdiction in a civil suit against the United Nations by survivors of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, affirming U.N. immunity from prosecution, even when genocide is involved.

A group called the Mothers of Srebrenica was seeking compensation for the failure of Dutch United Nations troops to prevent the slaughter by Serb forces of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim males in the U.N.-declared safe zone.

The Hague District Court said the U.N.'s immunity — which is written into its founding charter — means it cannot be held liable in any country's national court.

As the Dutch government lawyer, Bert Jan Houtzagers, said

if a Dutch court decided it had jurisdiction in the case, "any court in any country could do so and that would thwart the viability of the United Nations."

Well, we wouldn’t want to thwart the UN’s viability, would we? And on that subject, we hear that the Security Council has rejected the idea of sanctions on Zimbabwe, a decision that, according to President Robert Mugabe, who has already been feted by the African Union, is a defeat for racism.

Two of the countries that blocked the American resolution were China and Russia, permanent members of the Security Council. Is anybody surprised by that? Well, David Miliband, our youthful looking Foreign Secretary seems to be. To him Russia’s veto is “incomprehensible”.

"I'm very disappointed that the U.N. Security Council should have failed to pass a strong and clear resolution on Zimbabwe," Miliband said in a statement.

"It'll appear incomprehensible to the people of Zimbabwe that Russia, which committed itself at the G8 to take further steps including introducing financial and other sanctions, should stand in the way of Security Council action."

"Nor will they understand the Chinese vote," Miliband said. Veto-holding China was also among five countries that opposed the U.S.-drafted text in the 15-nation council on Friday.

Of the other members, South Africa, Libya and Vietnam also voted against and Indonesia abstained. Russia maintained that Zimbabwe posed no international threat and, therefore, the situation was not within the Security Council’s remit. This may well be true but it merely underlines the need to stop pretending that the UN is some kind of a moral force for good in the world. (Not that this blog has ever been known to say that.)

While we are on the subject of not pretending any longer, it might be a good idea not to pretend that Russia is in any way an ally of the West. Predictably, the Russian Foreign Ministry hit back at British and American criticisms of the country’s stand over Zimbabwe:

The Russian Foreign Ministry in a statement Saturday said the criticism "places a question mark over the worthiness of Russia as a G-8 partner," The Associated Press reported.

It added that the possibility of U.N. sanctions on Zimbabwe was excluded at a recent G-8 summit in Japan.

Russia said it believed the sanctions would set a precedent for U.N. meddling, AP reported.

Does this mean that Russia is about to leave the G8 in a huff? Let us hope so. After all, questions about the suitability of her membership – hardly one of the leading industrical economies or a democracy – have been asked ever since the anomalous situation had been created.

The last sentence, on the other hand, makes it clear what Russia is really saying, regardles of what it did or did not agree to at the G8 meeting. Ever since the idea of a United Nations was mooted, the Soviet Union showed itself to be determined to ensure that internal oppression and human rights crimes should not come under its aegis. This is probably quite a good idea as the UN can do absolutely nothing about any of these problems. On the other hand, it does rather obviate the necessity for the UN and that Russia would not like. The Security Council has always been a useful forum.

If the UN starts agreeing to sanctions on countries and politicians who are guilty of serious crimes against humanity and, indeed, human beings, then might it not one day start discussing the behaviour of certain politicians in Chechnya? Probably not, as it happens, but the Russian government believes in being safe. Of course, its recent intervention and creeping invasion of Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia may well be described as a threat to international security and may be the other reason why Russia is so very unanxious to see the UN straying into that territory.

The question is whether the UN refusing to agree on sanctions against Zimbabwe makes the government now legitimate enough for the EU to resume (if it ever stopped) giving aid to the country. As Reuters reports:

The European Commission is ready to provide up to 250 million euros in development aid for Zimbabwe's worst-hit sectors if the country gets a legitimate, credible government, the EU's aid chief said.

The European Union's executive arm would then also call for an international lifting of debt owed by the country, EU Aid Commissioner Louis Michel said.

"I would encourage the rest of the international donor community to make it clear today that it is ready to provide substantial and immediate assistance to Zimbabwe in the wake of a transition towards democracy," Michel said.

The Commission is not the EU’s executive arm but both legislative and executive (and completely illegitimate in itself, let it be said in passing, though not precisely in the Mugabe league of nastiness) and its readiness to plunge money into a country that is a complete mess without bothering to find out what is really needed and to what extent the people of that country should be allowed to take charge of it is really touching.

By the way, Mugabe’s government has been illegitimate and viciously oppressive for quite a long time, during which he, together with his friends and relations, has managed to wreck what was an extremely successful economy. Does that mean the EU stopped giving the country’s rulers our money to ensure that they stayed in power and continued to oppress the people of Zimbabwe? Not on your life and not on the Zimbabweans' life either.

The European Commission is the most important aid donor to Zimbabwe and last year provided 91 million euros in humanitarian aid and other assistance.

Anyone would think the European Commission was handing over the Commissioners’ own money to possibly the bloodiest tyranny in Africa at the moment. Mrs Mugabe, for one, must have been very grateful for the help she received in her shopping trips.

The real agenda emerges

Unless it is about the misuse of MEPs' expenses or other venality, you can almost guarantee that the British media will ignore the EU parliament – although there are some exceptions.

Not so Deutsche Welle which noted last week that: "European Parliament Approves Military Use of Galileo Satellite", telling us that it approved "the bill" by a massive 520 votes to 83.

Actually, the paper is a little confused. It was not a "bill" but an "own initiative report" by German MEP Karl von Wogau – a man we have met before, a doyen of the "European" defence establishment.

An own initiative report carries no legislative weight but, as we have remarked before, von Wogau, is no ordinary MEP. He is a respected member of the German political establishment, a senior and active member of the EPP – the political group to which the Conservatives still belong – and an arch "federalist" who is at the leading edge of integrationalist thinking. His agenda very much represents the thinking and ambitions of the hard core supporters of European integration.

Therefore, his report does actually carry some weight, effectively representing a statement of the state of play, the EU's "shopping list" and an indication of the direction of travel.

The reference to Galileo is instructive, as it simply affirms that which we have been asserting for four years – in the face of constant denials that the programme was anything other than entirely civilian, for civil use only – that the only way the project made sense was for its military applications.

In many ways, this bland – largely unrecorded - affirmation by the EU parliament typifies the whole of the EU "project". Like the EU, the rationale of Galileo has been shrouded in lies, deceit and obfuscation and now, only when the "colleagues" have finally got their way, with the project under commission control and an EU budget line, do they shamelessly admit the truth, which had largely been acknowledged anyway.

But von Wogau's report goes far beyond Galileo and sets out the entire strategy for an integrated European space programme, taking in surveillance and communications satellites, and all manner of space hardware. These, he asserts, should be managed within the framework of a Union budget – to add to the €5 billion already set aside in the 2007-13 for space projects and defence – all dedicated to servicing the European Security and Defence Policy.

Without so much as a blush, von Wogau relies entirely on the ~~constitutional~~ Lisbon treaty, which formalises space policy as a Union competence, in anticipation of which, the "colleagues" already have a Space Council up and running.

How easily do they now claim that "an autonomous European Space Policy a strategic necessity," underlining the "importance of the space dimension to the security of the European Union and the need for a common approach necessary for defending European interests in space."

What is particularly bizarre about this whole affair though is the lack of interest by the British media – which maintains its indifference to this day – as a major new policy unfolds in front of its very eyes. Even when the "colleagues" are openly parading their military ambitions, and outlining their plans to commit billions in expenditure for something which, as yet, has no legislative base, there is almost complete silence.

Secrecy in EU affairs, there is not. But, given the myopia of the British media, there is no need for it. Even though in plain sight, the steady march of integration is ignored.

COMMENT THREAD

But, if you are guilty …

… you get damages.

In July 2003 and for a few months, it was big news, a multi-million fraud at the Eurostat agency which was accused of operating with "black accounts", fictitious contracts and possible kick-backs.

As the story developed, investigators were reported as having identified the loss of £3 million in "a vast enterprise of looting" by senior officials in Luxembourg, mostly through inflated contracts with outside firms.

At the centre of this "vast enterprise of looting" were two of Eurostat's top officials Yves Franchet, the French director-general for 16 years, and director Daniel Byk. They were being investigated by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for alleged use of a private bank account in Luxembourg to cream off £650,000 of public money. Both denied any wrongdoing.

Now, after a "final report" in October 2003 that accused Eurostat of "failings" but not enough to force any political resignations (something then commission president Romano Prodi had already refused to do), the case has re-emerged.

This time, it has been the subject of a judgement in the ECJ when, this week, the court awarded Mr Franchet and Mr Byk €56,000 for being "confronted with feelings of injustice and frustration" and because they had "suffered damage to their honour and professional reputation …".

The pair had taken the commission to the court, claiming that both OLAF and the commission had breached procedures, and their human rights. The court has agreed, finding that, when it "disclosed various pieces of information in the context of the investigations at issue," the commission had behaved unlawfully, failing to maintain a fair balance between the interests of Mr Franchet and Mr Byk and those of the institution. As a result, "the commission committed sufficiently serious breaches of the principle of presumption of innocence to render the Community liable."

So, if you are accused of committing the heinous crime of "racial discrimination", this same court rules that there is a presumption of guilt but, when you are accused of ripping off the taxpayer, you have the full protection of the law.

In this, the court did not concern itself "whether the facts alleged are proven or not." It was only concerned with the way in which OLAF conducted and concluded their investigation which referred to Franchet and Byk by name. But readers can draw their own conclusions from the award of €56,000 between the pair, when they had originally demanded €1 million. Clearly, the damage to their "honour and professional reputation" had not been that severe.

As, as for that "vast enterprise of looting", not a thing more has been heard about those missing millions. Now, had Eurostat refused to employ Moroccans …

COMMENT THREAD

Friday, July 11, 2008

This is getting silly!

The Iranians aren't the only ones with photoshop. Little Green Footballs and Wired have more.

COMMENT THREAD

A blank cheque for the race relations industry

Picked up by the ever-vigilant Wall Street Journal blog (and also AP) is a "groundbreaking" ruling by the ECJ on racial discrimination, made illegal under Directive 2000/43/EC.

The case goes back to 2006 when a director of a garage-door company, Pascal Feryn, was quoted by the Belgian newspaper De Standaard, saying: "we aren't looking for Moroccans. Our customers don’t want them." He elaborated on this in a TV broadcast, declaring, "People often say: 'no immigrants'… I must comply with my customers' requirements." He added: "I'm not a racist. Belgians break into people's houses just as much. But people are obviously scared."

At that, the Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding stepped in. This is the Belgian body designated to "promote equal treatment" in accordance with the Directive and it applied to the Belgian labour courts for a finding that Feryn had applied a discriminatory recruitment policy.

The labour court, however, dismissed the application on the grounds that "there was no proof nor was there a presumption that a person had applied for a job and had not been employed as a result of his ethnic origin". No one had complained of discrimination, there was no "victim" and, therefore, no offence.

This was not good enough for the Centrum. It took the case to the ECJ which, yesterday, ruled against the Belgian Court. It decided that an employer who "publicly lets it be known that, under its recruitment policy, it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin may constitute facts of such a nature as to give rise to a presumption of a discriminatory recruitment policy."

What makes this so very different – even alarming – is that the court has ruled that the "absence of an identifiable complainant does not mean that there is no direct discrimination". Therefore, even though no one is affected by the "discrimination" it must still be treated as a criminal offence.

From here though, it gets worse. The court was also asked to rule on what sanctions were appropriate for discrimination of this kind, the Directive requiring that member states impose "effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions," even where there is no identifiable victim.

On this, the court set a number of options. At one level, a national court could simply find that discrimination had occurred, and order that it cease. This, with an "adequate level of publicity," was judged to be sufficient in some cases. But, as an alternative, the court considered that there could be "an award of damages to the body bringing the proceedings."

This, it would seem, leaves it wide open for the race relations industry to hunt out errant employers and drag them into the courts, demanding huge damages for themselves and thus making a tidy profit from their actions – even though they lack a "victim" to champion.

To add insult to injury, the court then made a final ruling. It decided to reverse the burden of proof in this type of case, deciding that if a "discriminatory recruitment policy is alleged by reference to statements made publicly by an employer with regard to its recruitment policy … it is for the employer to prove that it has not infringed the principle of equal treatment."

So, there were are – "European" justice for you: guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent, guilty of an "offence" even though there is no victim, and prey to any passing race relations industry zealot who thinks they can make a quick buck out of taking you to court.

Lord Denning, I think, will be turning in his grave.

UPDATE: We are informed by a correspondent that Feryn does employ qualified Moroccans and other immigrants. They work in the workshop at various production lines.

It complied however with its customers with regard to the nationality of the mechanics and technicians, who are in charge of the on-site assembly of these garage-doors, which nowadays feature coded sophisticated devices in order to attain a certain level of burglar-proofing. The director cited this market constraint as an exception to the general rule of non-discrimination in use at the firm.

The Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en racismebestrijding (equal treatment promotion office), funded by the Belgian taxpayer, initially lost the case in Belgium, but since money was not a problem it brought the case before the ECJ with the disastrous ruling mentioned.

COMMENT THREAD

The wrong things for the right reasons

Following our broadside against the EU commission's proposals to siphon off €1 billion from the agricultural fund to "help tackle the food crisis in Africa", other critical voices are joining in.

One such is economics professor Richard Mshomba, a Tanzanian now working at La Salle University in the United States.

Mshomba notes that EU subsidies are largely responsible for many of the problems faced by agriculture in Africa and as such it is a little ironic to suggest using an unused portion of those subsidies in an attempt to help.

Commenting on agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel's intention to "inject money to buy seed and fertilisers", Mshomba doubts the money will be used this way, arguing it will more likely be used to subsidise food for consumers in Africa.

On this, his scepticism seems to match our own, when he says, "The EU and other rich countries sometimes, and I emphasis sometimes, do things like this only to appear as though they are doing something."

His sentiments were echoed by the head of the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation, (FAO) Jacques Diouf:

We have to increase production in countries with low incomes by investing appropriately to enable them to control production and crucially we must come to a much fairer international trade system to allow poor countries to boost exports.

The crucial issues here, of course, are the control of production and boosting exports – the two going together. Unrestrained increases in production, without an outlet for surpluses produced, is a recipe for continued poverty, something which the aid community and the commentariat seem to have extraordinary difficulty understanding.

A classic example of that comes on the BBC website, with an authored piece by Paul Moss on rural development in Zambia, abridged from a long feature broadcast on BBC Radio 4's World Tonight yesterday.

The focus of the internet piece is entirely on improving production yet, in the broadcast version, Moss interviewed at length a local expert, who spoke intelligently about the importance of "market access" and the vital need for new and better roads. That segment, however, is completely missing from the online abstract.

The need for roads as a mechanism for improving market access is very much the drum we have been beating in my analysis of Afghanistan but, if Moss even heard what his own interviewee was saying, clearly it did not penetrate sufficiently for him to be able to understand it.

The problem, though, is even more profound than Moss indicates. In his book, "The Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it", Paul Collier notes that infrastructure projects seem to have fallen out of favour with the aid agencies and donor nations, which prefer photogenic "feel good" projects such as building schools and health clinics.

Inasmuch as the NGOs are hugely reliant on an inflow of cash from the ever-gullible public, and the politicians who echo their sentiments, these types of projects are much more likely to invoke the "aaaahhh" factor which keeps the funds flowing. Building a network of roads to enable farmers to earn higher (or any) profits from the sale of their produce does not have the same caché – or revenue-earning potential for the NGOs.

We saw some of this recently in a highly publicised outing by Prince Harry in Lesotho where he and "26 chums from his Household Cavalry regiment" are devoting three weeks to building a school for orphan children.

Somehow, Harry as part of a road gang would not have had the same draw yet, had he really wanted to contribute to the long-term prosperity of this nation (from which sustainable funds would come available to promote social and welfare projects), he would have spent his time building a road.

All of this points to the single, unarguable fact that the problems in the underdeveloped world – which so often visit themselves on our shores – are not insoluble. But, as long as the aid and support "industry", including the EU, continue to do the wrong things, often for the right reasons, the situation will continue to deteriorate – in proportion only to the number of sound bites garnered by the "bleeding heart" community who soooooo much want to help the suffering blacks.

COMMENT THREAD

Contempt, not conciliation

Despite the widespread publicity given to the Iranian photoshopping extravaganza, The Times still has up on its website, a cropped version of the offending photograph, showing the non-existent missile.

This is to support a story written yesterday by Chris Smyth telling us that, "Iran test-fired more long-range missiles this morning, shrugging off international concern over yesterday's launches as the US sharpened its rhetoric against Tehran." Weapons with "special capabilities", we are told, were launched from navy ships in the Gulf ... along with torpedoes and surface-to-surface missiles.

With its transparent attempts to doctor the evidence now exposed, however, the Iranian activities of the last few days are being rapidly re-interpreted. The Los Angeles Times, for instance, is topping its latest report with the headline: "Iran missile tests seen more as theater". Its narrative now runs:

But some arms control experts said the missile barrages may have been just for show and not intended to reveal any new strategic capacity. Iran's conventional arsenal is little match for the sophisticated US and Israeli precision weapons, antimissile batteries and air power, analysts said, and Tehran apparently unveiled no new weapons during the testing.

"This event is the latest scene in regional theatrics and represents Iranian chest-thumping," Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said in an e-mail message. "There is no evidence of a significant advance in previously known missile capabilities of Iran's medium- and long-range missiles."

This is not really coming over in the UK press, which tends to treat Iran as if it was still a functioning state, instead of what is it, a corrupt, backward and wholly dysfunctional kleptocracy on the brink of economic meltdown.

The same goes for the EU "colleagues", who are taking Iran far more seriously than its parlous state merits. Instead of treating the posturing mullahs with the contempt they deserve, we have little Javier Solana planning to hold further discussions with the Iranians on 19 July in Geneva. Hope clearly springs eternal, confounding years of evidence that sucking up to the mullahs is a complete waste of time and effort.

Instead of this misjudged response, which is entirely typical of the EU's dealings with Iran, the only really logical answer to the absurd posturing of this bankrupt regime is to respond in kind. We should send Ahmadinejad a photoshopped picture of his Natanz nuclear facility, after the Israelis have delivered their calling cards.

Contempt, not conciliation, should be the order of the day.

COMMENT THREAD

"European interference"

Rarely does the BBC front a news bulletin with affairs EU. So when, yesterday evening, BBC Radio 4 gave the EU parliament pole position and then went on to do a lengthy feature, one could easily imagine that some major crisis was afoot.

However, one should never underestimate the "social-liberal" conscience of the Beeb, so it should have come as no surprise that what brought it to the barricades was the latest development in the Italian "war" against the Roma.

What has happened now is that the Italian government has decided to fingerprint the residents in the 700 or so encampments dotted around the outskirts of major cities such as Rome, Milan and Naples, where an estimated 150,000 Roma live, mainly in squalid conditions.

Although – quite rightly – Berlusconi's government says that this measure is needed in the battle against the surge of crime Italians are experiencing, and to avoid children being used for begging, as well as helping identify illegal immigrants for expulsion, this has attracted the ire of the EU parliament.

By a resolution adopted by 336 votes to 220, MEPs (with 77 abstentions) have called on Italy to bring the practice to an immediate halt and asked the EU commission to intervene against actions which, they aver, "clearly constitute an act of discrimination based on race and ethnic origin". It also "condemned utterly and without equivocation all forms of racism and discrimination faced by the Roma and those seen as 'gypsies'".

Although Italian newspapers have published pictures of officials taking fingerprints from gypsies living in and around the southern city of Naples and filing the prints according to religion, ethnicity and level of education, the Italian government is having none of it.

Franco Frattini, former EU justice commissioner and now Italian foreign minister, has dismissed the parliament's resolution as "European interference". Its claims he says are "a totally unfounded accusation, and the upshot of a political vote", the MEP’s vote being "the fruit of an unawareness of the actual situation".

Seemingly relying on a technicality, he claims that the parliament’s action is directed at "an Italian law that is not yet enacted, because Parliament is still deciding on the bill's enactment." Thus, it was "premature".

Frattini then complains that he had held discussions with the heads of the two most important political groups in the European Parliament, Martin Schulz (ESP) and Joseph Daul (EPP) "to tell them that the Italian government was ready for an exchange of ideas, as normally happens", and to explain the "evolution, contents and grounds" for the norm.

According to Frattini, though, the EU parliament went ahead with its resolution before the discussions had been concluded, even though there was "no substantial interest" from the EU commission in assessing whether Community law had been breached.

This has not stopped Deutsche Welle parroting the BBC line, conveying the idea that the Italian government is engaged in a "direct act of discrimination."

But it also cites Italian European affairs minister Andrea Rochi, condemning the move, declaring: "Today's resolution by the European Parliament is one of the worst aspects of the EU institutions …We reject with vigour and indignation the accusations of racism."

Then we get Italian interior minister Roberto Maroni. He is a member of the right-wing Northern League party, who sets out the objective – "to put an end to illegal camps and guarantee security to Italian citizens."

He and his colleagues thus argue that it is the camps that are being targeted, not people of any particular ethnicity or race. They do have a point in that the camps are occupied not only by Roma but also Sinti. Half are Italian citizens, another 20 percent are citizens of other EU countries while the remainder come from the former Yugoslavia. Most definitely, it is not a Roma therapy.

We seem, therefore, to be seeing a case of the EU parliament rushing in where angels – and the commission - fear to tread. But when we get Italian politicians complaining of "European interference", it is clear that there is no meeting of minds.

Immigration, once again, is beginning to show up as a fault line between the European "ideal" and national interest. And, when the chips are down, even in Italy the national interest prevails.

COMMENT THREAD

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Added value

The mystery of those Iranian missiles gets more entertaining by the hour.

Not only did the Telegraph print the doctored picture, obtained by Agence France-Presse from the website of Sepah News, it also graced the front page of The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers including the National Post. According to the National Post, it also appeared on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, NYTimes.com and many other major news websites.

The Telegraph has now published the "original" in the form of a video grab (left) from Iranian television, which shows the actual launch of three missiles.

This compares with its earlier photograph in the print version (below right). What comes over very clearly is that the Iranians have added another missile to their montage, a creative addition which adds drama to the picture.

Bizarrely, the Sepah News website owned by Iran's Revolutionary Guards has now made available as of today the original version of the same photograph (below left), this with the three missiles in flight, but with a fourth launcher visible, mounting an unfired missile. This, it would appear, had been edited out of the doctored photograph.

To add to the fun, The Telegraph now retails that the Iranian state television has today reported missiles launched from ships in the Gulf, along with torpedoes and surface-to-surface missiles. It also showed a brief clip of two missiles being fired in darkness – very convenient as this will complicate any comparative analysis.

Gone from the Telegraph's report is the caution in the earlier piece, "reported" details now assuming the veneer of fact, the paper now stating that the latest test follows "Wednesday's launch of nine missiles including a Shahab 3 long-range missile capable of hitting Israel."

Iranian officials, we are told, "suggested that missile had been improved to a range of 1,250 miles." Israeli intelligence officials, we are also informed, "have suggested this was an exaggeration."

In respect of at least one missile, however, the performance is not so much "exaggerated" as non-existent. How easy do the media fall for these tricks though, making their reports and photographs highly suspect. You would think they would learn.

UPDATE: Many newspapers are now falling over themselves to admit they have been "had", with a good animated version here.

Significantly, The Telegraph is running a story on how the Iranians doctored the photo to hide a "dud", but does not mention that it had published the doctored picture, without noticing the crude photoshopping.

COMMENT THREAD

Angriff auf England

On 10 July 1940, the Luftwaffe launched its attacks on the UK, in what became known as the "Battle of Britain".

Just thought you might like to know that.

Who is this "we"?

Long time readers of this blog may recall that I am not greatly enamoured of the “big lie” theory that Goebbels was supposed to have espoused. It is a sequence of small lies, I once wrote, that does the trick. Just look at that genius of propaganda, Willi Münzenberg. Nobody believes anything Goebbels said and not many people believed it even at the time but millions of people around the world repeat stories first started by Herr (or, as he was at the time, Genosse) Münzenberg without even realizing where they originated.

One of the small lies that is frequently repeated in the MSM and is believed by an astonishing number of people is that the United States has such an enormous influence in the world that justice demands that “we” should have a say in whom Americans elect to be President. Even Simon Heffer succumbed to that particular virus.

To which one can say only one thing: who is this “we”? We, the people of European countries, do not have a say in the selection of our real government. Nor do we have a say in whether to have a completely new constitutional arrangement, to wit the ~~Constitutional~~ ~~Reform~~ Lisbon Treaty imposed on us. When the people of one European country are graciously allowed to vote on the subject and say no, plans are made to disregard their vote. So, before we claim a right to impose our views on the Americans on who should be their President perhaps we should take a closer look at what is happening in our own countries.

Furthermore, is it not strange that “our” opinion always seems to be on the side of the Democrats and the more left-wing and anti-American their rhetoric is, the more “we” seem to like them? Could it be because we are fed a succession of … ahem … inaccurate stories about American politics by our own media and various political pundits? Or could it be that "we" are only a very small proportion of the population?

The latest darling of all those who think they should be involved in American presidential elections is, naturally enough, Barack Obama, who is coming on a whirlwind tour of some European countries, just as soon as he finds out where they are, in order to bolster his credentials as a man who actually knows something about foreign policy.

The Daily Telegraph, which has set itself up to be a cheer-leader for the Democrats, has published two articles on the subject with many more to come, we can be sure. One tells us that Barack Obama will tell Gordon Brown that under his presidency Britain will no longer be America’s “poodle”. In fact, the headline tells us that he will “end Britain’s poodle status”. Is that now a recognized term in international relations?

Presumably there is no point in telling Alex Spillius that Britain’s status was far from poodle-like for many years, and it was Tony Blair’s far from poodle-like influence that dragged the United States through that UN farce before the Iraqi war.

Equally, there is, one assumes, no point in reminding him that far from considering Britain to be a “poodle” Congress saw her as an equal ally and offered a free-trade status. Prime Minister Blair then had to refuse it rather sheepishly because Britain no longer has the right to negotiate her own trade agreements. One wonders whether Mr Spillius actually knows this unimportant little fact.

Of course, facts must not be allowed to get in the way of a the “narrative” as presented by our hacks. Just let’s all pull together and get Obama in and all our problems, such as British mishandling of matters in Basra, as documented by us in this blog in great detail, will be solved. Oh woops, we cannot vote in the American election. That’s so unfair.

Then there is the story of Barack Obama intending to speak by the Brandenburg Gate, a wonderful backdrop to him, as someone from his campaign gushed. Harry de Quetteville explains

The Democratic candidate, who enjoys a 61 percentage point lead over Republican John McCain among Germans in a recent Daily Telegraph poll, has set his sights on a symbolic gathering in Berlin.

Here we go again. How can a man enjoy a 61 percentage lead in a country where where he has never been and where he is not standing for political office? I may add that his lead over John McCain in the country where it matters, the United States, is considerably smaller than that. In some parts of the country it is non-existent.

If his popularity in Germany is genuinely that high (do they even know anything about him or about Senator McCain, who has already travelled practically everywhere in the world, especially where there are American troops?) Senator Obama can only hope that this fact will not reach the American electorate. John Kerry’s boasts about his popularity in Europe did him no good at all in 2004.

Let us hope that the speech will be delivered in German as Barack Obama seems to have been complaining about Americans not speaking other languages while Europeans speak English when they visit the United States. (As he has not so far been anywhere else, except at school in Indonesia and, possibly, on a visit to a college friend in Pakistan, he wouldn’t really know how Europeans behave anywhere else. Then again, unlike the Bush brothers, he does not speak anything apart from English either.)

Meanwhile, as the Telegraph article hints, there has been a certain amount of discussion in Germany about Barack Obama speaking at the Brandenburg Gate, an honour that only actual American Presidents have been accorded so far.

Furthermore, even in Germany, despite the apparent support for the junior senator from Illinois, there is a strong feeling that campaigning should be done at home. By all means, visit other countries and speak to various people but an actual campaigning speech in Berlin, at the Brandenburg Gate, may be going just a little too far.

Chancellor Merkel and a number of other politicians seem to feel the awkwardness of the situation. After all, there is still an American Administration in place, and as one member of it said, it might be better to show some friendliness towards that, instead of looking to the possible successor. Furthermore, what if Senator McCain wins in November? How will this unnecessary gesture (after all the Brandenburg Gate is hardly the front line of the fight at the moment) will look to him?

The Social-Democrat Mayor of Berlin and other members of the party are, on the other hand, delighted with the idea. This will, they think somewhat mysteriously, improve German-American relations. Not if there is a Republican Administration next year, it won’t.

The other aspect of it is highlighted in what can be described as a rather cynical article in Der Spiegel: the rather lacklustre German Social-Democrat (and a few other) politicians are hoping that some of Obama’s glamour (somewhat tarnished by now in America) will rub off on them.

Of course, they could conceivably make themselves more popular with the electorate by attempting to solve some domestic problems and, above all, by ensuring that Germany’s own real government becomes accountable to the people of that country. But that would ignore the lies that these same people have been peddling for some time.

Spelling it out

He's said nothing new, but M. le president Sarkozy has spelled it out again, this time to MEPs in Strasbourg: there will be no further EU enlargement until the ~~constitutional~~ Lisbon treaty is in the bag.

Sarkozy also said the EU should not press Ireland to have a second referendum, while stressing that there should be no renegotiation on the "hard-forged treaty".

This just re-states the game plan, putting Cowen in the "hot seat", to let him "spontaneously" decide that the Irish actually want a second referendum – which will then carried out in the Spring, in time for the "colleagues" then to celebrate full ratification of the treaty before the euro-elections.

That, at least, is the plan – and so far they are sticking to it.

COMMENT THREAD

Opportunity costs

The BBC all but ignored the rioting in China’s Guizhou Province earlier this month – giving airtime instead to efforts to clear up the algal bloom in the sea off Qingdao – home of the water events for this year's Olympics.

Even then, it treated the issue on a superficial level, dealing with just the clear-up efforts without drawing any deeper inferences from the sudden appearance of the alga – an estimated 620,000 tons having been removed by yesterday.

Not so Peter Navarro in today's Asia Times, who offers a thoughtful comment piece headed, "China's pollution Olympics", in which he discusses the underlying causes of this menance.

Perspicaciously, he tells us, "Sometimes it's the little stories that tell us the most." Indeed it is. Very often, small clues carry huge meaning and can give an insight into a situation that all the blaring headlines fail to reveal.

The algal bloom, Navarro tells us, is "far from atypical in the world's most polluted nation." Today, he writes, fully 70 percent of China's seven major rivers are severely polluted, 80 percent of its rivers fail to meet standards for fishing, and 90 percent of the country's cities suffer from some degree of water pollution.

As a result, over 700 million Chinese drink foetid water of a quality well below World Health Organization standards. Meanwhile, liver and stomach cancers related to water pollution are among the leading causes of death in the countryside, while 21 cities along the Yellow River are characterised by the highest measurable levels of pollution.

As to the algal bloom in Qingdao, this is being caused in large part by equally massive misuse of fertiliser. As the world's largest fertiliser user, China consumes more than 50 million tons annually. Far too often, untrained peasants apply far too much fertiliser to their meagre plots in the false hopes of boosting yields. The result has been a new kind of "flooding" problem, that of excess fertiliser runoff flooding into rivers and streams.

Relentlessly, Navarro retails the extent of this problem. One case he describes is the algal blooms that keep hitting China's third-largest lake, Lake Tai. Famous for its classic beauty, the lake is more than a major tourist attraction. It also supplies water to 30 million people. Cleaning up of this lake alone is going to cost more than US$14 billion while panic buying of bottled water during Lake Tai's repeated algal blooms have driven the price of bottled water as high as $1.50 per litre.

Furthermore, China's algal blooms are hardly restricted to its rivers and lakes. China's coastal waters are also suffering mightily from a growing epidemic of "red tides" - an oceangoing version of eutrophication. The problem is particularly acute in the relatively shallow Bohai and Yellow Seas off northern China where Qingdao is located and where there is minimal tidal exchange.

These red tides are rapidly destroying fish stocks and devastating marine life for both the country and its neighbours while China has seen an astonishing 40-fold increase in the incidence of red tides in just the past few years.

And so to the "broader picture" from this little story. We have a "big country choking to death on a wide variety of pollutants." What is emerging is one of the most far-reaching and irresponsible environmental disasters the world has ever seen.

Obviously, in a single piece, there are limits to what Navarro can deal with so, inevitably, he is not able to address the economic issues. But poor water quality in particular has a massive effect, not least on agriculture. The burden of pollution is steadily excluding huge volumes of water which are desperately needed in country which is not over-blessed with this resource.

This is already having a significant effect on production and is one of the factors which is bringing China's economic expansion to a grinding halt.

The bizarre thing about this is that these problems are being caused by real pollution, which is having an immediate and serious impact. Yet, as Booker reports, the G8 emphasis is on that entirely fictitious "pollution", namely "carbon" or, more accurately, carbon dioxide.

One of the great distortions of the global warmists is turning a vital chemical like carbon dioxide into "pollution". But, in so doing, they divert attention from real, and seriously harmful threats, which will have repercussions far beyond the regions they affect. A hungry, impoverished and unstable China is protentially a far more serious problem then any imagined harm from "global warming", especially as the last eleven years have seen gradual cooling.

In the final analysis, therefore, the harm done by the warmists will not only be measured in terms of the direct damage they have done. In diverting attention and resources from real problems, there are massive opportunity costs – the costs of things not done while our politicians fritter away our wealth on a miasma.

COMMENT THREAD

G8 stupidity

Booker blasts the G8 stupidity, and takes a tilt at the warmists while he is about it.

Funny that!

With commendable speed, Little Green Footballs is on the case, pointing out that at least one of the missile photographs released by the Iranians has been photoshopped – with liberal use of the "clone" tool.

Funny enough, that is precisely the photograph that The Daily Telegraph - one of the many newspapers which walked into Qanagate, eyes wide shut - has used in its print edition, to illustrate its story. However, the text by Caroline Wheeler is very guarded: "Nine missiles were reported fired …" and, "The launch included a reportedly improved Shahab-3 missile …".

I am minded of the epic 60's TV series, the "Telegoons". There was one famous episode when Neddy wanted to rob a bank but did not have a gun. In a hilarious sequence, he took along a colour photograph of a gun … and the bank gave him a colour photograph of some money!

One suspects that the Israelis might have something more in mind than colour photographs of some F-15s, and will not be photoshopping them to multiply their effect. And nor will they be content with colour photographs of bomb craters.

COMMENT THREAD

Iran said today …

… that it had test-fired a long-range missile, capable of reaching Israel and US troops in the region. This was according to yesterday's Washington Post, a move which was "promptly condemned by the Bush administration" as heightening tensions over the country's suspected nuclear weapons programme.

Interestingly, a number of agencies and media sources have carried photographs of the claimed firing, which took place within a salvo of nine missiles fired simultaneously. Yet, the photograph looks remarkably similar to that taken in November 2006 (top of pair) when Iran claimed to have undertaken a similar exercise. If the media are simply re-cycling stock photographs, though, none of them seem to have pointed this out.

Anyhow, while the US has been forthright in its condemnation of this piece of sabre-rattling, not so the EU which, so far, has been silent, despite it triggering a new spike in oil prices and a further weakening of the dollar.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Wednesday's tests "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one," adding, "Those who say that there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defense system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims."

This, of course, follows the signing on Tuesday by Rice and Czech counterpart Karel Schwarzenberg of a deal allowing the US to base a missile defence shield in the Czech Republic, so there may be some self-serving rhetoric here. The US Department of Defense, on the other hand, said it was studying the test to determine exactly what was launched and what it shows about Tehran's missile capabilities.

That actually makes a serious point about the EU. While it has its pretensions about being a major player on the world stage, every time there is an incident like this, the "colleagues" are caught flat-footed. They have to go away to consult with each other in order to establish a "common position" and gauge their responses so as not to offend any of the member states.

Short of the EU acquiring supreme power in the foreign affairs field, it will always be thus – a reflection of the way the organisation is structured, making it uniquely incapable of responding quickly to events. This is an absolute affirmation of why the EU should not be allowed further (or any) powers over foreign affairs.

As to the headline news from the EU, one of the lead topics is on how the EU parliament has approved a law to force airlines posting advertisements for cheap flights to show the full price, including charges and taxes, at the start of the booking process. That way, we don't have to go all the way through the process in order to find out the real price.

For sure, this is an irritation when booking cheap deals, but one wonders whether this is really an issue for the full weight of the criminal law, creating yet another offence to add to the many thousands which hit the statute book this year.

More to the point, in the absence of the EU's ability to involve itself in the serious events of the day – and long may that remain the case - this is what we are reduced to … a piffling bit of legislation to resolve what, at its most serious, is a very, very minor problem.

It really is no wonder that so many people take so very little interest in the EU, to the extent that the most powerful force most likely to bring it down is boredom. People simply struggle to see the point of an organisation which expends so much of its energies on so little, when there are so many more important things going on.

COMMENT THREAD

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Priced out of the market?

Although biofuels have recently taken the blame for some of the increase in global food prices, there is emerging something of an irony – that the higher price of corn is threatening to slow down the production of ethanol.

In 2007, the US ethanol production capacity was about 8.4 billion gallons and was expected to increase to about 11.4 billion gallons in 2008. That, we are told would have increased corn demand by one billion bushels; from 3 billion bushels in 2007 to 4 billion in 2008. But now, both the capacity expansion and the increase in corn usage are in jeopardy.

Early last year, ethanol plants were making as much as 53 cents per gallon profit but, currently, after a year of losses – sometimes reaching 22 cents a gallon - net returns range from 8-16 cents per gallon.

Ostensibly, with the increase in crude prices, causing gasoline and ethanol prices to rise, the profitability should be good. Unfortunately, the corn feedstock price has risen even more on a percentage basis.

Some smaller plants, plus a few larger plants that were having trouble with financing arrangements, have already shut down. Some 16 ethanol plants either were in bankruptcy or are preparing to file for bankruptcy. Many small and medium sized plants are expected to be mothballed until profit margins improve. Many of the larger plants are working at less than full capacity.

Adding to the woes is the high price of diesel, making hauling grain long distances prohibitively expensive, while grain drying is also adding to the costs of some farmers.

In 2008, therefore, US ethanol production will probably not reach its government mandated target of 9 billion gallons. Production overall will not increase much if at all this year. As a result, commentators expect some farmers to cut back acreage under production next season.

This is an odd situation. One would expect higher the higher prices of gasoline to drive ethanol production, and for farmers to be getting rich on the proceeds, but this isn't happening. In this game, as elsewhere, input costs are the decisive factor.

COMMENT THREAD

Watered down

Flagged up in late May and again in early June, it has come to pass that the EU parliament has voted to change its rules on group membership.

The MEPs have raised the minimum number of members needed to form a political group from 20 members representing six different countries, to at least 25 representing seven. The move was approved by 481 to 203 against, with 26 abstaining from the vote. We understand this will apply from 2010, when the new parliament session starts.

The change represents a substantial watering down of the original proposal, which was to require a threshold of 30 MEPs from a quarter of the EU's member states before a group could be formed.

Currently, there are seven political groups at the parliament and 30 unattached members. The new rules would only affect two group: the eurosceptic Independence/Democracy group, which currently has only 22 MEPS from nine countries; and the Union for Europe of Nations group, which has 43 MEPs from six countries.

However, raising the hurdle will undoubtedly make it much more difficult for the Tory MEPs to fulfil David Cameron's promise to break away from the EPP and form a new group. Numbers will not be a problem, but getting seven countries (including their own) may be problematical.

If the Tories ever do make it, one suspects the "colleagues" will be back. The 25/7 rule can only be an interim step. Soon enough, they will be raising the barrier even higher.

Once the ~~constitutional~~ Lisbon treaty is in force, the number of MEPs will be 751 from 27 countries. One wonders how long it will take for the group membership requirement to be raised to 751 members, at last formalising the effective status of a one-party state.

Daniel Hannan, as you might expect, is not very happy.

COMMENT THREAD

Fly the (burning) flag

The EU is now undemocratic, corrupt and isolated from those it claims to represent. The public are only "listened" to when they vote in accordance with the plans of federalist bureaucrats. This t-shirt is for Europeans who love their countries and other Europeans but hate the EU. Burn the flag! Printed on olive green organic cotton t-shirts (made in the USA by Royal Apparel). Designed by a European.

End of an era?

Standpoint, the new rightish-wing magazine, of whose launch I wrote a little while ago, has its second issue out and full of interesting stuff it is, too. The article most relevant to this blog, much as I would like to discuss Julie Burchill's imprecations against women journalists who become misery tourists when they get to the sea, sand and tall Muslim men, is Frank Field's column.

We can but applaud his first statement though I rather suspect that a number of eurosceptics have a weird hankering for the full disastrous system that Attlee's government built.

There is a palpable sense that British politics is at the end of an era which began with Attlee’s victory in 1945. The post-war consensus was only partially dismantled by Mrs Thatcher. New Labour, by embracing the market, tested to destruction the old Labour shibboleth that high public expenditure was the gateway to greater equality.

The Attlee revolution entailed not simply nationalising the commanding heights of the economy but, much more sinisterly, the Government brought most of civil society – apart from the trade unions - under the whip of central government control. Thatcher’s revolution denationalised the industrial sector, blew up the City’s restrictive practices and handed power back to individual trade unionists. What the Thatcherites left untouched was central government’s iron fist, which still controls how most of the 42 per cent of national income is spent.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with some unfortunate member of the Conservative Party in which he yet again bemoaned the fact that Frank Field would not cross the floor and join the Conservative Party. "Maybe that's because he does not believe in socialism," - I said perhaps more tartly than was necessary.

Mr Field himself is rarely lost for tart words himself. Who among us would not smile at the second sentence in this paragraph?

One effective way for Gordon Brown to revive his government would be to establish pilots so that these six proposals become stepping stones to his 2010 manifesto. Alternatively, David Cameron might nail his colours to the mast, rather than the fence.

Mr Field then proceeds to make six proposals himself. Some of them we can agree with, others seem more dubious. Most certainly greater control of the education system by parents is an excellent idea.

However, it is the last one that makes one stop in one's tracks:

Sixth, initiating a democratic blood transfusion. Democracy is at the heart of British society, but it is in urgent need of medical attention. Only 22 per cent of the electorate elected the current Government. Power needs to be moved back from the parties to the voters by instigating open primary elections in safe seats. Similarly, given the failure of the police to respond to public concerns, chief superintendents, who decide day to day policing strategy, should become electable. While such a strategy will not make good the obvious shortfall we have in policing manpower, it would ensure that existing resources were deployed most effectively. The local electorate would set the targets by which the chief superintendents would be judged.

Indeed. But why stop at the police? Why not have local councils raise their own income through whatever means they see fit and stand in elections on that?

Above all, why not look at the two Houses of Parliament? How about a democratic blood transfusion there? Here is a really interesting idea, Mr Field: how about restoring legislative powers to our own Parliament? Moving on from there, how about MPs abandoning those powers they have arrogated themselves over local government, organizations that should be allowed to run themselves and individuals? You never know, people might start turning out for elections and, even, start acquiring some minimal respect for politicians.

A Letter from Limburg

Alsoo een yegelick kennelick is,

It took the Dutch lower chamber three months to wrestle its way through the maze of paperwork of the Lisbon Treaty last year. It gave the Senate just three weeks to do the same. During this time, the Dutch government responded to more than 200 carefully formulated written questions; a curious statistic when they had claimed that they would require at least 6 months to handle the same number of questions about Iraq. As Socialist Party representative Tiny Kox (yes, that is his name) wondered, is it because Iraq is so complex, or because Europe is so simple.

Either way, yesterday, 8th July, the very last day before the Summer Recess and the government begins its paid jaunts to exotic conference venues, the Senate voted 60 - 15 in favour of "voorstel van rijkswet 31.384" - "Goedkeuring Verdrag van Lissabon" and so ratification becomes a fact.

With the recent citation of the admirable American Declaration of Independence, I cannot resist stealing an idea from a colleague over at Klein Verzet and offering the following translation from the beginning of the Dutch Act of Abjuration, the Dutch declaration of independence from Spanish rule in 1581:

"As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives."

Act of Abjuration, 26 July 1581.
Translation, copyright University of Groningen.

Photo: First page of the "Plakkaat van Verlatinghe" ("Oath of Abjuration" in English). Source: Dutch national archive (http://www.nationaalarchief.nl). Date 26 July 1581, reproduced with permission.
Copyright 2001 - 2007, Nationaal Archief.

Political discussions

This is a subject of some interest to me, as I have been surrounded by political discussions since my birth and have contributed a small mite myself. Indeed, it has been pointed out to me that in some ways (not in political views but in attitude to discussion) I resemble the Cambridge professor in Tom Stoppard's last play, "Rock and roll".

So, naturally, I find it interesting when other people blog on the subject. Here is one of my favourite American bloggers, Neo-neocon, discussing how to conduct debates. She also links to an old but supremely relevant article by Owen Harries. There are also some genuinely interesting and thoughtful comments. Enjoy.

Not a bad idea?

The dreaded EU, we are told, is planning to open its own police stations in UK – another of its ploys to bring Brussels closer to its citizens.

This comes from Michele Alliot-Marie, interior minister of France, said that putting multi-lingual police stations in cities and regions popular with tourists could help win back voters disillusioned with the EU.

Under the proposal, police officers from member states would man stations in major tourist zones to assist their fellow nationals. Britons robbed in say, the south of France, would be able to speak to a British policeman about their case. Likewise, a Frenchman assaulted in London would be able to speak to a French officer in the capital.

We are assured that, "These would not be monstrous mega-police stations, but rather offices where people from a foreign country can come and be assisted when they have something nasty happen to them - if they've been attacked or had their pockets picked - and where they will be well looked after."

If it wasn't for the fact that this was coming from the EU – which always wants to politicise these issues – this strikes me as a rather good idea. Dealing with the French police can be rather trying, as I recount from when I had my laptop stolen in Paris, over on EU Referendum 2.

COMMENT THREAD

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Glacial speed?

Announced yesterday by László Kovács, the EU taxation commissioner, was a plan permanently to reduce VAT on a range of goods and services.

This has been picked up by The Daily Telegraph business section, which reports: "EU plans to lower VAT could help Britain's service sector".

The paper focuses on the "cost of eating out, hairdressing and elderly care", which "could fall because of European Commission plans to reduce VAT rates on labour-intensive services." These follow, we are told, "experiments started in 1999 to see whether reduced VAT rates would boost job creation and combat the black economy."

Interestingly, though, cutting back VAT on restaurants and hairdressers has a much later provenance, dating to January 2006 when then president Jacques Chirac put this on his shipping list as a way of boosting the French economy. Only now, over two years later, does it reappear, but with a commission rather than a French label on it.

Another thing that has crept in is the reduction on VAT for the "renovation and maintenance services provided to places of worship, cultural heritage and historical monuments" something for which there has been a strong campaign in this country – which Gordon Brown has resisted.

Not included, though, is the object of the Taxpayers' Alliance campaign, the reduction of VAT on ordinary building repairs and renovations, which means flood victims – amongst others – are going to have to continue shelling out to restore their homes.

But the biggest omission is Brown's headline-grabbing initiative from last month – his plan to exempt "greenie" goods like energy-saving light bulbs and home insulation material. Not a mention of it finds its way into the commission’s plan, amounting to a clear snub to the British prime minister.

The greatest joke of all, though, is that the commission initiative is supposed to be aimed at reducing the burdens on small businesses, recognising that it is small businesses which generate the employment growth in the economy. But, if it has taken since 1999 – by its own estimation – just to come up with a proposal, then this is hardly indicative of a vibrant, dynamic organisation, capable of responding to fast-changing circumstances.

By contrast with the speed of the commission, glaciers are positively fast.

COMMENT THREAD

Could this be the answer?

Earlier today I was asked by the BBC Russian Service to be one of the "resident experts" on the ~~Constitutional~~ ~~Reform~~ Lisbon Treaty while various listeners and readers of the BBC Website took part in what was a discussion only in the way the Toy Parliament in Brussels/Strasbourg conducts debates. Different people made different points and the two "resident experts" were asked for their opinions from time to time.

Two things impressed me: the widespread interest in the subject both in Russia and Ukraine (possibly for the same reason that so many of us are more interested in American than British politics) and the reasonable level of knowledge and articulateness with which the various points were made.

One particular opinion and suggestion for a solution of the problems made my day. The problem is, explained Sasha from Kursk (yes, that's right, the place of the great tank battle), that all sorts of unimportant countries have the temerity to pretend that they are the equal of the only three great powers of the Continent: Britain, Germany and Russia. All others are simply peripheral and it is ridiculous for "us" to share power with them. The three should simply take over. The British Prime Minister could be the President, the German Chancellor the Foreign Minister and Putin could be the President of the European Parliament. Problem solved.

I was greatly taken by this idea, especially by the thought of putting Vladimir Putin in charge of the Toy Parliament, though it did occur to me that he might have meant Medvedev (Putin's mishka) but had forgotten who the Russian President was.

There is another problem. Would France take all that kindly to the idea of being just a peripheral country who should not presume to equality with the three great powers of Europe?

Czech Republic signs agreement with USA

Condoleezza Rice has signed an agreement in Prague for the placing of a radar tracking system in the country. The deal has to be ratified by the Czech Parliament (who has already ratified the ~~Constitutional~~ ~~Reform~~ Lisbon Treaty though the President has not signed it) and the BBC thinks it is highly unpopular in the country.

There were demonstrations against the agreement but the level of unpopularity remains questionable.

Anti-Americanism is not precisely new

One does not have to go back too far in history, just a few decades, to recall the endless anti-American demonstrations in many parts of the world and the snarling contempt directed by the Europeans at Americans, both at home and abroad. While I accept that politicians running for office in the United States feel the need to blame the Bush Administration for something that has been going on for at least since the Second World War, maybe longer, I fail to see why those who do not wish to garner political benefits should suffer from memory hole syndrome.

For reasons of other work (yes, there is a world out there) I have been reading Whittaker Chambers’s letters to Bill Buckley, published as “Odyssey of a Friend”, in 1969 and, apparently, reprinted in 1987. I may have mentioned before that I admire Chambers and consider him to be one of the truly heroic and pivotal characters of the twentieth century. Indeed, the battle-lines that he drew up with his testimony against Alger Hiss are, in many ways, still there.

He was, however, a difficult personality, given to prophet-like pronouncements of doom, never quite explaining what it is that the West needs to understand in order to fight the apocalyptic battle with the forces of evil. Quite possibly, he never really worked it out himself. Certainly his portentous analyses of political events, which, according to him, he alone understood, have a hit and miss quality.

His letters tend to be rather long and full of amusing accounts as well as interesting political and cultural comments. They are also full of self-analysis and self-laceration. It is worth sifting through all that sand in order to find the nuggets of gold, nuggets that must have been far more common in his conversation if Buckley’s account is anything to go by.

In 1959 Chambers and his wife visited Europe, meeting again many of the other ex-Communist fighters like Arthur Koestler, and travelling round the place. There is a long letter from Venice that is full of angry imprecations against just about everyone: American politicians, American tourists and Europeans who diddle the tourists while despising them for being gullible. These are all easy targets and it is understandable why Chambers became so angry.

In the midst of it all he gives an interesting account of what he thinks is happening. Fifty years on, it is still of relevance:

Europe belongs to the 20th century. In fact, it's getting there at great speed. Though I do not quite agree with Forrest Davis’ [conservative American writer and journalist] on the political or economic federative score (the certain tempor of it), that is the direction.

I disagree with him decisively about the future joy of Pan-Europe for us. Give them the means, and these dear friends, that noble Third Force, will cut our bloody throats. As people, they are stronger than we are, and they know it – I mean as individual people amounting to a mass, they are stronger. In the mass they loathe us.

At another level, their disdain for us is withering. At their most understanding or compassionate, they neither hate nor loathe; it’s just that they cannot help being conscious of a difference that superior breeds feel in the presence of others. Often they show it most by their effort not to show it. Give these superior breeds the economic power to see us "at eye level" (I think was Forrest’s phrase) and they will see right over us.

They have been seeing through us for years. Don’t imagine that this prospect pleases me. The anti-American climate here enrages me. It is immensely part of my being fed up.

I think Chambers was underestimating the growing envy of America – those “superior beings” were beginning to feel deep down that they were not really superior. But one can understand what Chambers is trying to do here. It is what many of us have been trying to do all these years: to analyze and understand the reason for the irrational anti-Americanis of Europeans (and that includes the British).

Priceless!

We have had no warming for eleven years, the current global temperature is the lowest it has been since 1999 and snow is lingering on the North American continent for longer than in living memory. We have serious papers suggesting a very real possibility of global cooling and sunspots have all but disappeared.

So, what do The Daily Telegraph hacks do?

Well, under the heading, "European monsoon brings summer deluge", Nick Allen and Laura Clout (she of little) write a turgid piece about the wet British summer. They tell us that, "according to climatologists the seasonal rains are brought by winds rolling off the Atlantic which drive depressions east across the UK and into the continent."

This phenomenon, we are gravely informed, "happens to varying degrees in about seven out of 10 years and can be influenced by atmospheric changes elsewhere in the world." Factors include the shifting of the sub-tropical jet-stream from south of the Himalayas to north of the Tibetan plateau, early warming of the north Pacific Ocean and the disappearance of snow and ice from northern Canada.

Thus, we get this priceless offering: "Climatologists believe the European monsoon may become an increasingly noticeable summer event in future years because of global warming."

And they wonder why we don't take these blathering fools seriously?

COMMENT THREAD

London calling

Too late back to write a proper post, so have a pic ... of central London! This is St James Park, looking east, in the general direction of Horse Guards. In the steaming rain, I just thought it was so atmospheric as to be unmissable.

Normal (well, as near as it gets) service in the morning.

COMMENT THREAD