That wonderful, impartial BBC

Dated 22 Jun 2004 (Column WA119/120) in the Lords' Hansard, Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government whether the BBC received any funding by way of grant or loan from the European Union in the period 2000–04; if so, what was the amount paid in each year; and for what purpose.

The answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey) was to the point:

BBC's producers' guidelines make clear that co-funding from any third party is not appropriate for programmes aimed at a general audience. But the BBC does receive some EU funding for some specialised educational and support material (such as basic literacy and IT skills training for adults).

For the period 2000–03, the BBC expected to be paid £375,828 by the European Social Fund to help to pay for community outreach work (workshops, publicity, telephone support, databases) among learners and tutors using the BBC's online Skillswise and WebWise sites, which provide literacy, numeracy and IT skills resources.

For the period 2003–04, the BBC is expecting to receive a sum of between £130,961 and £139,959 in support of a pilot project which provides specially versioned online resources (basic skills and English as a second language) which are being used in community centres, learning centres (including UK online centres) and colleges.

The corporation also participates in various initiatives relating to the digitalisation and preservation of archives, which is funded from the Commission's R&D framework programme, the sums received or expected for these purposes being £74,837 in 2000, £52,024 in 2001, £133,394 in 2002, £195,125 in 2003 and £146,500 in 2004.

The World Service Trust is an independent charity which is not a division of the BBC, but it has also received some EU funding for media literacy, training and reconstruction projects across the world as follows:

1999–2000 £137,373 2000–01 £527,432 2001–02 £490,703 2002–03 £865,119 2003–04 £1,167,251

The BBC does not borrow from the EU, although its commercial subsidiaries do borrow from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for commercial purposes.

Interestingly, the Lord McIntosh does not set out the details of the borrowing from the EIB, and nor does he state what those "commercial purposes" are.

Reference to the EIB site, however, does reveal that a loan facility of £25 million has been made available to BBC Worldwide Limited "to finance the expansion of BBCW's investments in BBC's new productions over the period 2002-2004".

BBCW's portfolio of programmes, it helpfully adds, "focuses on news, education (incl. digital curriculum) and entertainment (incl. children programmes and music)". Er... news... education?

Interestingly, that is the only detail given on the EIB web site, but the BBC’s own annual accounts reveal that the EIB has in fact made two loan facilities available to "BBC Commercial Holdings".

The first, for an amount of £66 million, is available for drawing until March 2005 and must either be repaid in full as a single repayment by March 2013 or on an amortising basis by March 2015. The second, which is the one for for £25 million, is available for drawing until November 2003 and is repayable in one single instalment by November 2007.

It then adds the intriguing information that, as at 31 March 2003, nothing had been drawn down under either of these facilities, which invited the question of why the money was applied for in the first place.

This notwithstanding, the money is tainted. The task of the European Investment Bank, which is the European Union's financing institution, is – according to its own definition - to contribute towards the integration, balanced development and economic and social cohesion of the Member Countries.

The key word here is "integration", a political objective which – as some readers may be aware - is not at all uncontentious. One cannot imagine that the EIB could or would advance a massive loan facility to an organisation that did not support its overall aims, to which extent the very fact of the award is evidence that the BBC has bought into the European integration project.

Come the EU referendum campaign for real, this will become an increasingly serious issue, and one that should attract the attention of all members of the "no" campaign – once it's chosen the carpets for its offices and ordered the paper clips.

Quote of the week

When our politicians talk about promoting “innovation”, what they usually mean is more R&D hnadouts (always welcome by the business community as a disguised form of subsidy), more working groups, more bureaucracy, and more spending on education at a time when public coffers are empty and deficit limits are broken.

This sentence comes from an article, entitled Brussels Needs a New Vocabulary of Reform, by Ann Mettler, executive director of the Lisbon Council, a Brussels-based advocacy group in today’s Wall Street Journal Europe.

It is a pity that Ms Mettler’s clear grasp of the symptoms is spoilt by her lack of understanding of the underlying causes. As long as Brussels is to provide the the answers they will consist of working groups, documents, growth plans, innovation platforms, the whole caboodle of bureaucratic structuralism, because that is all Brussels can do.

There is no European problem to which Brussels can provide an answer and there are no European answers. In order to have pan-European solutions, we need pan-European problems and that is what the high panjandrums of the European Union are creating.

Stop Press

ORDER RESTORED IN BRUSSELS

Last night 12 Britons [shurely 11? -ed *] describing themselves as "UKIP MEPs" were reported to be "queuing up in an orderly fashion" to collect their lavish £172-a- day expenses. Said their leader Kilroy "The lads got a bit carried away on the big night, but it was just a bit of harmless high spirits."

Later the 12 hooligans were seen in one of Brussels legendary 5-star restaurants, "Chez Woy", tucking into several large plates of gravy, a famous local delicacy.

* one on holiday in Majorca

(lifted from Private Eye, No 1109 25/6-8/7/04)

Slagging off journalists

Regular readers of this Blog will already have discerned that the two favourite occupations of its editors – and this one especially – is slagging off politicians and journalists. And not necessarily in that order.

In recent days, we've had a go at the venerable Michael Gove, he of The Times, and the egregious Andrew Marr, the BBC's guru on all things political. Today, we turn to that great economics sage, the wise and indisputably famous Anatole Kaletsky, who has filled today's op-ed in The Times with several columns of EWM (Extruded Written Material) – somewhat more lethal than Iraq's WMD.

But, before launching a diatribe at this poor (albeit well-paid) and otherwise inoffensive scribe, we thought it might be as well to explain why the practitioners of the trade attract our continued ire.

Cutting to the bottom line, the simple issues are those of power and responsibility. No one (sensible, at least) will disagree that those who have access to the columns of the national newspapers have considerable power, not least to shape the agenda and – over term – influence and even direct events.

This sets the trade of journalism apart and it is not unfair to suggest that with power goes responsibility – the duty (to use that old-fashioned word) to get it right.

This does not, of course, rule out msitakes – which we all make, especially when information is incomplete or the writing is rushed – speculation (which is fair game), or opinion, but one does expect the basic facts to be understood and to be conveyed accurately.

What one sees in too many of the contemporary journalists, however, is a phenomenon which can only be described in technical terms as "pig ignorance", the most basic of howlers of the type that we find in Gove's writings, where he confuses the "Council" with the "European Council", or even the admission from Marr to the effect that he can't even be bothered to find out what is going on.

At the root of all this, we feel, is idleness – the basic sloth for which hacks are famous worldwide – in their unwillingness to do the work needed to get to grips with an issue. For something as complex as the European Union, they cannot just rely on the lessons in civics delivered in primary school (if they got that far) or a few Commission press hand-outs.

This is a subject replete with propaganda and misinformation, where it is necessary to get out there and do some serious study, and take the time to find out what basically makes the system tick.

But we detect that there is also another dynamic at play – the "above the line" syndrome, to which the likes of Gove are all too susceptible. They suffer from their own estimation of their value, whereby they are far too grand to admit there is something they do not know, and far too important to devote their most valuable time actually to learning anything.

By this means, they effectively disqualify themselves from learning and instead rely on their "above the line" status to churn out a never-ending stream of EWM, immune from challenge simply by virtue of their enhanced status. These are the prostitutes of journalism – all power with no responsibility.

So what of the inoffensive Anatole Kaletsky – hooker extraordinaire or simply another "above the line" blunderer? Judge for yourself with this golden offering from his op-ed:

…refocusing the EU on its original economic objectives would advance the cause of political integration between those countries which wanted to move along this road, giving them a golden opportunity to create new institutions outside the EU framework though closely connected with it, to develop their federalist ideals.

The point, of course, is that the original objective of the EEC (which later became the EU) was political integration. This, at the time, being unattainable overtly, its founders decided on limited but progressively increasing economic integration in order to achieve that end. Anyone who does not know that, and thus turns history completely on its head, surely has no business being in the commentary game, much less taking up space in The Times.

Perhaps it is apposite, therefore, that the BBC has announced it is setting up a "college of journalism" in an attempt to improve the skills of its staff. One could suggest three students for the first courses: Messrs Gove; Marr and Kaletsky, and possibly even Kilroy-Silk if he ever chooses to go back to his day job.

However, given the obvious limitations of the BBC, one dreads to think what it will in fact be teaching its students, and the very real fear is that the output will not be any improvement on what went in. Failing that, there is no alternative but for these so-called experts to break out of their own bubbles of ignorance and get down to work, learning something about the subject before again holding forth so freely.

But, as has been enjoined so often in the Blog, don't hold your breath.

A far-off country that could be important

Slovakia's appetite for the European Union has been diminishing. It had a low turn-out of just over 50 per cent for the referendum and in the recent elections it came bottom of the poll with just 20 per cent voting. Its politicians have been mulling over the new Constitution.

To be precise they would have been mulling it over if there had been a text available. This will not happen till September, according to a Foreign Ministry spokesman.

In the meantime, there has been some disagreement as to how the new treaty that brings in the Constitution should be ratified. Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda first announced that a simple majority of deputies will be enough to pass the Constitution through parliament.

The Justice Minister, Daniel Lipsic, thinks otherwise. Having consulted the Ministry's constitutional lawyers, he has come to the conclusion that the new Constitution will mean important changes to the Slovak constitutional order and will, thus, require a two thirds majority in parliament.

The constitutional lawyers, incidentally, have come up with a somewhat unusual interpretation of the term subsidiarity. According to them:

The EU constitution implies, under the so-called subsidiary principle, that the EU member countries give up some of their customary decision-making powers in areas where the EU mechanisms are prominent.

This is probably more accurate than the usual analysis but is unlikely to be viewed with favour by the Commission spokespersons.

According to the Slovak Spectator, an English language weekly, the ruling Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) has decided to push for a referendum. As far as we can tell, this is the first firm indication of a possible referendum in the new member states.

Only seven days to go

It seems that the leaders of the EU member states will revert to their usual method of choosing the Commission President. They will have dinner on June 29, the last possible day on which to agree. The dinner will be in Brussels, a place known for its good food. Our readers will, no doubt, be relieved that life will continue to be comfortable for those who casually sign away our freedoms.

In the meantime I have been informed that the old Commission can carry on into the autumn, even if there is no sign of a new President and, therefore, of new Commissioners. Old Commissions always do carry on. Many of our readers will recall the astonishing spectacle of Jacques Santer's Commission resigning, only to return about half an hour later as an Acting Commission.

Incidentally, M Dehaene’s name as a possible President has been floated recently. An astonishing idea.

Who is in the running still? Sir Peter Sutherland, who seems to have edged into lead position, Guy Verhofstadt, we assume, though he is rarely mentioned by reporters, José Manuel Barrosso, the Portuguese Prime Minister, who is likely to be blackballed by the Chirac and Schröder for his active participation in the “coalition of the willing” against terrorism, Javier Solana, who is more likely to want the EU Foreign Minister’s job and the former French Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier.

In addition we must not forget Bertie Ahern who says nay but then hums and has and refuses to take his name off the list.

As they say, watch this space.

A carve-up in the offing?

Elaborating on those pronouncements on the EU made by Nicolas Sarkozy (see previous story), they certainly prove – if nothing else – that all French politicians are the same under the skin, whatever shade they come in.

What is exercising Sarkozy is the belated realisation that the European Union of 25 member states is not quite the same cosy little cartel that it was with six or even fifteen members, and that adjustments must be made to the balance of power.

What he is going for is a typical French solution - the directoire option: a small group of inner nations (with France at the centre, of course) to run the show.

Blair is said to favour this idea of France moving away from the "exclusive" dialogue with Germany – although he would almost certainly get fleeced by Sarkozy – but it seems that the views of the smaller countries, often dismissed as "the dwarves", have not been canvassed.

With the constitution not yet in the bag though, countries like the Netherlands may be looking askance at developments and wondering whether they still want to be part of what is beginning to look suspiciously like an old-fashioned "great power" carve-up.

What on earth are the French up to?

First we are told that President Chirac is still mulling over whether to have a referendum on the EU Constitution. Then we hear that former President Giscard d’Estaing has announced on the basis of goodness knows what that the referendum will probably be next spring. Exactly what is M Giscard d’Estaing’s position in the French government?

Meanwhile, the Socialist party appears to be split over the Constitution. The former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius has proclaimed himself to be rather "reticent" on the subject (does he mean ambivalent?). He will, he thinks, find it hard to cheer for a document that will not solve any problems.

His colleague, the former Minister for Europe, Pierre Moscovici, has announced that he is in favour of the Constitution but has added that the referendum will be a risk that they will have to run and win.

The Greens, too, are split on the subject, though that is clearly a pan-European problem. (They do exist occasionally.) Generally speaking they are europhile but some of them think that there is too much of a liberal agenda in the Constitution. It is not clear how they managed to find anything resembling a liberal agenda in that most illiberal of documents.

President Chirac's greatest danger, as so often, does not come from any of the opposition parties but from his own. Nicolas Sarkozy, the Economics Minister is snapping at his heels, having made it clear that he intends to run for president in 2007.

Contradicting M Chirac publicly, Sarkozy has announced that useful though the Franco-German axis was, it had to be supplemented in the enlarged union. His idea is that the EU should be run by a kind of a coalition of the willing or, at least, the large. Countries with populations of between 40 million and 80 million should form a lose alliance to dominate the politics of the Union. These would be France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy and Poland. I think one can safely say that these ideas, when they become public, will find little support in the other 19 countries.

M Sarkozy, fresh from defending all sorts of state bail-outs in France against the Commission, has also told journalists that he intends to introduce all sorts of reforms in France to ensure that its stalled economy takes off again.

Among other reforms, he wants to do something about the 35 hour week, which is costing France an estimated 16 billion euros (c.£10.6 billion) a year. And he wants to balance the books and bring the French budget back into the Growth and Stability Pact.

It is hard for a French politician not to be statist or dirigiste. M Sarkozy is no exception. He wants supermarkets to reduce their prices by two per cent in order to stimulate the economy. His original idea had been to introduce price controls.

And we think our politicians are all over the shop.

Learning from history can be tricky

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal Europe carried an article by Robin Harris, consultant director of the think-tank Politeia, that was based on its recently published pamphlet Why Britain Needs a Foreign Policy?. The article's title was a little more direct: What Would a British Foreign Policy Look Like?

Well, what would it look like? Not surprisingly, Mr Harris takes the view that a British foreign policy should be based on British interests. Its key strategic relationship would be with the United States and the cornerstone of its security would be NATO.

It is not Mr Harris's theme to discuss the role of NATO in the twenty-first century, so he assumes that within it Britain would continue enjoying "the twin benefits of being America's closest ally and of being Europe’s militarily strongest nation". (One wonders how long the second of those will remain true.)

There is a slight hint that, perhaps, the EU is not such a good bet from the point of view of defence but no indication that the it is actively undermining NATO. As far as Mr Harris is concerned these are two alternatives but the relationship between them is unclear. That being so, it is not clear why any choice needs to be made.

The article also has some dubious arguments. Apparently, it is not in Britain’s interests to promote democracy in the Middle East, as that upsets our allies. One cannot help wondering who these allies are and what use they are to us.

Oil? Surely, it would be better to buy oil from democratic countries that are less likely to be convulsed by coups, wars and assassinations. Not to mention the not unimportant fact that many of these countries arm, train and finance terrorists.

Then there is Europe. Mr Harris knows his history:

Rather than accept further integration, a realist foreign policy would seek to restore Britain's full freedom of action by disengaging from current restraints. But, recognizing that Britain has always needed to ensure that mainland Europe escapes complete domination by a hostile power, a British government would then set about seeking allies in Europe willing to stand up against the controlling Franco-German access.

How very nineteenth century. So sad that it is no longer realistic. For we are not simply allies with one or more continental countries – we are part of the a Union and our relationship with other member states is not really in the realms of foreign policy.

Besides, there is the small matter of the common foreign and security policy. Mr Harris may think that is a set of easily brushed aside restraints but adopting a common policy goes a long way beyond forming alliances. It means integrating much of our defence structure and, above all, "loyally supporting" the EU’s foreign policy.

Indeed, we must look to formulating a British foreign policy based on British interests. But the starting point will have to be a complete disengagement from the common foreign and security policy and the restoration of Britain's status as an independent country that has independent policies.

Is this the pay-off?

Days after their governments obediently agreed to the new constitution, the Commission has granted the ten accession countries 24 billion euros in economic and social development aid, for the years 2004-2006. Poland receives the largest amount, at 8.2 billion euros, much of it to be spent on modernising its fisheries and fish processing.

The awards were announced during a ceremony in Brussels today - thereby milking the occasion of as much publicity as possible – when EU commissioners Jacques Barrot and Pèter Balàzs handed over the Commission decisions to the Permanent Representatives of the recipient countries. There is no confirmation as to whether they were asked to beg. Not were there any details of the colour of the envelopes in which the money will be placed.

Nevertheless, it was confirmed that Hungary was "awarded" 1.9 bn, the Czech Republic 1.45 bn, Slovakia 1.041 bn euros, Lithuania 895 m, Latvia 626 m, Estonia with 371 m and Slovenia 237 m. Malta and Cyprus, both with GNPs well above the community average, get respectively 63 and 53 million euros.

The "awards", coming so soon after the constitutional treaty has been agreed, and before the accession states are so desperately needed to ratify it, is highly fortuitous.

For details, see Commission press release: click here.

Another landmark, of sorts…

No sooner had we clocked up our first 10,000 hits on this Blog then we reached another landmark of sorts when yesterday, we topped 1,000 hits on the day – 1,109 to be exact. This was largely due to an unsolicited but very welcome testimonial from London-based David Carr on the blog samizdata, who wrote in such glowing terms that we blush as we reproduce it here:

I cannot recommend the EU Referendum Blog highly enough. They dissect and analyse the absurdities and the cant of the European Union in meticulous and compelling detail. Right now, it is the most important blog in Britain (after Samizdata, of course!).

Today, however, hits have continued at a record rate, not least as a result of links placed on other blogs, some from unexpected sources such as Kim du Toit in the United States, and some from less unexpected but nonetheless welcome sources such as James Hammerton.

Others came from writers who are proving to be durable allies Iain Murray and others still from search engines and still more from entries in on-line encyclopaedias.

Yet, despite this widening net of referees, by far the bulk came as "direct hits", either through world of mouth, or returning visitors who have no doubt stored our URL in their "favourite places".

This coming referendum campaign will break several records, not least for being probably the longest plebicite campaign in history – unless you know different – but it will also be the first such campaign in the UK in which the internet plays a significant part. And we believe the "blog" – already revolutionising political discourse in the United States - will play a major and powerful part. We have already discussed the power of the internet in this context, and you might like to revisit our post on the subject click here.

Thus, while the official "no" campaign is still picking its staff, thinking about choosing the carpets for its new offices and not yet stocking up on paper clips, we feel somewhat vindicated in our judgment in starting up this blog, and in investing the time to get it going. It may be a long campaign, but it is also going to be dirty and bitter, so we felt we needed a head start.

Thanks to you, the readers, we feel we have it.

EU Referendum round-up

In the wake of the Brussels agreement last Friday, member states are beginning to firm up on their ratification plans.

Firmly on the fence is the Italian government, with deputy prime minister Gianfranco Fini saying that he expects the constitution to be ratified by the parliament, although he has also stated that, if a referendum is decided upon, he "won't oppose it". He simply does not think it is "a major issue" and even if the referendum did take place and give an negative outcome, "it won't stop the process", he told the Italian news agency AGI.

Also on the fence is France’s Chirac who, despite an election commitment to a referendum, is still only saying "maybe", with a date sometime in the Spring of 2005 pencilled in. Giscard believes that "things do seem to be pointing in the direction of a referendum".

The Greek government, however, has set its face against a referendum. Secretary of State for European Affairs Iannis Valynakis said Wednesday, rejected calls from opposition socialists, saying that "Around half the member states of the EU will ratify the constitution in their parliaments, which is also our tradition here in Greece," A parliamentary vote, said Valynakis, "is no less democratic then a referendum."

Spain, on the other hand, has decided to hold a referendum, "as quickly as possible," according to prime minister Zapatero. "The government has the intention of holding a referendum so that all the citizens can say what they think of the European constitution", he told his parliament. I suspect though, that if that was true (allowing all citizens to say what they think) it would have to be a very big ballot paper.

Portugal has already begun the steps needed to hold a referendum, with prime minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso deciding to "unleash the mechanisms" for organising one. He would announce the date during the autumn session of parliament. "We think it could be held in 2005, probably at the beginning, but we are open to other possibilities," he said.

The Netherlands, however, may beat Portugal to the polls, planning its referendum as early as December this year, in the closing month of its presidency of the EU. Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt is suggesting that the three Benelux countries — Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg — stage their referendums on the same day, which means there could a rash of polls in December.

The Czech Republic and Poland are still probable candidates for referendums, although no firm plans have been announced and the UK still seems to be the back runner, with the poll most likely set for the Spring of 2006. There is no news from either Ireland or Denmark, both of which are required by their constitutions to hold referendums. Germany is, of course, prohibited from holding referendums by its constitution, Malta looks likely to ratify through its parliament and so does Finland.

This leaves the situation at ten countries which are more or less certain to hold referendums, two possibles, four which almost certainly will not, and the others remaining to be accounted for.

Mote and beam

So the UKIP roadshow hit town today – Brussels to be precise – led by Robert Kilroy-Silk, the ex-politician turned chat-show host turned MEP. In his wake trailed Paul Sykes, the millionaire businessman who funded UKIP's Euro election campaign to the tune of £1.1m and contributed hugely to the success of the party.

Basking in the reflected glory, Sykes told journalists in a conference in the European parliament building that one problem which UKIP hoped to rectify by its presence in the parliament was to inform the British people about what was going on. "Over 80 percent of British people know next to zero about this thing that produces 60 percent of the laws that govern their lives," he said.

Kilroy-Silk, on the other hand, told journalists that he had "…great respect for the European Parliament. It is a democratic institution...". On that basis, it looks as if UKIP is going to have to have its work cut out informing its own MEPs about the realities of the European Union, before it can even start telling the British people what is going on.

To see full report click here.

Only eight days to go

In eight days’ time the European Commission will cease to exist and give way to the newly selected one. Except that we still have no President-designate.

A new name has been thrown into the hat, another Irishman, Peter Sutherland, the former Director of the World Trade Organization and present Chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International. He is also seriously rich, a fact that must be in his favour in the notoriously venal world of European politics.

Sir Peter Sutherland (as an Irishman he can have an honorary knighthood only) is a fervent European integrationist and says he hates with great fervour all those petty minded nationalists. Of course, many of us are not all that fond of all those petty minded Europeanists but that does not bother Sir Peter.

At present it is not clear how many states support Sutherland, who says he will not take job unless he has the full support of all 25. Will the French and Germans agree, bearing in mind their attitude to “non-core” member states? Ireland is in the euro but not part of Schengen.

Epolitix today has listed 13 candidates, all more or less in the running. However, as the name of the front runner, Guy Verhofstadt is not included, one can but wonder at its accuracy.

The shadow of Maastricht

As promised, a report on the prime minister's statement to the House of Commons on the Brussels summit on 17/18 June. This, in fact is part one of a two-parter, this dealing with the dealing with the "headline" issues. But, as is often the case, there was also a debate going on within a debate – one almost completely missed by the media. Our second part will deal with that debate.

This was supposed to be the big day, when the parliamentary battle over the constitution started. Blair, as is the custom, came before the House to make a statement on the outcome of the negotiations, thus giving the leader of the opposition, Michael Howard, the chance to take him apart (politically that is). We were about to see the "battle of the giants".

Watching the thing on television, on gains certain impressions which the cold, printed word of the Hansard record simply cannot convey, but having seen the body language, the smirks, and the knowing looks, the words themselves have more meaning. The gaps between the lines are better illuminated.

Wedged into those gaps, pregnant with meaning, was one word… Maastricht, short-hand for the Treaty of the European Union, the last major treaty signed by a Conservative government, the treaty which tore the Conservatives apart and which launched the modern Eurosceptic movement which led directly to the formation of UKIP and its recent electoral success.

The "above the line" battle, however, was about "myths and realities", the battleground staked out by the prime minister, and joined willingly by Mr Howard. After a presentation by Blair – who could not wait to quote Ahern saying that Europe was "not a super state; not a federal state but a group of nations", thereby putting this into the category of "he doth protest too much" – it was Howard's turn.

With evident relish, he tore into the prime minister, listing the "realities" in the constitution – like the public prosecutor – demanding in gleeful cadenced, "where's the myth in that?". It looked good, it sounded good and it seemed to be working. But then it all fell apart.

In his response, Blair – who never looked really uncomfortable under the Howard tirade – bounded back. But his dismissal of Howard’s claims was only the warm-up. His "killer lines" came mid-way through his rebuttal as he glanced over his shoulder to warn his troops what was about to happen. "But let us compare this treaty with the two documents he agreed: the single European Act…. And of course I was looking at the Maastricht treaty to see what it extended…".

One cannot say with finality that there was a "collapse of stout party" but the ghost of Maastricht did exert its baleful effect. Pointing out what had actually been given away by the treaty, Blair then pronounced with mounting glee:

If the right hon. and learned gentleman attacks this (constitutional) treaty, he should have been screaming the place down over Maastricht. Instead, he voted for Maatricht, and he is now left in the ludicrous position of having to argue, somehow, Britain ceases to be a nation state because the rules on diplomatic and consular protection go to QMV.

There lies Howard's weak point, one shared by the Conservative Party as a whole. At the moment, they are sticking to their own fiction that, somehow, everything was fine and dandy until 1997, when New Labour got elected, and then everything started to unravel: Maastricht OK, constitutional treaty not. And, as this debate showed, it is a weak point that Blair will not hesitate to exploit. Furthermore, each time he does so, he wrong-foots Howard.

Until Howard comes to terms with Maastricht, and discovers a form of words that enables him to neutralise Blair’s barbs, he will always find his own attacks blunted. That would be a pity.

To read the full debate, click here.

Marr laments…

In an extraordinary piece in today's Daily Telegraph, BBC political editor and over-paid columnist for the newspaper, Andrew Marr, laments the difficulty in reporting on Brussels. Under the title, "How am I meant to raise interest in Brussels?", he weeps into his cups as he records that:

"Brussels" remains dreadful for my trade, journalism. It isn't just the obvious - the impenetrable jargon, the infinitely slow tennis game between the institutions and the lack of colourful characters that might interest viewers and readers back home. It's more that a perpetual haggle involving 25 countries is bound to produce insufferably slow results and a grey-brown cud of compromise. The very essence of the current union makes it near-impossible to report its story to easily distracted electorates!

"Journalism, he argues, needs events; clashes; colour; argument. It drives many journalists mad…. It's thin pickings. A minor huff by Jacques Chirac must be elevated into Waterloo, The Rematch."

Elsewhere in this Blog, my colleague Helen Szamuely has been running a series called "Are they listening to themselves?" and, with some justice, this question could be turned to the egregious Marr. This is the man who is paid huge amounts of money from the BBC's license payers’ fund to make politics interesting, to make sense of it, and to bring the issues alive. This is the equivalent of a football commentator wingeing about the difficulty of making the cup final look interesting.

Actually, it is worse than that. What is being played out in the offices of Brussels and the capitals of the European Union member states is a battle of infinite subtlety and complexity. But it is also a battle for the heart and soul of "Europe", the outcome of which will determine the political fate of the continent and whether these unhappy lands will descend once more into chaos.

But Marr is embedded in the tradition of personality politics, of "yah-boo-sucks" exchanges, fast-moving action and sound-bites. All of this is passing him by. He has turned up expecting to see a staged wresting match, with its grunts, groans, jeers and cheers, with its clinches, falls and knock-outs.

But he has actually arrived at a chess championship, played by masters without a clock, and he doesn't know what is going on. He doesn't know the rules and doesn't understand the strategy. All he sees is two figures sitting at a table, occasionally pushing carved figures across a chequered board – and he yearns for one or the other to stand up and start beating up his opponent, so he can report on the "colourful characters that might interest viewers and readers back home".

That is the frustration of being on the receiving end of modern journalism. The trade is inhabited by one-dimensional, self-regarding, over-paid figures who spend their lives tracking down the "sound-bite" while the game is played on around them, without their even beginning to understand what is going on. Then, to add insult to injury, we pay our good money for newspapers only to find these dismal hacks in print, parading their ignorance and lack of comprehension – for which they again get handsomely paid.

Oh how nice it would be to have some grown-ups around.

It is more expensive than you think

The highly regarded London think-tank Civitas will be publishing an analysis of the financial costs of the EU membership next month. Here is a preview of their conclusions:

"On very cautious assumptions the total net cost of EU membership is £19.63 billion (£6.33 billion for EU regulation, £9 billion for the CAP and £4.3 billion in net transfers between EU institutions). Based on less cautious, but still conservative, assumptions the cost could be £33.3 billion (£20 billion for EU regulation, with the other costs the same)."

Jolly, huh?

They also find that leaving the EU would carry no costs in the way of jobs or trade. Don't believe it? Read their preliminary findings in a background paper. Click here

Democracy is as democracy does

Commissioner Chris Patten, putative candidate for the presidency of the European Commission and a man who seems to know some European history, unlike the Prime Minister – he mentioned Agincourt and Waterloo as examples of non-agreement between England or Britain and France – seems to be a little unclear on the subject of democracy.

He has told reporters that he deplores Mr Blair's decision to call a referendum, as this would be a serious threat to parliamentary democracy. He then added rather opaquely:

"They [referendums] produce tabloid politics and they are opted for by prime ministers not to open up debate but as a way of closing down debate."

How touching of Mr Patten to care so much about parliamentary democracy. One wonders why he does not feel the same way about the fact that parliament has no right to reject legislation and regulations that are pouring in from the EU, each initiated by that very unparliamentary body: the Commission.

Well, what about that European Public Prosecutor?

On Monday, June 21, the Prime Minister’s rather boastful and vaguely worded statement about his great achievements during what he erroneously called the European Council (he meant the IGC as my colleague has explained) was repeated in the House of Lords as well.

Despite much of the subsequent discussion being dominated by europhile peers who make a point of rejoicing at whatever is agreed on in EU meetings and whatever is imposed on the parliament and people of Britain, there were one or two telling sallies.

Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Opposition, correctly talked about the European Council. He challenged the Prime Minister and his representative in the Upper House, Baroness Amos:

"The Prime Minister's Statement says: This treaty makes clear where the EU can and cannot act".

Will the Leader of the House point to the passage in the treaty that says precisely where that is made clear? There is much more. Where is the bonfire of regulation? Where is the halt to the onward march of integration?

The presidency's conclusions signal legislation on financial services, on professional qualifications and social security co-ordination; common action on copyright and patents; initiatives in consumer protection legislation; measures on air quality, maritime law, biodiversity and climate change; urgent work on corporate governance, action on chemicals, directives on services and a strategy on sustainable development. We have even instructed the Commission to draw up plans for a European gender institute—as if the Gender Recognition Bill before our Parliament is not enough. I shall not read on, but that is just the summary of what has been agreed at the weekend.”

Lord Tomlinson, one of the europhile peers, tut-tutted that Lord Strathclyde was going beyond the actual text of the treaty. As we have no final text of the treaty, this is a very easy thing to do. He then went into the usual refrain:

“Does my noble friend further agree that, in order to achieve the fullest possible participation and informed decision-making in a referendum, it is imperative that the Government find an appropriate way to provide factual information to as wide a group of the public as possible so that we can have a proper public debate based on real information about the treaty and its contents rather than the contents that others have imagined?”

His noble friend, Baroness Amos, needless to say, agreed. However, she did not live up to this noble sentiment. When Lord Lamont asked:

"My Lords, can the Leader of the House explain why, prior to last weekend, the Government stated that they were opposed to the concept of the public prosecutor, even if it were to be preceded by a unanimous decision? Such a post was stated to be unacceptable, even with the unanimity qualification. Why have the Government changed their mind?"

Her reply was a little confused:

"My Lords, we saw no reason to create the post. We have ensured that under the treaty a public prosecutor could be created only by unanimity. That means that our consent would be required to create such a post. However, at the moment we see no reason to create such a post."

Why agree to the post if they see no need for it? Experience tells one that whatever finds its way into a treaty and, presumably, the Constitution, will eventually be realized, whether there is an immediate agreement or not. Clearly, the assumption that if the British Government finds something "totally unacceptable", it will ensure that the Constitution will have no references to it, is completely wrong.

To read the full debate click here

Only nine days to go

In nine days’ time the European Commission will cease to exist. The new Commission will be chosen by the new President in consultation with member states, in time for them all to stand before the European Parliament to be approved of in September.

There is one problem, however: with nine days to go, there seems to be no agreement as to who the next President of the Commission is to be. France and Germany want Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium, mainly because that would annoy Britain and many of the new members, who are not behaving with due decorum and, of course, will cause a major headache in the United States.

Not that the Americans are likely to recognize the name, but they will recall that the Prime Minister of Belgium announced very soon after the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon that the war against terror had nothing to do with America’s allies. They and their NATO allies will also recall that Verhofstadt has been vociferous in his calls for an autonomous euro-army, outside NATO control. Presumably, Belgium proposes to play a significant part in that army.

The rest of us can simply remember that Verhofstadt’s main political aim, on his own account, was to destroy the main opposition party in the Flemish part of the country, the Vlaams Blok, which has been going from strength to strength in the voters’ estimation.

Britain rather half-heartedly proposed Chris Patten, who was rejected because his French is not up to the required standard and because he is British. That has become quite clear with Chancellor Schröder’s spokesman expressing the view that “non-core” countries should not have a say in who becomes President of the Commission.

One assumes that “non-core” means not being part of the eurozone – there are now thirteen countries in that category – and not being part of Schengen – which is a moveable feast, with countries opting in and out of parts of it. As it happens, this is against the EU rules, as they stand. It also annoys a number of smaller countries, who are growing more and more irate with the high-handed attitude of the Franco-German axis.

There are one or two other contenders, most of whom seem to be Portuguese, which is, presumably, a coincidence. Then there is Bertie Ahern. EU leaders are so grateful for his incredible efforts that produced the agreement last week in Brussels that he seems to command more support than anyone else. There is just one problem: mindful, perhaps, of the way Presidents of the Commission have been chewed up and spat out by the politics of the Union, Mr Ahern insists that he wants none of that “grinning honour”, as Falstaff put it.

A failure to understand

No matter how often pundits, learned or otherwise, proclaim that the European Union is unique, most commentators still insist on seeing it within frames of reference with which they are familiar. Unfortunately, they end up failing completely to understand the nature of the Union and, in so doing, struggle to understand what the "project" is all about.

A case in point is Michael Gove, that supremely important Times columnist, who has gravely instructed us over many years in the ways of things political. But, while no doubt savvy in the ways of Whitehall and Westminster, even he appears to have very little idea of how the EU is constructed, and how it is run.

That much is evident from his column in today’s paper, where he pronounces on the functioning of the "European Council", describing it as "the EU's supreme decision-making body".

Gove's first mistake is to confuse the European Council with the Council of Ministers (abbreviated simply to the "Council" in the constitution), which is an altogether different institution within the EU, with different functions, powers and make-up. When he refers to the said "European Council", he actually means the "Council".

As I had cause to do when I wrote an earlier Blog (also on the European Council), I have to warn the reader that this is no mere semantic difference.

The European Council is the institution comprising the heads of states and governments, whereas the Council is the portmanteau term which describes the various sectoral groups of national ministers which meet periodically to approve legislation proposed by the Commission. The two institutions are as different as chalk and cheese.

But Gove's second, and even bigger mistake is in describing the "European Council" – by which he means the Council – as "the EU's supreme decision-making body".

That it isn't thus is self evident from the simple knowledge that the Council increasingly performs a joint function with the European parliament in approving legislation (the process known as co-decision) and is therefore on a par with the parliament. But it also stems from knowledge that the powers of the Council are limited merely to approving the Commission's legislative proposals see separate Blog.

But perhaps Gove's biggest mistake is a reflection of his own limitations – which are entirely understandable – in that he insists on seeing the EU through the filter of his own experiences, and thereby seeks to impose a neat hierarchical structure on the organisation which simply does not exist.

I am sure that, in his ordered little world, Gove sees a neat pyramidal structure, with the Commission as the bottom, as a sort of quasi-civil service, topped by his "supreme" body, the Council. But it ain't like that at all. What we have in the EU is, in all senses of the word, unique. For once the description is not overblown.

In essence, The EU is an institutionalised conflict between two ideologies and two incompatible structures, each co-existing uneasily within the same organisation, locked in a battle for survival from which only one will emerge victorious.

As to the two ideologies, the core of the EU is "supranationalism", this being the Monnet model of a technocratic, centralised government, embodied in the Commission. The other is "intergovernmentalism", supposedly free co-operation between independent, sovereign nation states, with governments coming together to resolve issues of common concern. Within the EU structure, this is currently embodied in the form of the European Council.

Rather than having a hierarchical relationship, these two bodies are in their own ways rival governments of the EU, although as the Union is currently structured, each have their own domains and fiefdoms, with only a few areas of overlap. Largely, the Commission deals with the "low politics" of technocratic micro-management – such as the administration of the Single Market – while the European Council lays claim to the "high politics" of foreign policy, security and defence.

Where the battle lines are drawn is in the areas of overlap, with the Commission continually seeking to break out of its own domain into "high politics", forever getting slapped down by the European Council, which in turn is seeking to extend its own domain at the expense of the member states.

Therein is the underlying tension which dominates the struggle for a "constitution for Europe". Above all else, it is an old-fashioned power struggle between two rival ideologies, each seeking to carve out territory at the expense of the other, and both at the expense of the nation states. As it stands, both get something out of the constitution and the net losers are the nation states.

But until Mr Gove and his fellow commentators get their heads round the basic structures of the EU, they will not even begin to understand these dynamics. We will be returning to them in future Blogs but, in the meantime, Mr Gove could perhaps benefit from reading The Great Deception.

Mr Straw reassures us ... sort of

Up and down the country people have been calculating when the referendum on the Constitution might take place and how its timing will fit in with a general election and the British Presidency of the European Union, due to start on July 1, 2005. The jig-saw pieces do not fit terribly well, and there have been murmurings that the Government may well decide to hold the referendum as late as possible in order to let some other country vote no first.

That will kill the treaty and Tony Blair will be able to relax. Not so, according to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The UK, he tells us, has a solemn obligation to ratify the treaty and that will include holding a referendum, as promised.

This is not an accurate account of what will happen. In fact, the treaty is ratified by the Crown and what Parliament has to pass is an amendment to the European Communities Act. It is that piece of legislation that will go to the people, one assumes, in the form of a referendum. One of the most ferocious arguments will be the wording of the question.

In the meantime Mr Straw, supported by the Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, yet again poured scorn on the concept of the superstate. How they love that expression. It is not going to be a superstate, we are told endlessly and with a visible smirk of superiority. Well, who cares whether it is super or not? It will be a single state and that is what worries people.

Mr Straw, without the support of Signor Frattini this time, also poured scorn on the Conservative Party, its leader and all those who have supported its policy on the Constitution.

“He doesn’t want to discuss the issues. He doesn’t want to accept that he has been peddling myths and lies about this Constitution. He doesn’t want to accept that what happened was a defeat for the Conservatives’ strategy.

“We are delivering a flexible Europe and yet he is still opposed to this.”

Hmm. What is a flexible Europe, precisely? If Mr Straw is that anxious to have an open and reasonable discussion on the subject he might start by making it clear that he understands the difference between Europe and the European Union.

Furthermore, there has been a singular reluctance on the part of the Government, of which Mr Straw is an important member, to discuss the issues. We have had a great deal of vaporous generalization of “the flexible Europe” kind but little in the way of hard facts.

If Mr Straw does want to discuss the issues, he might start by telling us in how many areas has the Government surrendered the veto. He might then tell us precisely what has been gained in Britain’s interests or, at least, what has been retained.

He might then go on to explain why the European Public Prosecutor, whose existence was “completely unacceptable” to Britain not that long ago, is still securely positioned in the Constitution. And finally, at least for now, Mr Straw might like to explain as part of an open discussion of the issues, how handing over our economic policy to EU competence is in Britain’s interest and how it contributes to a “flexible Europe”.

That will do to be going on with.

Myth of the week

The European Union is democratically controlled

Part I – The Council of Ministers

In answer to the charge that "Europe is undemocratic and that power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats," the UK Representation of the European Commission is fond of reminding us that

The most powerful decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, is responsible through its members to parliaments and electorates in every EU country.

Furthermore, it states, "Each country decides how to make its ministers accountable." ref UKREC.

Thus, the Commission effectively argues, because Council members are responsible to their electorates, the European Union is democratically controlled. (It goes on then to describe the role of the European Parliament – we will deal with that in Part II of this piece.)

In order to explode this particular myth – that the Council somehow adds democratic legitimacy to the European Union – we simply need to look at what the Council is, and what it does.

Firstly, the Council itself. In fact there are many "Councils" each dealing with specific policy areas – like environment, transport, fisheries, agriculture, etc. Their members are the sectoral ministers from the member states, each council comprising the same number of ministers as there are member states.

So what do they do?

The answer to that is quite simple – they "legislate". That is, they receive proposals from the unelected Commission, asking them to take powers and/or responsibilities from their member state governments (or to impose obligations on their citizens).

They then turn these proposals into laws, giving the Commission the powers it asks for – often acting by qualified majority voting - thereby depriving their own governments (and/or citizens) of power.

That's it.

From then on, the Commission having been given the power, it keeps it, to exercise as it thinks fit. The Council has no further part to play in the process, unless or until the Commission comes back to ask it to amend or extend those powers (or both).

Does the Council maintain an oversight over how those powers are exercised? No.

Has the Council any power to call the Commission to account over the way it uses its powers? No.

Can the Council remove or modify those powers, if it is unsatisfied with the way the Commission is performing? No.

Does the Council even have the power to ask the Commission for information on its performance? Er… No.

So what is the Council?

In effect, it is a transfer station. On the basis of proposals from the Commission, it handles the process of taking powers from member states, packaging them up and shovelling them into the Commission, for them never to be returned.

Does it ask the electorate in advance - through an election manifesto - what powers it should hand over? No.

And is any record kept of which particular ministers vote for what, so that they can be taken to task by their electorates, if they vote the wrong way? No.

That's democratic?

Worth a read

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has posted a facinating article on the Strauss-Kahn report. It is well worth a read click here.

The Brussels Broadcasting Company

BBC News Online has looked at "some of the myths and realities of the constitution", in a Q&A format. As befits the alternative meaning for its initials, it somehow finds that the constitution is not at all threatening.

We have reproduced its somewhat facile Q&A session, and added some comments of our own, in italics. Comments by readers would be welcome.

Will this lead to a United States of Europe like the USA?

No. The EU constitution is a balance between the demands of those who want more integration and those who want to preserve the rights of the nation states. In some areas, the constitution widens the areas of joint action to be decided by majority voting, into immigration and asylum policy for example. But in other areas, member states can still go their own way (in defence and foreign policy and tax, for example).

Not yet. But the EU constitution represents yet another attempt by the integrationalists to extend the power of the EU in fulfilment of their long-term ambition to create a United States of Europe. As with previous treaties, they have not got all they want, but the constitution represents a significant step towards that goal. And, once they have got the constitution “in the bag”, they will be back for more.

The EU will now have a president and a foreign minister in addition to its parliament, supreme court, civil service, flag and anthem. Is it not therefore a state?

No. These institutions are for specifically European Union functions, and some sound grander than they are. The EU in fact already has three "presidents" - of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. What is new is that the Council Presidency, a post currently held by one member state for six months, will become a permanent position. But the powers of the president will be limited. He or she will not be comparable to the US or French presidents.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck… it is a duck. Despite this, the current national attributes of the EU do not, in themselves make a state, but they represent the milestones achieved in pursuit of that aim.

Does a Foreign Minister mean a common foreign policy?

Not in the EU. There is already a "high representative" for foreign policy and although the new post will be a bit grander, the foreign minister will be able to speak for the EU only when there is an agreed policy - over the Middle East peace process for example. If there is a disagreement, as over Iraq, he or she will be powerless.

The pursuit of a common foreign policy, binding on all membere states, has always been the "Holy Grail" of the European integrationalists. The appointment of a European Union Foreign Minister brings that goal one step closer.

Does the constitution confirm that this is a Europe of nation states?

No. It confirms that the European Union is a compromise. The nation states have given up some of their rights - over the internal market, foreign trade, agriculture, fisheries and the environment for example. So they are not entirely sovereign, by choice. If they want to be entirely sovereign, they can leave the Union.

It confirms that the integrationalists have not yet achieved their final goal. It is a compromise only in the sense that the member states have not given up quite as many powers as the integrationalists demanded. And, to be pedantic, it is arguable as to whether it is the "nation states" which have given up their powers, or their governments. In the latter event, have the people been given the "choice"?

How much does the constitution change things?

It will lead to more qualified majority voting, but the basic institutions will remain. Opponents say that the constitution will lead to further unnecessary integration and that it opens the way to more; supporters argue that such integration is limited and necessary for the common good.

It increases the power vested in the European Union institutions, and gives nothing back. The basic institutions remain but it absorbs the previously intergovernmental European Council into the maw of the European Union as a fully-fledged institution, defining its roles, procedures and powers, thereby making heads of state and government subordinate in important respects to the Commission and the European Court of Justice.

The constitution says that its law is supreme. Will the EU impose its law?

The procedures by which laws are passed have not fundamentally changed. Laws will still be proposed by the executive body, the Commission, and agreed jointly by member states and the European parliament. EU law is supreme in those areas where it has the right to legislate, but that has always been the case.

But a lot more policy areas have been passed to the Commission – so there will be a lot more laws covering many more fields. Furthermore, progressively, the Commission is moving into the field of enforcement – outwith the constitution. This may be happening slowly, but it is also a fundamental change. And the Commission is not the homely "executive body" in the sense that the BBC would like to convey… It is a fully-fledged government of the EU.

Will the Charter of Fundamental Rights interfere with national laws?

The Charter sets out a list of rights from the right to life to the right to strike. The UK government was worried that it might affect national industrial relations laws and says that it will not do so, but the Charter has yet to be tested in the courts.

The Charter most certainly will be tested in the courts – the ECJ is waiting to get its hands on it, and there are few who doubt the outcome.

This won't be the end of EU arguments, though?

No it won't. There will always be tension between those who want to go further and those who want to hold back. Some supporters of a federal Europe might forge ahead in some new areas like tax harmonisation and social security, as they have done with the single currency, the euro. The show goes on.

This gives the game away… "there will always be tension between those who want to go further and those who want to hold back". The trouble is that the process of integration only goes in one direction. Powers which are ceded by nation states are never returned. Each step towards full integration is followed by another, and another, with no end point in sight. The constitution is simply another step on the way and after that, there will be another, and another. This is why the constitution must be stopped.

Are they listening to themselves? - Part IV

With all the attention on the Brussels document with its amendments to the Constitution (or not) it is easy to forget that other matters were thrashed out last week as well.

There was the question of the low turn-out at the European elections, something of a facer, one would have thought. Not a bit of it:

“The European Council expressed its concern at the low voter turnout in last week's elections to the European Parliament. It recognises the need to strengthen a sense among the citizens of Europe of the importance of the work of the Union and its relevance to their daily lives.

Following a preliminary discussion on this occasion, the European Council intends to return to the subject at its next meeting. In the interim, it welcomes the intention of the Netherlands Presidency to take forward the "Communicating Europe" initiative of the Irish Presidency.”

It’s good to know these people live in the real world. How do we make sure that the “citizens” of the European Union learn to love the Union? By interfering with their lives even more.

As for that “Communicating Europe” initiative that, I must confess, I have not heard of until now, it cannot be deemed to have been a huge success. Naturally, it must be carried forward.

Not a semantic difference

It is no wonder that Mr Blair is having difficulty in understanding why people are getting upset about the concept of loss of sovereignty. In his own mind, he seems already to have ceded it, or failed completely to realise what it is.

The clue is given in the opening to his statement to the Commons at 3.30 this afternoon, when he proudly announced that the European Council had agreed to the new treaty.

Wrong Mr Blair. The European Council, as constituted, is an institution of the European Union, set up to give political guidance and direction to the Union. Its members, therefore, sit as members of the European Union.

In fact, it was the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) – an assembly of heads of states and governments of supposedly sovereign nations – meeting outside the framework of the European Union, that agreed the treaty.

The difference is more than semantic. The difference is between an institution deciding its own fate, and free sovereign nations deciding theirs. If Mr Blair cannot understand the difference, it is no wonder he sees nothing wrong with foisting this constitution on us.

We will be analysing in depth Mr Blair's statement, and Mr Howard's response, tomorrow, when we have the Hansard record.

Red lines wavering

Yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph did us all a favour by listing those famous and completely unmemorable “red lines” as well as explaining what happened to them. Since all sorts of things have been named as Tony Blair’s “red lines” – are these different from lines in the sand, one wonders – we should all take the opportunity to glance at the original short list.

The first “red line”, which many of us have forgotten and the government has carefully not mentioned for some time, was the creation of a European Public Prosecutor. “Unacceptable” thundered Blair and Straw. Hmmm. Well, apparently, a corpus of EU law with its own prosecuting authority is acceptable. The nascent European police force, mentioned by the Sunday Telegraph leader was set up a little while ago, with all sorts of rights and privileges. [see III-174(2) on page 20 of the Brussels document but also III-174 and 175 in the apparently unaltered text of of the draft Constitution]

Article III-175(2) of the draft text states:

“The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgement, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of and accomplices in serious crimes affecting more than one Member State and of offences against the Union’s financial interests, as determined by the European law provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.”

So far as we know that has not been amended, much less deleted from the text. Nor was the position and existence of the European Public Prosecutor discussed at the Summit last week.

The second “red line” was the non-judiciability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Though the slightly amended text appears to make various rather vague references to the courts and judicial procedures of the member states, and the need “to give due” regard to the Charter in these courts, the senior judge at the ECJ has said that he would regard that document as legally binding. Experience tells one that judges of ECJ tend to win those tugs-of-war.

What, indeed, could it be, but “legally binding”? If it is not that, then what is it doing in the Constitution?

The third “red line” was foreign and security policy. Though nominally the unanimity has been secured for the framework policies (there has been QMV for individual decisions for some time with a proviso for countries opting out if they felt their national interests were at stake), the relevant text, as quoted by the Sunday Telegraph, is revealing:

“The common foreign and security policy shall cover all aspects of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security. Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly.”

One should recall that the nascent EU force was created for peace-keeping, peace-making, carrying out the Petersberg tasks (another one of those documents nobody can quite remember) and promote the common foreign and security policy.

It is also worth remembering, as the Wall Street Journal Europe pointed out on Thursday, June 17, that no matter what the Constitution says or does not say, the European Defence Agency and the European Foreign Service are going ahead. Had Mr Blair really wanted to defend that “red line”, he might have considered stopping procedures there.

The European Defence Agency, to be operational by the end of the year, is intended to be a common agency for defence capabilities development, research, procurement and armaments. When one adds to that our increasing involvement in the Galileo surveillance system, the EU’s rival to the American GPS, which is available free to end users, the notion of keeping control of our security policy becomes tenuous.

The European Foreign Service has existed, barely noticed, for a number of years. At first, the funding for these offices, some of which were headed by people with ambassadorial ranks, was buried among the various “lines” (though not red ones). Under some pressure the Commission separated the accounts out.

Now the EU corps of diplomats, to be answerable to the EU Foreign Minister, is being created as an official entity. There is no intention to wait for the Constitution to create that particular job. The assumption of its existence is there and his diplomats will descend on all the nicer capitals of the world (there seem to be no plans to open offices in neighbouring Moldova or Belarus), to duplicate or supersede the national embassies.

That leaves “red line” number four, fiscal sovereignty, taxation to you and me. Mr Blair did not preserve that “red line” because it was not on the agenda in Brussels. A number of other member states protested and the issue was quietly dropped as Bertie Ahern was adding up his air miles.

So, the British government is in charge of taxation in Britain? Up to a point. The point being: common rules on VAT, external tariffs, duty free and tax evasion, as well as permissible budget deficits. The individual states in America have more fiscal sovereignty than that.

Furthermore, it is worth remembering, as few journalists have done, that fiscal policy cannot be separated from economic. And what does the Brussels document say on that:

Article I-11 (3)
3. The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by Part III, which the Union shall have competence to provide.

Article I-14 (1)
1. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end, the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies.

As another Prime Minister once said: game, set and match. Unfortunately, British politicians and negotiators do nor seem to do any better than British tennis players. Worse, if anything.

Download available

Courtesy of a Blog reader, Francis Turner, the .pdf format analysis of the Brussels Agreement on the constitutional treaty can now be downloaded directly from this site. To obtain your copy, click here.

Many thanks to Francis Turner. His blog, the maunderings of an Englishman on the Cóte d'Azur can be seen here.

A landmark of sorts

At 9.30 this morning (BST), on the longest day of the year, this blog reached a landmark of sorts. It registered 10,000 hits.

This may not sound a great deal but consider the facts: the blog has been going for eight weeks only and it is run by two people, who, between them try to keep down a number of day jobs as well. We do have some outside contributors, to whom we are very grateful. We hope they will continue to supply us with material and that others will appear.

We are getting no financial support from anywhere, though, as we are contributing a great deal to that discussion on Europe that the europhiles are calling for all the time, perhaps we should apply for some EU funds. (Joke!!!!)

Many of our hits are from new visitors but, equally, there are many returnees and, on average, people stay on the blog for 30 minutes or so. In other words, what we write people want to read.

This can be put down mainly to a widespread desire in this country and elsewhere (we do have readers on the Continent and in the United States) to find out more about what is going on in and around the European Union. And that can be put down to a growing conviction that whatever it is that politicians tell us, it is not the truth.

About half the hits were registered in the last two weeks and that, too, is understandable. Much happened in that time: the European elections with the preceding campaigns across the EU; the results, so painful to our leaders, who are determined to ignore them; the negotiations before the Brussels Summit; the Summit itself and the tortuous, opaque, barely comprehensible document that came out of it.

As we enter the prelimiary skirmishings around the EU Constitution, we predict that many more people will want to read what appears on this blog. News of it has spread by word of mouth and through its electronic equivalent: links and references on other websites and weblogs. We rely on our readers for our advertising.

One more thing: Mr Blair would be very pleased to know that we started the battle between myth and reality some time ago. We have been collecting, analyzing and disproving EU Myths and we intend to go on with that task. As soon as there is a round dozen, we shall send Mr Blair a copy of the collection in either electronic of printed format. We think he might find it useful.

Myths and reality

If prime minister Blair wants to fight the EU referendum on the basis of separating "myths from reality", then he has a personal problem. That problem is quite simple – he, himself does not seem to know the difference between the two. Given this overwhelming handicap, allocating two years for the referendum campaign will not help him.

However, his bigger problem is going to be even more insurmountable. After seven years as prime minister, he has acquired that patina of arrogance that so often infects the holders of this office. He is beginning to treat his electors as if they were stupid.

If I know my fellow man at all well, there is one thing which I believe they will not tolerate. The will accept being kept in the dark – on occasions – they do not particularly object to be neglected, and don’t even mind being insulted, pace "the weakest link".

But what they will not put with is being patronised. That knowing, sneering demeanour that says "I know best" and "You're too stupid to understand so I can feed you any old crap and you'll believe it".

As The Times pointed out today, people can read. A very large number of people are going to read the constitution – or attempt to. There, they are going to find the reality and thus identify the myth-maker that is Tony Blair. Then there will indeed be a "fascinating political battle", as Blair puts it. But he ain't going to win it.

And that is the reality.

It's finished

The analysis of the Brussels summit agreement on the "Treaty Establishing A Constitution for Europe" is finished. The whole sequence starts here.

If you prefer to read the analysis "off-line", or want a "clean" copy, a .pdf version is now available (16 pages). To obtain a copy, either e-mail me at my personal address click here or e-mail us from the "contact us" link on the sidebar (left).

How they see it in Washington

This is what the op-ed in the Washington Times, entitled "Euroskeptics and political reality" has to say on the frantic attempts by the euro-elites to push through the Constitution in the wake of the last, for them catastrophic, election results:

"At 200 pages and counting, the EU constitution is more an exercise in piddling legalities than in promoting the public welfare. While debating constitutional minutiae, European leaders should not ignore the fact that many Europeans simply do not understand how a superstate will benefit them, nor do they care very much. Plowing ahead with fantasies of a continent united while ignoring national sovereignty will not only lead to failure, but will set a terrible precedent for the rest of the international community.

"The United States should not stay too quiet while the process of EU building forges ahead if it appears that smaller nations are in danger of forfeiting their sovereignty. Such silence would undermine U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court and other post-modern institutions."

Click here to read the whole article.

Read this and weep

For many years now – since 1992, to be precise – Christopher Booker, with a little help from me and a great deal from his readers, has carved out a niche in British journalism.

Every Sunday, he churns out "red tape" stories in The Sunday Telegraph that infuriate and appal an ever-growing band of devotees, bringing to public attention the practical effects of the torrent of absurd legislation emanating from that alien form of government in Brussels called the European Union.

Despite that fact that many of the stories that Booker publishes are later picked up by other journalists – often without any acknowledgement – the reaction from the bulk of the "chattering classes" is to treat Booker with lofty disdain. "Oh, that's Booker 'banging on' again", they say, as they dissect the far more important "tittle-tattle" that preoccupies the Westminster village.

As we struggle to bring home the realities of what is happening out there, in the real world, this infuriating, patronising "clever-dickery" prompts one to fantasise about ripping the lungs out of these morons and stuffing them down their throats – such is the despair at getting these mindless buffoons to wake up to what is happening.

No more so is this the case than with the latest raft of stories in today’s Booker column, which focus on the impending disaster arising from the total, absolute, complete cock-up the EU and the British government have made of our waste-disposal policy click here.

"Oh, how tedious", one can hear the clever-dicks say. "We have this constitution thingy to write about, and all Booker can do is bang on about rubbish".

But this time, as Booker writes, it is a Government agency that is warning that the nation is about to be plunged into an unprecedented crisis, "a chaos that the Government is powerless to avoid". Theory is about to collude with practice as the consequences of EU meddling become apparent. Those lame-brained drongos in the EU have spent the last few decades dismantling our arrangements for dealing with toxic waste and replacing it with, er… absolutely nothing.

The immediate problem is that, on July 15, to comply with the EC's landfill directive, 99/31, the vast majority of Britain's 218 landfill sites will be closed to "hazardous waste", leaving only five still open. Vast areas of the country will no longer provide any site licensed to take the two million tons of such waste that we currently bury in ordinary landfill sites - anything from television sets to builders' rubble.

As Booker writes, the Environment Agency itself, in the magazine Your Environment, foresees a "nightmare" in the handling of such waste, with "criminals dumping it illegally" in an epidemic of fly-tipping, "lorries crammed full of it clogging the motorways", and even the collapse of the Government's own "brownfield development programme". And this is only a foretaste of the wider crisis that looms as the various elements of the EU's ambitious waste policy begin to impact on each other.

"But it is timely that this should coincide with efforts to agree a constitution to sanctify the EU's new system of government..", Booker notes. Despite the scale of the catastrophe, "it is just a small part of the price we pay for handing over the running of our country to the form of government Mr Blair this weekend seems happy to cement into place". Clever-dicks apart, it is a price that many of us believe is simply not worth paying.

A role for national parliaments

One of the lies already being broadcast about the constitution is that it gives a greater role for national parliaments, thereby increasing the accountability and democracy of the European Union.

The basis of this mendacity is the "Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality". This provides that if one third of the parliaments of the member states object to a draft legislative proposal from the Commission, on the grounds that it does not comply with the principle of "subsidiary", then "the draft must be reviewed".

But, following that review, the Commission "may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft". In other words, the national parliaments have no power in this matter. The Commission can carry on as before, ignoring entirely the views of the parliaments.

That, in itself is bad enough, but what has not generally been pointed out is how this affects the stature of national parliaments.

In the broader scheme of things, national parliaments are sovereign over their own nations and territories. As sovereign parliaments, they already have the right to reject any proposals from the Commission, and refuse to enact them into national law.

But this protocol changes that relationship. It denies them the power to reject outright any Commission proposals and casts the parliaments in the role of supplicants. They are allowed to approach the Commission and say "pretty please", will you be ever so kind and reconsider one of your proposed laws?

The Commission is then cast in the dominant role. It is not obliged to withdraw its proposal and the parliaments have no powers to demand that it does so. In other words, within the terms of this protocol, democratically elected parliaments are subordinated to the unelected Commission.

Far from increasing the accountability and democracy of the European Union, therefore, this is a profoundly federalising provision which relegates national parliaments to a junior, subordinate position in the hierarchy of the Union. Parliaments will have exchanged their powers for a mere "role" as beggars and supplicants.

Back to the treadmill

We have posted another Blog in the sequence on Friday’s Brussels agreement on the constitution – this one on "enhanced co-operation" click here. It's amazing what a period spent lying down in a dark room does for the thought processes.

And it appears that we are not the only ones suffering. We’ve had a number of agonised communications from readers who are finding the text very difficult to understand, not a few asking whether they are going mad. If it is any consolation, however, the answer is "no". The sign of madness is if you do understand it.

We will post the remaining analyses of the Brussels agreement today and then get down to the more entertaining work of being rude about politicians.

You couldn't make it up

Annex 17 of CIG84/04, otherwise known as the document agreed on in Brussels on June 18. The new text will be added to the Constitution.

Article IV-10 new (2)

2. This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.

Declaration for incorporation in the Final Act re Article IV-10 (2)

The Conference considers that the possibility of producing official translations of the Treaty in the languages mentioned in the second paragraph of Article IV-10 contributes to fulfilling the objective of respecting the Union's rich cultural and linguistic diversity as set forth in paragraph 3 of Article I-3 of the Treaty. In this context, the Conference confirms the attachment of the Union to the cultural diversity of Europe and the special attention it will continue to pay to these and other languages.

The Conference recommends that those Member States wishing to avail themselves of the possibility recognised in Article IV-10(2) communicate to the Council, within six months from the date of the signature of the Treaty, the language or languages into which translations of the Treaty will be made

I'm losing it...

Will someone please tell me what the *&!%)+" $^&* this means?

"Where a provision of the Constitution which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall act unanimously, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article I-43(3), may decide to act by qualified majority." (Article III-328 (1))

It's not me, honest... nah, it can't be... nah... please, nah...

I'm going to lie down in a dark room. I may be some time.

So much noise, so little substance

Last December the great leaders of the European Union failed to agree on its Constitution. Apparently after almost two years of discussion and negotiation there were insuperable barriers between the various member states.

After six months, many thousands of air miles covered by Bertie Ahern, more rows and negotiations as well as a set of European election results that can best be described as catastrophic for those self-same leaders, we have an agreement. Tony Blair, looking pale and bleary-eyed sounded his usual pompous self when he spoke about it:

"A new Europe has taken shape," the Prime Minister said. "A Europe in which Britain can build alliances and feel at home." What on earth is he talking about?

Describing the Battle of Valmy, fought by the ragamuffin armies of Revolutionary France and the professional troops of Prussia and Austria on September 20, 1792, Goethe said: “ From this place and from this day forth commences a new era in the world's history, and you can all say that you were present at its birth.”

Though the battle itself was more of a skirmish, the comment was accurate enough. The ragamuffin armies stopped the professional troops, effectively lifted the siege of Paris, saved the Revolution, made all its developments possible and, one might say grandiloquently, ushered in the modern world with all its good and bad aspects.

The sorry spectacle of the EU leaders stumbling out, clutching (metaphorically speaking) a verbose, complicated and barely comprehensible document cannot be described in those exhilarating terms. The new Europe looks remarkably like the old European Union with a few extra notches. In what way is Britain going to feel at home in it? For that matter, in what way is any other country going to feel at home in it?

As for alliances, well, anyone who knows any European history (Mr Blair not being among them) can recall all sorts of alliances Britain managed to build in the past.

What exactly has been achieved with all these alarums and excursions? My colleague has been analyzing the newly produced document in some detail and I have no desire to duplicate his heroic efforts. But a few things need to be recalled.

In the first place, even setting aside the fact that nobody outside the euro-elites sees any need for a Constitution, the one presented by Giscard d’Estaing’s Convention last year was a particularly unsatisfactory document. Over 130 pages of it provided for ever greater power going away from the member states and their elected legislatures to the cumbersome, undemocratic, unaccountable European Union institutions.

Far from defining clearly the relationship between the various institutions and the relationship between the state and the citizen, which is what, we presume, the europhiles mean when they talk of “a tidying up exercise”, this Constitution multiplies detailed and intrusive rules for the running of a centralized, corporatist, largely undemocratic, single state. (Let us not get involved in the argument of what is a superstate and whether the EU is going to be one. It is on track to being a state. That is all that matters.)

Far from limiting the powers of the state and its institutions, this Constitution effectively allows the EU to run all our lives according to some blueprint called “the European model”, which appears to have nothing to do with the people of Europe. If they stray from “the European model” they will be forced back into its straitjacket.

“The European model”, thus, takes its place in a long line of oppressive political ideas that appear to be representative of the people they control but are, in fact, abstractions to be imposed on them. Predecessors include “the popular will”, which had little to do with people and in whose name many tens of thousands were executed or murdered; “the masses” or “the working class”, under whose rule or dictatorship workers had a considerably worse life than under exploitative capitalism; and “the people” in whose name many millions were executed and murdered. “The European model” is different in that it is more benign. There will be no executions, no labour camps. But there will be no European democracy or European growth either.

Very little has been changed in that unsatisfactory document. The fact that the constitution becomes the source of the supremacy of European legislation remains; the “passerelle” clause, which will allow the European Council to decide that matters hitherto decided unanimously can be moved over to QMV will, presumably, remain; the matter of shared competence, which means, in effect, residual competence for the member states remains; the Protocol on the role of national parliaments, which makes it clear that these may be able to complain about the fact that some EU legislation breaks the rules of subsidiarity and proportionality but cannot make the Commission do anything about it has not been changed.

One can go on about it indefinitely. Those famous red lines, which nobody can remember have been preserved. The one about taxation does not matter, as the ECJ is just as effective as any Constitution in pushing through tax harmonization.

Legislation on social security can suddenly find itself under health and safety or the single market, thus negating Blair’s achievement. After all, that is what happened with the Working Time Directive.

Immigration is such a mess anyway, it matters little who is nominally in charge of it. As for defence or security, since we have gone along with the common foreign and security policy, signed up to every so-called anti-terrorist measure, whether it is that or not in realit, agreed to the existence of a Foreign Minister for the EU and are about to get enmeshed in the Galileo surveillance system, that red line can at best be described as a dotted one.

In return Blair has finally surrendered economic and employment policy to be full EU competence, effectively agreeing to an imposition of the sclerotic and deeply unsuccessful economic model that is destroying formerly successful countries like Germany and France.

He has effectively agreed to the full workings of Eurojust that will, we must assume, eventually supplant the British system of justice, which, with all its faults and difficulties, has been reasonably successful.

As for those famous institutional changes without which, we are told, the new European Union cannot function, they have become so opaque and complex that nobody but highly paid constitutional lawyer will ever understand them. Something of an irony this, since the original aim of the Convention was to increase transparency in the workings of the European Union and to bridge the gap between the peoples of Europe and “Europe”, a short-hand for both the euro-elite and the European project.

What they seem to have come up with is a more complicated, more detailed, more intrusive system that will increase the democratic deficit and further alienate the people from the government. Perhaps some of the great leaders should think of what actually preceded the Battle Valmy.

The IGC agreement

Below is a sequence of posts, analysing and explaining the IGC agreement. These are being added-to continuously, each issue being addressed in the order in which it appears in the official text. Therefore, new posts will not appear above this blog, but underneath in an ordered sequence.

You can check to see the new posts by looking at the title index (below left).

We start with a link to the full text of the agreement made yesterday in Brussels. To obtain your copy, click here.

See the Blog immediately below for the summary.