There are times when I feel like Victor Meldrew, the hero of the comedy series "One foot in the grave", whose famous catch phrase is, "I don't believe it…". This is definitely one of those times.
The proximate cause of my ire is an article in the Times of Malta proudly (one assumes) announcing the award of €146,000 in EU grants for a "cultural project" on cart ruts. Cart ruts, for chrissake! I don’t believe it!
Led by Malta's Museum of Archaeology, this project, called: "The Significance of Cart Ruts in Ancient Landscapes", aims, in the leaden Eurospeak of these dire lame-brains (how quickly they learn), "to bring cultural heritage into the public domain and address the role of culture in the socio-economic development of a country."
The actual project "involves the documentation and correlation of cart ruts in the Maltese Islands and Spain and includes the development of documentation techniques, the evaluation of sites, seminars on the resulting information, a publication and a travelling exhibition," all directed towards promoting "good practices in sustainable conservation, integrated heritage management and networking between stakeholders at a local and pan-European level."
Arrgggghhhhhhhh!
What is more, Malta is also involved in other cultural projects with EU grants under the so-called Culture 2000 programme. The University of Malta is a co-organiser of a project led by the Perugia local council in Italy which consists of a study of the artistic value of the Order of the Knight Templars. This project was granted €149,000 and is being conducted together with French, Spanish and Italian organisations.
Heritage Malta is participating in a project called Outstep involving its Italian, German and Greek counterparts. The project involves the cultural enhancement of historic buildings through the interaction between historic research and contemporary artworks. The EU has granted €66,000 towards this project.
And so it goes on. The University of Malta is also the co-organiser of another cultural project called Lucas, which "aims at safeguarding and highlighting the sacred woods in Europe." This project is being undertaken together with the local council of Spoleto in Italy and the French organisation Ecole D'Architecture de Toulouse.
Culture 2000 is the Commission's cultural programme and supports annual as well as multi-annual cooperation projects, “thus encouraging and promoting the establishment of European cultural networks. In 2004, 209 annual projects have been selected to a total of about €18.5 million, as well as 24 multi-annual cooperation projects (focusing on the visual arts, performing arts, cultural heritage, books and reading) to a total of about €13.5 million.
Actually – if I may be so bold as to use such an expression – this is a bloody disgrace. As far as Malta goes, it is a scandalous waste of money and resource.
The island of Malta has an unrivalled historical heritage, not least the magnificent forts of St Elmo and San Angelo, guarding the Grand Harbour of Valletta. And they are rotting away under your eyes.
St Elmo is only partially open to the public and many parts are unsafe, while San Angelo is closed up and barred. I only got in to have a look at it by bribing a workman who was helping setting up a firework display. With breathtaking vistas and the sheer staggering scale of the fortress, with the knowledge of its history, the visit was unforgettable. Yet, as I say, these priceless monuments are rotting away, empty and uncared for.
Only a few miles away is the Island of Gozo and dominating the capital Victoria is the castle, of the same name. It has been superbly and sensitively restored, and is fully open to the public, with a splendid roof top restaurant from which one can survey the whole island – it does a roaring trade.
The Valletta forts could do likewise, but there are more ghosts there than people promenading on their splendid walls. And the EU fritters money away on cart ruts. It really is an absolute, utter disgrace. But then, what do you expect.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Iberian woes
While Hungary might have had an easy ride getting the constitution passed its compliant legislature, things are not going quite so swimmingly on the western edge of the evil empire.
Portugal, already rocked by political chaos, has now had its constitutional referendum plans thrown into chaos by its own constitutional court. It has rejected the wording of the question laborious hammered out by a fractious parliament, agreed on 18 November after weeks of wrangling.
The question that all parties agreed on was the mind-bogglingly complex: "Do you agree with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the rule of voting by qualified majority and the new institutional framework of the European Union, in the terms included in the European constitution?", which led the constitutional court to declare the judicial equivalent of "no way, hosay" – in Portuguese, of course.
The judges actually took a long hard look at the wording and decided that it was impossible to answer by a clear Yes or No, which made it unconstitutional.
However, with the Portuguese parliament about to be dissolved after the enforced resignation of the government, there is not now time for the government to propose new wording before elections, to be held on February 20. This means that the referendum, initially scheduled for April, will now almost certainly be pushed back.
This also adds uncertainty to the result for, while the Portuguese are generally pro-EU, their referendums traditionally suffer from low turn-out and there is concern about the consequences of a possible No vote as people dismiss the referendum as a farce and stay at home in their droves.
Meanwhile, across the border in sunny Spain, rain is clearly falling on the constitutional parade.
Having surmounted one hurdle by getting the constitutional court to declare that the EU constitution was compatible their own, the government is finding that nearly 60 percent of Spaniards are now telling pollsters that they fall into the “undecided” category, when it comes to casting their vote at the referendum. That is against 28 percent who said they planned to vote in favour of the constitutional text.
Planned in February, the referendum result looks distinctly shaky, as a similar poll carried out in October had 42.6 percent undecided, 36.5 in favour and 3.2 percent against.
What was particularly fascinating was that the poll also showed that 93.6 percent of those questioned said they planned to cast their ballot, a turnout rate which would be unheard of in Spain since democratic rule was installed 27 years ago. It would be seriously ironic if, after all the largess thrown at the Spanish, it was they who ditched the constitution.
We can always dream...
Portugal, already rocked by political chaos, has now had its constitutional referendum plans thrown into chaos by its own constitutional court. It has rejected the wording of the question laborious hammered out by a fractious parliament, agreed on 18 November after weeks of wrangling.
The question that all parties agreed on was the mind-bogglingly complex: "Do you agree with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the rule of voting by qualified majority and the new institutional framework of the European Union, in the terms included in the European constitution?", which led the constitutional court to declare the judicial equivalent of "no way, hosay" – in Portuguese, of course.
The judges actually took a long hard look at the wording and decided that it was impossible to answer by a clear Yes or No, which made it unconstitutional.
However, with the Portuguese parliament about to be dissolved after the enforced resignation of the government, there is not now time for the government to propose new wording before elections, to be held on February 20. This means that the referendum, initially scheduled for April, will now almost certainly be pushed back.
This also adds uncertainty to the result for, while the Portuguese are generally pro-EU, their referendums traditionally suffer from low turn-out and there is concern about the consequences of a possible No vote as people dismiss the referendum as a farce and stay at home in their droves.
Meanwhile, across the border in sunny Spain, rain is clearly falling on the constitutional parade.
Having surmounted one hurdle by getting the constitutional court to declare that the EU constitution was compatible their own, the government is finding that nearly 60 percent of Spaniards are now telling pollsters that they fall into the “undecided” category, when it comes to casting their vote at the referendum. That is against 28 percent who said they planned to vote in favour of the constitutional text.
Planned in February, the referendum result looks distinctly shaky, as a similar poll carried out in October had 42.6 percent undecided, 36.5 in favour and 3.2 percent against.
What was particularly fascinating was that the poll also showed that 93.6 percent of those questioned said they planned to cast their ballot, a turnout rate which would be unheard of in Spain since democratic rule was installed 27 years ago. It would be seriously ironic if, after all the largess thrown at the Spanish, it was they who ditched the constitution.
We can always dream...
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Climate conference produces nothing but hot air
It took the various environment ministers two weeks to come to a conclusion for the next step after the expiry of the Kyoto protocol in 2012. Negotiations and tense stand-offs dragged on for days, even though many participants left. And the solution: a conference next May in Bonn.
The agreement was proudly described as a compromise between the European and the American point of view. In fact, as the Dutch Environment Minister, Pieter Van Giel put it:
Everybody is blaming everybody, or almost everybody. Clearly the main “villain” is America and, particularly, President Bush, who refuses to agree to anything that places unnecessary limits on the American economy. Greenpeace is also blaming Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the only ones in the Middle East and the Third World, who can be blamed with impunity. Goodness knows why, but that is how it is seen among the international and transnational great and good.
It seems to have escaped these people's attention or, maybe, it is too embarrassing to talk about, but none of the large developing countries want to sign any agreements either. They are afraid that their economic development, which is essential if they ever want to be in a position to deal with climate change or with ordinary natural disasters, would be hampered by Kyoto, an unscientific, badly argued proposition of the developed world. And they did not find themselves in Russia’s position, where they could be blackmailed into signing the Protocol in return for a possible WTO membership.
Nor has there been too much comment about the Italian position, which, simply stated, is that these difficult to agree and even more difficult to police multinational agreements lead to nothing. Bilateral agreements will be needed after 2012 and these must somehow involve the United States and the large developing countries.
Finally, there is the unfortunate analysis produced by a number of environmental scientists that climate change and dealing with it are not the most pressing problems. In any case, none of the signatories are anywhere near the limits of the emissions they have signed up to. No wonder the American delegates sounded cheerful.
The agreement was proudly described as a compromise between the European and the American point of view. In fact, as the Dutch Environment Minister, Pieter Van Giel put it:
"We fought hard to get this agreement. It is not as much as we had hoped for, but it is a step forward and that is important. In this process it takes two to tango. I am very glad that everybody is on the dance floor now."The agreement was between what the Americans wanted, which was one day’s discussion that would lead to no agreements and what the Europeans wanted, which was summed up by TurkishPress.com:
“The EU wanted several informal meetings on strengthening the international fight against climate change that would include the United States.”And the compromise? Well, it will be a conference that will last for several days at which there will be an exchange of information and the future of climate change negotiations will be discussed. A lot of hot air, in other words.
Everybody is blaming everybody, or almost everybody. Clearly the main “villain” is America and, particularly, President Bush, who refuses to agree to anything that places unnecessary limits on the American economy. Greenpeace is also blaming Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the only ones in the Middle East and the Third World, who can be blamed with impunity. Goodness knows why, but that is how it is seen among the international and transnational great and good.
It seems to have escaped these people's attention or, maybe, it is too embarrassing to talk about, but none of the large developing countries want to sign any agreements either. They are afraid that their economic development, which is essential if they ever want to be in a position to deal with climate change or with ordinary natural disasters, would be hampered by Kyoto, an unscientific, badly argued proposition of the developed world. And they did not find themselves in Russia’s position, where they could be blackmailed into signing the Protocol in return for a possible WTO membership.
Nor has there been too much comment about the Italian position, which, simply stated, is that these difficult to agree and even more difficult to police multinational agreements lead to nothing. Bilateral agreements will be needed after 2012 and these must somehow involve the United States and the large developing countries.
Finally, there is the unfortunate analysis produced by a number of environmental scientists that climate change and dealing with it are not the most pressing problems. In any case, none of the signatories are anywhere near the limits of the emissions they have signed up to. No wonder the American delegates sounded cheerful.
A troublesome bunch
As well as an indefatigable Blogger on this site, our very own Helen Szamuely also runs the UKIP London Assembly Blog.
Her latest posting there is well worth a look, demonstrating as it does that stupid, pompous and self-important politicians are by no means confined to the EU - as if any of you needed telling that.
Her latest posting there is well worth a look, demonstrating as it does that stupid, pompous and self-important politicians are by no means confined to the EU - as if any of you needed telling that.
The bunfight starts
Flagged up in our earlier posting, the annual bunfight on fishing is under way in Brussels, with the fisheries ministers of the 25 EU member states meeting to doll out the fish quotas for the forthcoming year.
The hot item on the agenda was a commission proposal to close down 20 percent of the North Sea, with similar closures in the Irish Sea, in pursuit of Franz Fischler’s (the outgoing fisheries commissioner) obsession with protecting the cod stocks.
Early reports of the proceedings, however, indicate that this draconian proposal has been deep sixed in what has been described as a "surprise climbdown" by the commission, now headed by the Maltese Joe Borg.
This will come as a pleasant relief to fisheries minister Ben "Rear Admiral" Bradshaw and his Scottish counterpart Ross Finnie, who will have something with which to go home and claim as "a victory for British fishermen" - something of a ritual outcome for fisheries meetings.
Experienced EU watcher, however, will know to hold off their celebrations until they have seen the small print, as what so often looks like good news turns out to be the opposite once the detail comes in.
At the moment, ministers are haggling over an alternative proposal – a reduction in the number of permitted fishing days at sea from the current 15 a month to 13 – which Bradshaw and Finnie are also supposed to be fighting.
This sort of thing is also wearily familiar, where British ministers get the headlines they want, and then go through ritual haggling over the detail, only to cave in as the talks run into the wee small hours, and the commission gets its way.
If days at sea a cut back, fishermen - who are looking for extra haddock quota in the North Sea, may find they are allocated the fish but are not given enough time in which to catch it, making the concession an empty gesture. Furthermore, whole new rafts of obscure "red tape" are proposed, all of which will make fishing more difficult.
But the detail is so often swamped by the headline and after the media caravan packs its tent, no one reports the anguish of the fishermen in the early days of January, when they realise they have been shafted yet again.
So far, then, the annual bunfight is running true to form and we wait only to find out not whether our fishermen have been betrayed, but how exactly it will be done this time round.
The hot item on the agenda was a commission proposal to close down 20 percent of the North Sea, with similar closures in the Irish Sea, in pursuit of Franz Fischler’s (the outgoing fisheries commissioner) obsession with protecting the cod stocks.
Early reports of the proceedings, however, indicate that this draconian proposal has been deep sixed in what has been described as a "surprise climbdown" by the commission, now headed by the Maltese Joe Borg.
This will come as a pleasant relief to fisheries minister Ben "Rear Admiral" Bradshaw and his Scottish counterpart Ross Finnie, who will have something with which to go home and claim as "a victory for British fishermen" - something of a ritual outcome for fisheries meetings.
Experienced EU watcher, however, will know to hold off their celebrations until they have seen the small print, as what so often looks like good news turns out to be the opposite once the detail comes in.
At the moment, ministers are haggling over an alternative proposal – a reduction in the number of permitted fishing days at sea from the current 15 a month to 13 – which Bradshaw and Finnie are also supposed to be fighting.
This sort of thing is also wearily familiar, where British ministers get the headlines they want, and then go through ritual haggling over the detail, only to cave in as the talks run into the wee small hours, and the commission gets its way.
If days at sea a cut back, fishermen - who are looking for extra haddock quota in the North Sea, may find they are allocated the fish but are not given enough time in which to catch it, making the concession an empty gesture. Furthermore, whole new rafts of obscure "red tape" are proposed, all of which will make fishing more difficult.
But the detail is so often swamped by the headline and after the media caravan packs its tent, no one reports the anguish of the fishermen in the early days of January, when they realise they have been shafted yet again.
So far, then, the annual bunfight is running true to form and we wait only to find out not whether our fishermen have been betrayed, but how exactly it will be done this time round.
Germany and Russia
President Putin is visiting Germany, the country with which he has had a long and warm(ish) relationship. It was, after all, in Leipzig that much of his active service as KGB officer passed and where he picked up his supposedly flawless German.
His present friendship with Chancellor Schröder, clearly cannot date back that far but it does raise some interesting and disquieting questions.
The EU has sometimes been seen as a necessary bulwark against an increasingly aggressive, though not precisely confident Russia. In the discussions about the need for endless enlargement, sooner or later somebody points out that the need to take in all the European countries, whether it is the most sensible policy from anybody’s point of view or not, is clear because of Russia. These countries need protections and Europe must stand together.
Alas, the EU does not see it that way. In fact, for various reasons, a central plank of its barely-existent common foreign policy is close friendship with Russia. This, clearly, does not go down terribly well with the new East European members and, in particular, the Baltic states, who have put some pressure on the West Europeans to toughen their stance, if only a little.
During the last bout of the Ukrainian crisis, Javier Solana did a good deal of toing and froing, not to mention wringing of hands, trying to bring about some sort of a compromise. Unfortunately, it was not compromise or stability that the Ukrainians wanted but transparency in the electoral process. The EU was sidelined very early on.
It was suggested by many at the time that negotiations should be conducted by two countries that knew best about the Ukrainian situation and were most closely connected with it historically: Germany and Poland. The Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski, together with his Lithuanian counterpart, rose to the challenge, supporting the people’s revolution and the calls for democratic accountability. Germany demurred. Chancellor Schröder had no desire to annoy his good friend Vladimir.
Schröder’s attitude has caused some disquiet in his own party. He has steadily refused to subscribe even to the mild criticism that other European leaders have expressed of Russia’s behaviour in Chechnya and has called President Putin a “flawless democrat”, an odd statement in the light of recent political decisions in Russia.
The warm and disturbing friendship is not based on purely personal alchemy or the wearisome preference western European leaders show for dictators: there is a purely practical aspect, as well. Germany gets a third of its oil and gas from Russia, while bilateral trade was worth $25bn (18.6bn euros or £12.8bn) last year and is growing steadily.
As Russia works hard to increase its share of the gas and oil supplied to the West and tries to take over the distribution networks, we may see similar friendships flourishing in other countries. Not quite what the East Europeans expected when they joined the EU.
His present friendship with Chancellor Schröder, clearly cannot date back that far but it does raise some interesting and disquieting questions.
The EU has sometimes been seen as a necessary bulwark against an increasingly aggressive, though not precisely confident Russia. In the discussions about the need for endless enlargement, sooner or later somebody points out that the need to take in all the European countries, whether it is the most sensible policy from anybody’s point of view or not, is clear because of Russia. These countries need protections and Europe must stand together.
Alas, the EU does not see it that way. In fact, for various reasons, a central plank of its barely-existent common foreign policy is close friendship with Russia. This, clearly, does not go down terribly well with the new East European members and, in particular, the Baltic states, who have put some pressure on the West Europeans to toughen their stance, if only a little.
During the last bout of the Ukrainian crisis, Javier Solana did a good deal of toing and froing, not to mention wringing of hands, trying to bring about some sort of a compromise. Unfortunately, it was not compromise or stability that the Ukrainians wanted but transparency in the electoral process. The EU was sidelined very early on.
It was suggested by many at the time that negotiations should be conducted by two countries that knew best about the Ukrainian situation and were most closely connected with it historically: Germany and Poland. The Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski, together with his Lithuanian counterpart, rose to the challenge, supporting the people’s revolution and the calls for democratic accountability. Germany demurred. Chancellor Schröder had no desire to annoy his good friend Vladimir.
Schröder’s attitude has caused some disquiet in his own party. He has steadily refused to subscribe even to the mild criticism that other European leaders have expressed of Russia’s behaviour in Chechnya and has called President Putin a “flawless democrat”, an odd statement in the light of recent political decisions in Russia.
The warm and disturbing friendship is not based on purely personal alchemy or the wearisome preference western European leaders show for dictators: there is a purely practical aspect, as well. Germany gets a third of its oil and gas from Russia, while bilateral trade was worth $25bn (18.6bn euros or £12.8bn) last year and is growing steadily.
As Russia works hard to increase its share of the gas and oil supplied to the West and tries to take over the distribution networks, we may see similar friendships flourishing in other countries. Not quite what the East Europeans expected when they joined the EU.
Another one down
Another one of the new member states has ratified the European Constitution without bothering to call a referendum, possibly because recent turn-outs for elections and, especially, referendums has been very low.
The Hungarian Parliament voted the treaty through without any difficulty, though there seems to be some dispute about numbers. The BBC says that 304 deputies voted in favour with 9 against, 8 abstentions and 64 absent.
The International Herald Tribune says there were 322 votes in favour, 12 against and 8 abstentions with 44 absent. You pays your money and you takes your choice but the result is clear enough, as is the lack of desire to find out what the people of the country think or not think.
The other news from Hungary is that its troops (300 plus equipment) in Iraq are being brought home at the expiration of their mandate, which was not renewed by the Hungarian parliament in view of the forthcoming Iraqi elections. However, Hungary has committed another 150 troops to be sent next June for the probable duration of about one year.
The Hungarian Parliament voted the treaty through without any difficulty, though there seems to be some dispute about numbers. The BBC says that 304 deputies voted in favour with 9 against, 8 abstentions and 64 absent.
The International Herald Tribune says there were 322 votes in favour, 12 against and 8 abstentions with 44 absent. You pays your money and you takes your choice but the result is clear enough, as is the lack of desire to find out what the people of the country think or not think.
The other news from Hungary is that its troops (300 plus equipment) in Iraq are being brought home at the expiration of their mandate, which was not renewed by the Hungarian parliament in view of the forthcoming Iraqi elections. However, Hungary has committed another 150 troops to be sent next June for the probable duration of about one year.
It’s the blog wot done it… again!
Well, despite everything, we do have our occasional victories, and this one is down to the Blog readers… well done!
What triggered this off was a piece in the Telegraph business section, Monday week last, which asked their readers for nominations "for the central or local government agency associated with the most mind-bogglingly frustrating piece of red tape during 2004." Yet, while all the suggestions offered in the piece referred to British agencies, most to the examples cited were of EU law.
We drew attention to this in the Blog, inviting our readers to write in to the piece author, nominating the EU commission’s DG Environment as "the central government agency" associated with the most mind-bogglingly frustrating piece of red tape
And bless you all – you did! In yesterday's Telegraph (I'm having to catch up), headed: "By a red tape mile, the winners are…!, it turned out that: "Environmental rule makers from here to Brussels take top spot in our inaugural awards”. DG Environment got the "Telegraph Regulatory Creep of the Year".
Initially, according to Richard Tyler, "reader despair was directed at the Financial Services Authority, with Customs & Excise, the Health & Safety Executive, Inland Revenue and the Treasury all picking up votes."
After a slow start, Patricia Hewitt's Department of Trade and Industry and Margaret Beckett's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs then came into contention. And then, Tyler writes: "At the same time, the European Commission's directorate for environmental regulations picked up votes." The final count saw Defra and the EC's (sic) environment directorate tie for the top spot.
We don't begrudge sharing the poll position with Defra – they do indeed produce some pretty foul legislation, unaided by Brussels, even if most of their stuff comes directly from that source.
What was doubly pleasing, though, was that Matthew Farrow, head of environment at the CBI, said he was surprised environmental regulation had come out top in the voting.
It suggested, he said, that the constant stream of new regulations was wearing businesses down. "It's the sheer volume of EU regulations," he said. "There have been over 200 directives on the environment and 32 EU-driven regulations on are in the pipeline".
With faith in our readers, we weren't surprised. Perhaps Mr Farrow should read the Blog. He might lean something.
"Readers", according to Richard Tyler, "were keenly aware that most of the environmental regulations were emanating from Brussels." He cites Denis Cooper, a regular visitor and commenter on our Blog, wrote: "The Regulatory Creep of the Year must live in Brussels, not London, and the worst could be whatever section deals with environment."
Harry Randall, another frequent guest on the Blog, "agreed". He wrote: "For the sheer scale of stupidity of its imposts, I nominate DG Environment. It, not the Environment Agency, was responsible for reclassifying everyday items like computers and fluorescent lights as hazardous, and it produced the legislation that required the number of sites licensed to deal with such waste to be slashed from 182 to 14."
Harry was good enough to tell us that he had lifted the text of his nomination straight off the Blog. His accolade in the Telegraph was well deserved.
What also must have helped was a mention of the award in Christopher Booker's column on Sunday, with Booker also launching his own award with the following words:
(If you want to e-mail suggestions to Booker, send them to us on the Blog and we will make sure they are passed on.)
What triggered this off was a piece in the Telegraph business section, Monday week last, which asked their readers for nominations "for the central or local government agency associated with the most mind-bogglingly frustrating piece of red tape during 2004." Yet, while all the suggestions offered in the piece referred to British agencies, most to the examples cited were of EU law.
We drew attention to this in the Blog, inviting our readers to write in to the piece author, nominating the EU commission’s DG Environment as "the central government agency" associated with the most mind-bogglingly frustrating piece of red tape
And bless you all – you did! In yesterday's Telegraph (I'm having to catch up), headed: "By a red tape mile, the winners are…!, it turned out that: "Environmental rule makers from here to Brussels take top spot in our inaugural awards”. DG Environment got the "Telegraph Regulatory Creep of the Year".
Initially, according to Richard Tyler, "reader despair was directed at the Financial Services Authority, with Customs & Excise, the Health & Safety Executive, Inland Revenue and the Treasury all picking up votes."
After a slow start, Patricia Hewitt's Department of Trade and Industry and Margaret Beckett's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs then came into contention. And then, Tyler writes: "At the same time, the European Commission's directorate for environmental regulations picked up votes." The final count saw Defra and the EC's (sic) environment directorate tie for the top spot.
We don't begrudge sharing the poll position with Defra – they do indeed produce some pretty foul legislation, unaided by Brussels, even if most of their stuff comes directly from that source.
What was doubly pleasing, though, was that Matthew Farrow, head of environment at the CBI, said he was surprised environmental regulation had come out top in the voting.
It suggested, he said, that the constant stream of new regulations was wearing businesses down. "It's the sheer volume of EU regulations," he said. "There have been over 200 directives on the environment and 32 EU-driven regulations on are in the pipeline".
With faith in our readers, we weren't surprised. Perhaps Mr Farrow should read the Blog. He might lean something.
"Readers", according to Richard Tyler, "were keenly aware that most of the environmental regulations were emanating from Brussels." He cites Denis Cooper, a regular visitor and commenter on our Blog, wrote: "The Regulatory Creep of the Year must live in Brussels, not London, and the worst could be whatever section deals with environment."
Harry Randall, another frequent guest on the Blog, "agreed". He wrote: "For the sheer scale of stupidity of its imposts, I nominate DG Environment. It, not the Environment Agency, was responsible for reclassifying everyday items like computers and fluorescent lights as hazardous, and it produced the legislation that required the number of sites licensed to deal with such waste to be slashed from 182 to 14."
Harry was good enough to tell us that he had lifted the text of his nomination straight off the Blog. His accolade in the Telegraph was well deserved.
What also must have helped was a mention of the award in Christopher Booker's column on Sunday, with Booker also launching his own award with the following words:
I hereby offer a first edition of The Great Deception, the history of the European Union that I wrote with Dr Richard North, as the Elephant in the Room Award 2005. This will be given to the person who spots the most crassly naive example of someone blaming the British Government for a bureaucratic imposition that in fact originates from our real government in Brussels. Special marks will be awarded for spotting contributions from politicians, such as the MP for Henley, who are paid by taxpayers to know better.Go to it Bloggers… make Booker’s day! You know it makes sense!
(If you want to e-mail suggestions to Booker, send them to us on the Blog and we will make sure they are passed on.)
Monday, December 20, 2004
Dealing with American influence
In today’s Wall Street Journal Europe Daniel Henninger says, rather unkindly but amusingly:
That is, of course, very odd. Are we not told that we are all Europeans now and national differences are less important than the new European identity we are building? Just as it did not matter what colour the early Fords were, as long as they were black, so it does not matter what language the European identity is created in, as long as it is French.
There have been two developments to show that Captain Ahab is on the job. The Pompidou Centre, France’s pre-eminent museum of twentieth century art, is opening a branch in Hong Kong. One curator in Paris explained that this was necessary as “US culture is too strong there”. He also added that “we need to have a presence in Asia to counterbalance the American influence”. Not the British or the Chinese, you understand, but the American. If one were really unkind, one could remind the French government that France used to have a presence in Asia, but it all ended rather badly.
Still, a Pompidou Centre in Hong Kong is preferable to the battle of Dien Bien Phu. In fact, it is harmless and has many positive aspects. Only, one wonders what effect it might have and how is it going to counterbalance anything.
Captain Ahab’s other weapon is what has been described as France’s answer to CNN. Actually, it is France’s answer to CNN, the BBC World Service and, to show that they do not discriminate, Deutsche Welle, which broadcasts in German and English, Al Jazeera and Al Arabya and, even, GloboNews in South America. Where on earth have the French been all this time?
Still, the new international information channel CII, due to start broadcasting in late 2005 or early 2006 is described by the somewhat demented “Ahab” Chirac as “CNN à la Française”.
There are problems. CNN, for instance, is a private company. The BBC is not but is carefully separated from the government (some would say, a little too carefully). Al Jazeera is an independent broadcasting organization, proud of its record of not being in hock to any Arab government.
The new French channel will be owned by the state-funded France Télévisions and the private station TFI. The French government has promised €30 million ($40 million, £21 million) in start-up money. In order to carve the money out, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has announced an amendment to the 2005 budget, as the new channel, in his words would offer the “diversity to which our country is so deeply attached”. The report does not say whether there was any laughter at this point or whether the deputies merely nodded their heads sagely.
President Chirac is more forthcoming. As far as he is concerned, this is a way of putting France’s voice out there. In fact, French TV has been available on satellite for years, but that was as part of TV5, a consortium of French-language channels from France, Switzerland and Belgium. Not good enough, apparently.
The new channel will not be available in France, as that might run into difficulties with EU regulators and with existing news channels.
There are worried predictions of costs rising and, inevitably, the unions have “expressed concerns”. The union for RFI, France’s international radio station, is worried that its budget will be reduced to pay for the international TV. The union for journalists at France Télévisions has urged its members not to co-operate, describing the new channel as a “parody” and adding:
Alas, the white whale seems to have escaped again, as they do. American influence appears to be spreading in the most peculiar fashion imaginable – through software designed for other languages.
American-engineered technology (often by people who went to America quite recently) has helped the people of Ukraine and is helping people in many other countries where there are oppressive regimes.
There are now, apparently 600,000 personal Chinese language weblogs, often run by English speakers who import and translate the material into their language (this was the beginning of samizdat in the Soviet Union, but how much more efficient and far-reaching the new technology is). The Chinese government employs 40,000 bureaucrats to police the blogs. But the white whale swims on.
The third most used language on the Web is Farsi. Yes, that’s right. There are 75,000 individual blogs in Iran. The tools were created by a young Iranian journalist, now based in Toronto (OK that is not the white whale, but his mate, vaguely grey whale). He says that many of the blogs are not political but deal with music, movies, poetry, Western and Iranian culture. I beg to differ. Under the mullahs that is all political.
In California they are developing Arabic-language blogging tools. There are plans to report the forthcoming Iraqi elections on the web in that language by 25 internet journalists.
The world will not change overnight because there are blogging tools available in many languages. But it will move a little closer to that change. People are being given the tools. But Ahab, he keeps chasing the white whale.
“ ‘American influence’ is the great white whale of the 21st century, and Jacques Chirac is the Ahab chasing her with a three-masted schooner. Along for the ride is a crew that includes Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, Kofi Annan, the Saudi royal family, Robert Mugabe, the state committee of Communist China and various others who have ordained themselves leaders for life. At night, seated around the rum keg, they talk about how they have to stop American political power, the Marines or Hollywood.”Along for the ride, also, are sundry European leaders, though many of them are beginning to wonder whether the chase is worth it. In particular, there is an uneasy understanding or, at least a glimmering of one, that the chase is for the glory of Captain Ahab not any of his European crew. A good deal of overcoming ‘American influence’ is about somehow restoring French to the pre-eminence it enjoyed as a language some years ago (about two hundred, to be precise).
That is, of course, very odd. Are we not told that we are all Europeans now and national differences are less important than the new European identity we are building? Just as it did not matter what colour the early Fords were, as long as they were black, so it does not matter what language the European identity is created in, as long as it is French.
There have been two developments to show that Captain Ahab is on the job. The Pompidou Centre, France’s pre-eminent museum of twentieth century art, is opening a branch in Hong Kong. One curator in Paris explained that this was necessary as “US culture is too strong there”. He also added that “we need to have a presence in Asia to counterbalance the American influence”. Not the British or the Chinese, you understand, but the American. If one were really unkind, one could remind the French government that France used to have a presence in Asia, but it all ended rather badly.
Still, a Pompidou Centre in Hong Kong is preferable to the battle of Dien Bien Phu. In fact, it is harmless and has many positive aspects. Only, one wonders what effect it might have and how is it going to counterbalance anything.
Captain Ahab’s other weapon is what has been described as France’s answer to CNN. Actually, it is France’s answer to CNN, the BBC World Service and, to show that they do not discriminate, Deutsche Welle, which broadcasts in German and English, Al Jazeera and Al Arabya and, even, GloboNews in South America. Where on earth have the French been all this time?
Still, the new international information channel CII, due to start broadcasting in late 2005 or early 2006 is described by the somewhat demented “Ahab” Chirac as “CNN à la Française”.
There are problems. CNN, for instance, is a private company. The BBC is not but is carefully separated from the government (some would say, a little too carefully). Al Jazeera is an independent broadcasting organization, proud of its record of not being in hock to any Arab government.
The new French channel will be owned by the state-funded France Télévisions and the private station TFI. The French government has promised €30 million ($40 million, £21 million) in start-up money. In order to carve the money out, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has announced an amendment to the 2005 budget, as the new channel, in his words would offer the “diversity to which our country is so deeply attached”. The report does not say whether there was any laughter at this point or whether the deputies merely nodded their heads sagely.
President Chirac is more forthcoming. As far as he is concerned, this is a way of putting France’s voice out there. In fact, French TV has been available on satellite for years, but that was as part of TV5, a consortium of French-language channels from France, Switzerland and Belgium. Not good enough, apparently.
The new channel will not be available in France, as that might run into difficulties with EU regulators and with existing news channels.
There are worried predictions of costs rising and, inevitably, the unions have “expressed concerns”. The union for RFI, France’s international radio station, is worried that its budget will be reduced to pay for the international TV. The union for journalists at France Télévisions has urged its members not to co-operate, describing the new channel as a “parody” and adding:
“What will be the credibility of an international channel that is led by a multinational with benefits that are dependent on good relations with the government?”A fair question until one remembers that France Télévisions is funded by the state. Presumably, good relations with the government are of some importance there, too.
Alas, the white whale seems to have escaped again, as they do. American influence appears to be spreading in the most peculiar fashion imaginable – through software designed for other languages.
American-engineered technology (often by people who went to America quite recently) has helped the people of Ukraine and is helping people in many other countries where there are oppressive regimes.
There are now, apparently 600,000 personal Chinese language weblogs, often run by English speakers who import and translate the material into their language (this was the beginning of samizdat in the Soviet Union, but how much more efficient and far-reaching the new technology is). The Chinese government employs 40,000 bureaucrats to police the blogs. But the white whale swims on.
The third most used language on the Web is Farsi. Yes, that’s right. There are 75,000 individual blogs in Iran. The tools were created by a young Iranian journalist, now based in Toronto (OK that is not the white whale, but his mate, vaguely grey whale). He says that many of the blogs are not political but deal with music, movies, poetry, Western and Iranian culture. I beg to differ. Under the mullahs that is all political.
In California they are developing Arabic-language blogging tools. There are plans to report the forthcoming Iraqi elections on the web in that language by 25 internet journalists.
The world will not change overnight because there are blogging tools available in many languages. But it will move a little closer to that change. People are being given the tools. But Ahab, he keeps chasing the white whale.
UKIP declares against ID cards
Michael Howard apparently thinks that internal passports (a.k.a. ID cards) are a good thing and insists that he has been assured by police and security chiefs that they are indispensable in the fight against crime and terrorism.
UKIP at the London Assembly has issued a press release challenging him to produce the evidence. In other words: put up or shut up.
Read the full story on the UKIP London Assembly blog.
UKIP at the London Assembly has issued a press release challenging him to produce the evidence. In other words: put up or shut up.
Read the full story on the UKIP London Assembly blog.
A petty, vindictive act
There can be and is no other explanation - to send two unformed officers to my house at 11.35 on a Saturday night - the busiest period for the police - with instructions to break in to the house and bring me in.
This was an action timed to cause the greatest possible distress and inconvenience, proving once again that, when it comes to police priorities, debt collection (i.e., council tax recovery) stands head and shoulders above such issues as burglary, car crime and the rest.
Anyhow, after 34 hellish hours banged up in a cell 9ft x 9ft, mostly in solitary, I'm back and will begin blogging soon. Thank you Helen for keeping the Blog warm. I will post details of the latest confrontation with what are laughingly called the forces of law and order on our sister blog, prisonerjw7874, later today.
This was an action timed to cause the greatest possible distress and inconvenience, proving once again that, when it comes to police priorities, debt collection (i.e., council tax recovery) stands head and shoulders above such issues as burglary, car crime and the rest.
Anyhow, after 34 hellish hours banged up in a cell 9ft x 9ft, mostly in solitary, I'm back and will begin blogging soon. Thank you Helen for keeping the Blog warm. I will post details of the latest confrontation with what are laughingly called the forces of law and order on our sister blog, prisonerjw7874, later today.
How Americans see it
The American commentator in this case is, in fact, a French citizen who has lived in the United States for thirty-three years. So, his views can be seen as well-meaning American. Jean-Loup Archawski is a retired businessman and a member of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s (FPRI) Study Group on America and the West.
He has produced an interesting though somewhat bemused analysis of the European Constitution, clearly attempting to explain the inexplicable. Mr Archawski can be described as both an insider – presumably his links with France are closer than the average American political analyst’s – and an outside commentator. After all, he does not live there. Also, he knows that his audience, that small part of the American public that is interested in European politics, is unlikely to find its way through the maze of it.
His analysis is, therefore, of some interest. He makes the usual point that this is not a constitution as has been understood until now. A constitution ought to be a brief and precise definition of the various parts of the state, their relationship with each other and the relationship between the state and the individual. The European Constitution is not brief, seriously imprecise and goes far beyond the usual scope of such a document.
As Mr Archawski puts it, echoing (probably not realizing that he does so) certain points we have already made on this blog about the managerial style of governance:
Mr Archawski tries to explain the various executive and legislative branches of the EU, pointing out the convoluted legislative process and calling attention to, among others, Article I-32, which gives legislative force to various supposedly non-legislative rulings. Rightly, he sees that this leaves “the reader fearful of the possibility of arbitrary edicts”. For some reason he does not mention the fact that the sole right to initiate legislation remains with the European Commission, which is often described by American commentators as the European executive, though the lack of any separation of powers ought to ring alarm bells.
The paper comes to the conclusion that the Constitution is so convoluted and full of internal contradictions because of the nature of the negotiations that produced it. Mr Archawski echoes the “many people” (who are they, one wonders) who think that this Constitution has no chance at all of being ratified in the 25 states. Therefore, the most likely scenario, in his opinion, and the most attractive one is the reappearance of the document in a slimmed-down, clarified version. Something like the American Constitution, one assumes.
That would define more coherently the role of the Foreign Minister and of what the foreign, security and defence policies of the EU are likely to be – clearly a subject of some interest and growing concern to Americans. It would, perhaps, define the roles of the various governmental bodies. It might even, though Mr Archawski does not go into this, roll back some of the powers that are being aggregated in the EU structure at the expense of national legislatures, individual businesses and organizations and, in fact, individual citizens.
All of this could happen, but I think this is another one of those famous Tales of Porcine Aviation. It is extraordinary that, having grasped the basic problem about the EU, Mr Archawski can actually move on to that kind of an uninformed optimism.
The structure of the European Constitution, its size, detailed instructions and necessary vagueness about details is essential to the whole construct. Just as the EEC was never intended to be a free market and, thus, there is no point in suggesting we move back to it, so the European Union is not intended to be a carefully balanced federal structure with well defined government powers.
Its intention has always been to have as few definitions as possible – a very sensible course of action if you want to take over powers without anyone much noticing what you are doing. Its plan for expansion is ill-defined, partly because of an inability to put together a common foreign policy, there not being any common interests. Its structure is ill-defined, to allow more scope for future integration. And the last thing the authors of that wretched document wanted was an understanding either on the part of the member states or of individual citizens what their precise role and rights are.
If, for some reason, this Constitution is not adopted, the chances are there will be another committee that will tinker with a few details. The next document will not be any simpler or, if experience is anything to go by, shorter. Au contraire.
In the end, we have to come back to the most crucial question of all, one that Mr Achawski does not ask: what is the point of all this.
He has produced an interesting though somewhat bemused analysis of the European Constitution, clearly attempting to explain the inexplicable. Mr Archawski can be described as both an insider – presumably his links with France are closer than the average American political analyst’s – and an outside commentator. After all, he does not live there. Also, he knows that his audience, that small part of the American public that is interested in European politics, is unlikely to find its way through the maze of it.
His analysis is, therefore, of some interest. He makes the usual point that this is not a constitution as has been understood until now. A constitution ought to be a brief and precise definition of the various parts of the state, their relationship with each other and the relationship between the state and the individual. The European Constitution is not brief, seriously imprecise and goes far beyond the usual scope of such a document.
As Mr Archawski puts it, echoing (probably not realizing that he does so) certain points we have already made on this blog about the managerial style of governance:
“The form of suggested governance is neither a confederation nor a federation. The document reads more like the by-laws of a very large corporation or a bureaucratic behemoth rather than like a constitution organizing the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.”That is, in many ways, the point at issue. This is a behemoth, a leviathan; one that is not and cannot be, given its size and propensity to increase endlessly, a democratic, accountable, truly constitutional political system. Even in business terms this is out of date. Mergers do happen, of course, and the Commission is on the look-out for them, not wishing to see monopolies anywhere but at the heart of the project. But many seriously overgrown giant companies have found that they had to demerge to restore some kind of efficiency.
Mr Archawski tries to explain the various executive and legislative branches of the EU, pointing out the convoluted legislative process and calling attention to, among others, Article I-32, which gives legislative force to various supposedly non-legislative rulings. Rightly, he sees that this leaves “the reader fearful of the possibility of arbitrary edicts”. For some reason he does not mention the fact that the sole right to initiate legislation remains with the European Commission, which is often described by American commentators as the European executive, though the lack of any separation of powers ought to ring alarm bells.
The paper comes to the conclusion that the Constitution is so convoluted and full of internal contradictions because of the nature of the negotiations that produced it. Mr Archawski echoes the “many people” (who are they, one wonders) who think that this Constitution has no chance at all of being ratified in the 25 states. Therefore, the most likely scenario, in his opinion, and the most attractive one is the reappearance of the document in a slimmed-down, clarified version. Something like the American Constitution, one assumes.
That would define more coherently the role of the Foreign Minister and of what the foreign, security and defence policies of the EU are likely to be – clearly a subject of some interest and growing concern to Americans. It would, perhaps, define the roles of the various governmental bodies. It might even, though Mr Archawski does not go into this, roll back some of the powers that are being aggregated in the EU structure at the expense of national legislatures, individual businesses and organizations and, in fact, individual citizens.
All of this could happen, but I think this is another one of those famous Tales of Porcine Aviation. It is extraordinary that, having grasped the basic problem about the EU, Mr Archawski can actually move on to that kind of an uninformed optimism.
The structure of the European Constitution, its size, detailed instructions and necessary vagueness about details is essential to the whole construct. Just as the EEC was never intended to be a free market and, thus, there is no point in suggesting we move back to it, so the European Union is not intended to be a carefully balanced federal structure with well defined government powers.
Its intention has always been to have as few definitions as possible – a very sensible course of action if you want to take over powers without anyone much noticing what you are doing. Its plan for expansion is ill-defined, partly because of an inability to put together a common foreign policy, there not being any common interests. Its structure is ill-defined, to allow more scope for future integration. And the last thing the authors of that wretched document wanted was an understanding either on the part of the member states or of individual citizens what their precise role and rights are.
If, for some reason, this Constitution is not adopted, the chances are there will be another committee that will tinker with a few details. The next document will not be any simpler or, if experience is anything to go by, shorter. Au contraire.
In the end, we have to come back to the most crucial question of all, one that Mr Achawski does not ask: what is the point of all this.
Our PsyOps are different from your PsyOps
Goodness me, whatever will they think of next? Apparently, the recently launched EU operation in Bosnia (where the same NATO troops without most of the Americans merely exchanged one lot of badges for another) is considering the use of psychological operations (PsyOps). These will consist of them trying to persuade the local population that the troops are actually very friendly and want to bring peace and harmony. Oh, and also, please could you disarm and make our lives easier.
One EU military officer (nationality not mentioned) told the European Voice:
Actually, the use of propaganda to fool the local population ….woops, sorry, to inform them of the good intentions of the invader goes back to at least the Trojan war. Was there not some business about a wooden horse? An early example of PsyOp, I’d say, though the Greeks did have an unfair advantage – those serpents from the sea.
Seriously, though, how will this differ from the sort of information sent over in British aircrafts during the Second World War? Even the European Voice article mentions NATO’s propaganda offensive against Milosevic during the last stages of the Yugoslav war and the American leaflets in Iraq.
According to Daniel Keohane of the perestroika europhile Centre for European Reform:
There is, however, a difference if Mr Keohane is to be believed. The Americans and other members of the coalition send engineeers, experts in finance to help the launch of a new currency and other suchlike people. The EU is taking in aid workers, whose “achievements” in the Balkans have been seriously criticized by the Court of Auditors, diplomats and judges. More jobs for the boys and girls. Very useful. Very “European”.
One EU military officer (nationality not mentioned) told the European Voice:
“In Bosnia, we see it [PsyOps] as a means to promote ethnic tolerance and to talk people into handing over illegal weapons. If you call it propaganda, that is OK. But propaganda is a loaded word. And our approach would be different to that of the US.”Well, OF COURSE, it will be different. Ça va sans dire. Is not EVERYTHING the Europeans do different from the American approach? We fight wars differently, we spread propaganda differently.
Actually, the use of propaganda to fool the local population ….woops, sorry, to inform them of the good intentions of the invader goes back to at least the Trojan war. Was there not some business about a wooden horse? An early example of PsyOp, I’d say, though the Greeks did have an unfair advantage – those serpents from the sea.
Seriously, though, how will this differ from the sort of information sent over in British aircrafts during the Second World War? Even the European Voice article mentions NATO’s propaganda offensive against Milosevic during the last stages of the Yugoslav war and the American leaflets in Iraq.
“The US defence department defines PsyOps as operations to convey information to an audience in order to influence their emotions, motives and behaviour. Its purpose is to induce or reinforce attitudes favourable to a military undertaking. In Iraq, PsyOps have included broadcasting messages outside mosques and sending emails to senior personnel in Saddam Hussein’s army, offering them clemency in return for help in locating weapons of mass destruction.”As usual, we are told that the Europeans’ approach will be different, “more a hearts and minds exercise” (though what the American one was if not a “hearts and minds exercise” it is hard to tell) without specifying what those differences are.
According to Daniel Keohane of the perestroika europhile Centre for European Reform:
“People tend to like Europeans more. If I was advising Javier Solana [the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs], I would say emphasize the holistic approach. Say ‘yes, we have soldiers in your country. But we also have aid workers, diplomats, judges. So this is not just about stopping a conflict but we care about the reconstruction of your country too’.”Muddled thinking, I fear. People do not necessarily like Europeans more. There is no sign of that anywhere and, in particular, they do not like “Europeans” in Bosnia, where they have not forgotten that it was the EU and various “Europeans” who remained obsessed with keeping the failing Yugoslavia together and resisted all attempts either to arm the Bosnians or to help them against Milosevic’s murderous thugs.
There is, however, a difference if Mr Keohane is to be believed. The Americans and other members of the coalition send engineeers, experts in finance to help the launch of a new currency and other suchlike people. The EU is taking in aid workers, whose “achievements” in the Balkans have been seriously criticized by the Court of Auditors, diplomats and judges. More jobs for the boys and girls. Very useful. Very “European”.
An epidemic of accession talks
Maybe they are just trying to prove that this blog is right. No sooner do we publish an analysis of the unstoppable enlargement process, there being no alternative strategies, than the Commission announces that it will bring negotiations with Croatia forward by a month if that country agrees to co-operate fully with the Hague war crimes court, whose examination of the crimes carried out during the ten-year long Yugoslav war is threatening to take longer than the actual hostilities.
Croatian Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader, has promised to hand over the main suspect, General Ante Gotovina, who stands accused of the murder of 100 ethnic Serbs and the expulsion of 150,000 more from their homes.
This promise appears to be enough. Commission President Barroso has announced that close co-operation with the international war crimes court was essential to Croatia’s participation in European integration.
Romania and Bulgaria are being invited to sign entry treaties in April, ahead (rather well ahead, really) of their planned entry in 2007.
The whole thing is completely mad. None of these countries have achieved anything remotely resembling transparent and accountable democracy, honourable polity or economic growth. Come to think of it, that makes them perfect EU members. But how exactly are they all going to be integrated and into what?
Barroso is beginning to sound rather feverish in his repeated assertions about the need for the EU to go on expanding and integrating, no matter what the problems are internally and no matter which outside country we are dealing with. The only ones definitively being left out are Ukraine and Belarus, presumably not to antagonize Russia too much. But has he or, indeed, any of his advisers given any thought to what is the ultimate aim of all this neurotic expansionism is?
Croatian Prime Minister, Ivo Sanader, has promised to hand over the main suspect, General Ante Gotovina, who stands accused of the murder of 100 ethnic Serbs and the expulsion of 150,000 more from their homes.
This promise appears to be enough. Commission President Barroso has announced that close co-operation with the international war crimes court was essential to Croatia’s participation in European integration.
Romania and Bulgaria are being invited to sign entry treaties in April, ahead (rather well ahead, really) of their planned entry in 2007.
The whole thing is completely mad. None of these countries have achieved anything remotely resembling transparent and accountable democracy, honourable polity or economic growth. Come to think of it, that makes them perfect EU members. But how exactly are they all going to be integrated and into what?
Barroso is beginning to sound rather feverish in his repeated assertions about the need for the EU to go on expanding and integrating, no matter what the problems are internally and no matter which outside country we are dealing with. The only ones definitively being left out are Ukraine and Belarus, presumably not to antagonize Russia too much. But has he or, indeed, any of his advisers given any thought to what is the ultimate aim of all this neurotic expansionism is?
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Maybe this time we'll be lucky (or not)
The EU’s spokespersons (Solana, Chirac, sometimes Schröder, and sundry others, such as the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg) have echoed the UN’s stand and Kofi Annan’s oft repeated assertion that the Iraqi election should be postponed because of the continuing, though diminishing problems in that country. One can just imagine what would happen if the election were to be postponed. The same people would dance a jig of joy, pointing a finger at American imperialism and President Bush’s refusal to let Iraqis rule themselves. Send in the UN they would proclaim.
Well, the elections in Iraq are, it seems, going ahead though with minimal UN involvement as Secretary General Annan is refusing to commit any more officials. (He it was who refused to commit more peacekeepers in Rwanda just over ten years ago, as it disintegrated into the largest massacre this side of 1945.)
However, in another country where UN troops have been present to no good effect whatsoever, elections are, according to the EU to go ahead: DR Congo, recently described as the biggest man-made catastrophe in the world.
The war in DR Congo has been going on for about seven or eight years and has involved the armies of six surrounding countries, not to mention several domestic government and rebel armies. It has resulted in about 3 million deaths (that is, I accept, a conservative estimate) and the complete destruction of various parts of the country.
The UN has had thousands of troops stationed there with very little result. In fact, the only time we heard about them was when they were accused of various malpractice, including rape of women and girls, some of them very young. The EU also rather proudly sent 800 troops, all of whom stayed in the barracks, too terrified (with good reason) to go out.
Now Louis Michel, the new Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissar (we have had occasion to wonder whether any development will happen in the Third World while those two concepts remain so closely tied in people’s minds) has announced that DR Congo has reached peace and stability. This seems to be at odds with everybody else’s reports, particularly from the eastern part of the country. But M Michel is unperturbed. Elections will go ahead in the country in June and the EU has committed €80 million (£55 million, $106 million) for that purpose.
My predictions are that the sum will grow over the next few months; that there will be no proper accounting; that the elections will be held (if at all) in circumstances of total mayhem, corruption and violence; and that eventually the Court of Auditors will produce a report that will show conclusively that not one euro devoted to DR Congo can be accounted for, some disappearing in that country, some before they even get there. Anyone would like to take me up on any of that?
Well, the elections in Iraq are, it seems, going ahead though with minimal UN involvement as Secretary General Annan is refusing to commit any more officials. (He it was who refused to commit more peacekeepers in Rwanda just over ten years ago, as it disintegrated into the largest massacre this side of 1945.)
However, in another country where UN troops have been present to no good effect whatsoever, elections are, according to the EU to go ahead: DR Congo, recently described as the biggest man-made catastrophe in the world.
The war in DR Congo has been going on for about seven or eight years and has involved the armies of six surrounding countries, not to mention several domestic government and rebel armies. It has resulted in about 3 million deaths (that is, I accept, a conservative estimate) and the complete destruction of various parts of the country.
The UN has had thousands of troops stationed there with very little result. In fact, the only time we heard about them was when they were accused of various malpractice, including rape of women and girls, some of them very young. The EU also rather proudly sent 800 troops, all of whom stayed in the barracks, too terrified (with good reason) to go out.
Now Louis Michel, the new Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissar (we have had occasion to wonder whether any development will happen in the Third World while those two concepts remain so closely tied in people’s minds) has announced that DR Congo has reached peace and stability. This seems to be at odds with everybody else’s reports, particularly from the eastern part of the country. But M Michel is unperturbed. Elections will go ahead in the country in June and the EU has committed €80 million (£55 million, $106 million) for that purpose.
My predictions are that the sum will grow over the next few months; that there will be no proper accounting; that the elections will be held (if at all) in circumstances of total mayhem, corruption and violence; and that eventually the Court of Auditors will produce a report that will show conclusively that not one euro devoted to DR Congo can be accounted for, some disappearing in that country, some before they even get there. Anyone would like to take me up on any of that?
Latest bulletin from the North front
My colleague is still “indisposed” or rather in the jug, where he is undoubtedly creating mayhem. He is due to appear before the magistrate tomorrow. All his friends hope that he will be sensible enough to get himself released to do real and important work. Further information will be posted as it becomes available.
Top news stories of 2004
In an effort to get away from the obsessions of the British media – Blunkett and Beckham with attached partners, children etc – I (for my colleague is still “indisposed”) looked at the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty site.
They conducted an unofficial poll among “broadcasters, editors, correspondents and analysts” to find the top 10 news stories of the year. The list seemed interesting enough to be reproduced on this blog.
Starting from the bottom as is proper with news and beauty contests, we get the world’s most expensive Olympics in Athens weighing in at number 10. RFE/RL, I am glad to say, also managed to refer to one of the most interesting aspects of the Games, the presence of an Afghanistani team, which included women athletes. I do not recall much discussion of that in the British media or of any serious appreciation as to how that was made possible.
At number 9, we have Darfur and the American announcement that they considered this to be genocide. This is particularly poignant as news comes in that once again, the Sudan armies and militias are ignoring the deadlines on disarming.
Number 8 is the dollar’s decline, blamed by some experts on the huge trade and budget deficit. Europe is fretting about the effect that might have on its own economies.
Story number 7 is the Madrid bombing and the subsequent electoral upset with all the attendant consequences. (Incidentally, am I still the only person who is wondering how a dozen or so backpacks could have been left lying around the underground system without a single report being made to the police?)
Number 6 is the EU enlargement on May 1 and number 5 is the handing over power to the Iraqi interim government, led by Iyad Allawi, who addressed Congress to convey his thanks to the American people.
Number 4 is the death of Yasser Arafat, which may well give the necessary impetus to the Middle East peace process, which may finally stop being a process (a weasel word if ever there was one) and become reality.
The three top stories line up as follows:
Number 3 is the American election with President Bush winning a comfortable majority for a second term.
Number 2 is the shocking massacre of children in Beslan, still not properly investigated, and the beginning of a Russia’s rapid spiralling down into autocracy.
Number 1 is the Ukrainian election earlier this month and the stunning popular victory in the achievement of a second run-off.
As ever with lists, people might disagree, not so much with the actual stories but with the order they are placed in. But what struck me very forcibly is how little any of them had to do with the EU. The only definitely EU story is enlargement. Otherwise that great and good body that is supposed to put Europe on the map and make it enormously important appears negatively: it is worried about the slide of the dollar.
Individual European countries do appear: Spain, of course, Greece in a slightly indeterminate fashion, Poland and the Baltic states behind the scenes in the Ukrainian crisis, but not the European Union. How can one account for this?
They conducted an unofficial poll among “broadcasters, editors, correspondents and analysts” to find the top 10 news stories of the year. The list seemed interesting enough to be reproduced on this blog.
Starting from the bottom as is proper with news and beauty contests, we get the world’s most expensive Olympics in Athens weighing in at number 10. RFE/RL, I am glad to say, also managed to refer to one of the most interesting aspects of the Games, the presence of an Afghanistani team, which included women athletes. I do not recall much discussion of that in the British media or of any serious appreciation as to how that was made possible.
At number 9, we have Darfur and the American announcement that they considered this to be genocide. This is particularly poignant as news comes in that once again, the Sudan armies and militias are ignoring the deadlines on disarming.
Number 8 is the dollar’s decline, blamed by some experts on the huge trade and budget deficit. Europe is fretting about the effect that might have on its own economies.
Story number 7 is the Madrid bombing and the subsequent electoral upset with all the attendant consequences. (Incidentally, am I still the only person who is wondering how a dozen or so backpacks could have been left lying around the underground system without a single report being made to the police?)
Number 6 is the EU enlargement on May 1 and number 5 is the handing over power to the Iraqi interim government, led by Iyad Allawi, who addressed Congress to convey his thanks to the American people.
Number 4 is the death of Yasser Arafat, which may well give the necessary impetus to the Middle East peace process, which may finally stop being a process (a weasel word if ever there was one) and become reality.
The three top stories line up as follows:
Number 3 is the American election with President Bush winning a comfortable majority for a second term.
Number 2 is the shocking massacre of children in Beslan, still not properly investigated, and the beginning of a Russia’s rapid spiralling down into autocracy.
Number 1 is the Ukrainian election earlier this month and the stunning popular victory in the achievement of a second run-off.
As ever with lists, people might disagree, not so much with the actual stories but with the order they are placed in. But what struck me very forcibly is how little any of them had to do with the EU. The only definitely EU story is enlargement. Otherwise that great and good body that is supposed to put Europe on the map and make it enormously important appears negatively: it is worried about the slide of the dollar.
Individual European countries do appear: Spain, of course, Greece in a slightly indeterminate fashion, Poland and the Baltic states behind the scenes in the Ukrainian crisis, but not the European Union. How can one account for this?
My colleague appears to be "indisposed"
According to a note from a mutual friend I found when I returned home last night, my colleague on this blog has once again fallen foul of the West Yorkshire constabulary. Just before midnight he was arrested by two police officers, described to me as “verbally aggressive” and carted off to the hoosegow, a.k.a. Bradford Central Police Station.
It seems he owes a largish sum on his local council bill but was not allowed to pay by credit card or go and take money from a friendly hole in the wall. (Not that many of those late on Saturday night in and around Bradford.)
He was allowed a phone call, which he made to a friendly journalist (much more useful than a solicitor) but since then attempts to communicate with him or with the police station have been thwarted.
I shall, in between publishing other news, try to keep our readers informed of the latest developments in this saga. All discussions about planes, tanks and other bits of machinery will have to wait till Dr North is free to indulge in them again.
It seems he owes a largish sum on his local council bill but was not allowed to pay by credit card or go and take money from a friendly hole in the wall. (Not that many of those late on Saturday night in and around Bradford.)
He was allowed a phone call, which he made to a friendly journalist (much more useful than a solicitor) but since then attempts to communicate with him or with the police station have been thwarted.
I shall, in between publishing other news, try to keep our readers informed of the latest developments in this saga. All discussions about planes, tanks and other bits of machinery will have to wait till Dr North is free to indulge in them again.
Which bit of no don't they understand?
Even the British government has accepted, though almost certainly only temporarily, that the people of Gibraltar do not want to be ruled by Spain, do not want to be co-ruled by Spain and do want some say in their own future.
The present Spanish government seems to have come close to grasping this. At least there is news that Gibraltar will be represented in future intergovernmental negotiations about the Rock’s future. But, hey, there is always one. The Spanish opposition Popular Party has expressed its shock and horror at this “unilateral” decision. One wonders if “unilateral” is quite the word they wanted but there we are.
It is, according to Mariano Rajoy, leader of the Popular Party, “simply humiliating” to have Gibraltarians discussing their own future.
The people of Gibraltar have several times voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining British, most recently two years ago. Neither the British nor the Spanish government recognized the validity of the referendum. Presumably, had it been for that joint sovereignty plan, the vote would have been accepted and praised as a symbol of modern politics. But the word no is not something people should utter to politicians.
The present Spanish government seems to have come close to grasping this. At least there is news that Gibraltar will be represented in future intergovernmental negotiations about the Rock’s future. But, hey, there is always one. The Spanish opposition Popular Party has expressed its shock and horror at this “unilateral” decision. One wonders if “unilateral” is quite the word they wanted but there we are.
It is, according to Mariano Rajoy, leader of the Popular Party, “simply humiliating” to have Gibraltarians discussing their own future.
The people of Gibraltar have several times voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining British, most recently two years ago. Neither the British nor the Spanish government recognized the validity of the referendum. Presumably, had it been for that joint sovereignty plan, the vote would have been accepted and praised as a symbol of modern politics. But the word no is not something people should utter to politicians.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Threat scenarios
It was always inevitable, I suppose, that we would have to buy more of the great white elephant of the skies, the Eurofighter – which the RAF now insists on calling the Typhoon but forever should be known as Heseltine's folly.
Having bound up the Germans so tightly in cancellation penalties, to stop them pulling out of the project, Hoon has been hoist with his own petard and has been forced to buy another 89 of the beasts (see link). The costs of cancellation were so great that the alternative would have been have no new toys for the RAF and stumping up mega-zillions of dosh to keep our European partners happy – and HMG out of the law courts.
The day after savaging the Army, therefore, Hoon travelled up to RAF Coningsby in Lincs, to surround himself with "steely-eyed killers" (as we used to call ourselves) exuding confidence in the new toy. Of course, after driving around in clapped-out old Tornado F3s, even flying a Tiger Moth might seem exhilarating, so it is hardly surprising to see the lads trilling over their new piece of kit.
By all accounts the Eurofighter is now a superb aeroplane, from a boy-racer point of view, but that does not make it any more or less of a white elephant. It was originally designed as an air superiority fighter in the days of the Cold War and its original function is largely redundant.
On the other hand, the latest tranche is the ground attack version, which is more suited to current tasks except that, at £60 million a piece, the aircraft are far too expensive to risk in a high-threat environment, against low-value targets. And that is precisely what they will be used for, as we pointed out in a previous posting.
It is the economic equivalent of doing the shopping in a Formula 1 racing car, with the added hazard of the local hoodlums taking potshots at you as you drive to the supermarket.
The whole debaçle, however, raises the broader question of what we want our armed forces to do. As with the Army, we should be asking ourselves what we need the RAF to do, and whether we can afford it.
Here, the United States has been doing some heart-searching in a way that does not seem evident over here. The Pentagon has been building a catalogue of "threat scenarios" which is guiding the thinking on what kind of weapons and technology will be needed to meet future demands.
Trimmed down to its essentials, they have come up with four separate scenarios: the "irregular", comprising the threat of terrorism, insurgency and civil war in areas of strategic interest to the US; the "catastophic", such as a repeat of 9/11, terrorist use of WMD or a rogue nation missile attack; the "traditional", amounting to a conventional air, sea and land war; and "disruptive", which include such elements of "cyber-operations", attempts to disrupt major computer systems of economic or operational importance.
Taking the four categories, each is assessed in terms of probability and vulnerability. Only one, the "catastrophic" threat scores highly in both realms, while conventional war scores low on both.
If we apply this sort of threat assessment to a UK context, the precise mix may differ slightly but the probability of a conventional war, for which the Eurofighter was designed, is equally unlikely. Thus, whichever way you cut it, the primary threats are unlikely to be those for which the Eurofighter is best equipped to deal.
It seems, therefore, that the larger proportion of our defence budget is being spent on the least important threats – all in the interests of European co-operation which long since ceased to have any meaning.
Having bound up the Germans so tightly in cancellation penalties, to stop them pulling out of the project, Hoon has been hoist with his own petard and has been forced to buy another 89 of the beasts (see link). The costs of cancellation were so great that the alternative would have been have no new toys for the RAF and stumping up mega-zillions of dosh to keep our European partners happy – and HMG out of the law courts.
The day after savaging the Army, therefore, Hoon travelled up to RAF Coningsby in Lincs, to surround himself with "steely-eyed killers" (as we used to call ourselves) exuding confidence in the new toy. Of course, after driving around in clapped-out old Tornado F3s, even flying a Tiger Moth might seem exhilarating, so it is hardly surprising to see the lads trilling over their new piece of kit.
By all accounts the Eurofighter is now a superb aeroplane, from a boy-racer point of view, but that does not make it any more or less of a white elephant. It was originally designed as an air superiority fighter in the days of the Cold War and its original function is largely redundant.
On the other hand, the latest tranche is the ground attack version, which is more suited to current tasks except that, at £60 million a piece, the aircraft are far too expensive to risk in a high-threat environment, against low-value targets. And that is precisely what they will be used for, as we pointed out in a previous posting.
It is the economic equivalent of doing the shopping in a Formula 1 racing car, with the added hazard of the local hoodlums taking potshots at you as you drive to the supermarket.
The whole debaçle, however, raises the broader question of what we want our armed forces to do. As with the Army, we should be asking ourselves what we need the RAF to do, and whether we can afford it.
Here, the United States has been doing some heart-searching in a way that does not seem evident over here. The Pentagon has been building a catalogue of "threat scenarios" which is guiding the thinking on what kind of weapons and technology will be needed to meet future demands.
Trimmed down to its essentials, they have come up with four separate scenarios: the "irregular", comprising the threat of terrorism, insurgency and civil war in areas of strategic interest to the US; the "catastophic", such as a repeat of 9/11, terrorist use of WMD or a rogue nation missile attack; the "traditional", amounting to a conventional air, sea and land war; and "disruptive", which include such elements of "cyber-operations", attempts to disrupt major computer systems of economic or operational importance.
Taking the four categories, each is assessed in terms of probability and vulnerability. Only one, the "catastrophic" threat scores highly in both realms, while conventional war scores low on both.
If we apply this sort of threat assessment to a UK context, the precise mix may differ slightly but the probability of a conventional war, for which the Eurofighter was designed, is equally unlikely. Thus, whichever way you cut it, the primary threats are unlikely to be those for which the Eurofighter is best equipped to deal.
It seems, therefore, that the larger proportion of our defence budget is being spent on the least important threats – all in the interests of European co-operation which long since ceased to have any meaning.
Talking Turkey
At the moment that is what we are all doing but not for much longer. As my colleague has written, the preliminary hoopla is now over and we are all settling in for a long haul of at least ten, if not fifteen years. During that time all sorts of complications will arise, not just with Turkey but with the other countries that are seeking accession: Romania and Bulgaria and with the EU itself.
Strangely enough, that comment that we cannot tell what the EU will be like in ten years’ time because of its own internal problems elicited no particular disagreement in the discussion I took part in this morning on ITN. The other participants were the Head of Politics at Goldsmith College, London and the Executive Director of the Kurdish Human Rights Project. It was a very civilized discussion and we agreed on many things. What struck me was that my interlocutors, since they were not exactly opponents, seemed rather bemused. They thought that Turkey joining the EU was quite a good idea for Turkey but were well aware of the opposing arguments. But they did not see what other solutions there were.
That, really, is the problem and, I am pleased to say, I managed to raise it during the discussion. Despite the chatter about the common foreign policy, the need to make Europe’s voice heard, the special European values, the EU, in fact, has no idea what to do with other countries. The root of the problem is the nonsense of a common foreign policy when there are no common interests or, even, a common outlook on world affairs. And that goes back to Europe’s diverse and often incompatible history.
Like certain biological organisms, the EU’s existence is necessarily enlargement. Its much touted common foreign and security policy has to be proactive or cease to exist. Action without an obvious purpose is a dangerous element. Potentially, the EU’s necessity to have foreign action and to keep enlarging because it sees no alternatives, is destabilizing.
The now accepted idea that as soon as it is capable of doing so, the EU should send combat groups to sort out troublesome parts of the world in order to further the CFSP reminds one of nothing so much as the usual policy of a weak dictatorship: have a foreign adventure or two in order to take people’s minds off the problems at home.
Nowhere is this vacuum seen more clearly than in the EU’s dealings with the neighbouring countries. Back in 1998 as the negotiations with the East European countries were coming into their own Bill Jamieson (then Economic Editor of the Sunday Telegraph) and I wrote a paper in which we argued that enlargement to the east was not in anybody’s interest, least of all the post-Communist countries. Instead, we said, the EU should take this opportunity to review its own ideological attitudes and start turning the whole structure into a series of free-market agreements.
Naturally, this was not accepted and we were criticized by, among others, Sir Samuel Brittan for producing a political and economic heresy. Early next year I shall be attending the 10th Central and Eastern European Forum, organized by Euromoney plc. The starting point of the conference is rather a sad one. The East European countries, having made enormous advances and achieved great successes in the ten years before their membership of the EU, are now finding that this “may prove a handicap in certain key regards”. The malaise of the EU is now extending to take in the hitherto vibrant economies, as we predicted it would.
The conference is hoping to come up with some answers but the participants will be faced with one immovable obstacle: members of the EU can no longer think merely in terms of their own economy and what is best for them.
Why the problem became insoluble was the EU’s inability or reluctance to think in terms of anything but membership for these countries. They had to be groomed to become EU members, whether it was the right course of action or not. At no time was there a suggestion at the political level that other relationships are possible with neighbouring states.
Having missed the possibility of reassessment with the ten new members, the EU is faced with an impasse. If it offers less than potential membership to other countries this is seen as a slap in the face. If it cannot take the countries in and cannot even think of doing so in the near future, it has no policies. This explains the floundering over Ukraine. The Neighbourhood Agreements give nothing and are there as a palliative to immediate neighbours in the east and not so immediate ones in North Africa.
Turkey is a large, fairly poor country with a history and culture that is very different from that of the European countries. The problems western Europe faced with the post-Communist states will be magnified. That is not to say we should just ignore Turkey or throw it the odd hand-out. It is an unusual country in that it is Muslim but relatively secular; it has been a staunch ally in the Cold War (though that was partly motivated by the knowledge that it was in the front-line); it is making strides towards democracy and a rule of human rights.
Will membership of the EU help in any of this? Probably not. Least of all will it be a help in ensuring that Turkey becomes a constitutional democracy, as the EU is not a democracy itself. It is a seriously flawed political entity and its faults are entirely those already in existence in most non-European countries: lack of accountability, legislation by diktat, an endemic institutional corruption. How has becoming part of it benefited the East European countries? How will it benefit the Balkan states or Turkey?
Everybody understands that taking Turkey in is problematic on many levels; but nobody can think of what else to do. The EU has no other alternatives. It has no particular reasons to stop after Turkey, though the chances are the whole project will collapse, should that membership ever come about. Whatever reason it will advance will be seen as an excuse. At the same time, this constant growth, accompanied by ever greater centralization will, inevitably, destabilize the whole area.
Strangely enough, that comment that we cannot tell what the EU will be like in ten years’ time because of its own internal problems elicited no particular disagreement in the discussion I took part in this morning on ITN. The other participants were the Head of Politics at Goldsmith College, London and the Executive Director of the Kurdish Human Rights Project. It was a very civilized discussion and we agreed on many things. What struck me was that my interlocutors, since they were not exactly opponents, seemed rather bemused. They thought that Turkey joining the EU was quite a good idea for Turkey but were well aware of the opposing arguments. But they did not see what other solutions there were.
That, really, is the problem and, I am pleased to say, I managed to raise it during the discussion. Despite the chatter about the common foreign policy, the need to make Europe’s voice heard, the special European values, the EU, in fact, has no idea what to do with other countries. The root of the problem is the nonsense of a common foreign policy when there are no common interests or, even, a common outlook on world affairs. And that goes back to Europe’s diverse and often incompatible history.
Like certain biological organisms, the EU’s existence is necessarily enlargement. Its much touted common foreign and security policy has to be proactive or cease to exist. Action without an obvious purpose is a dangerous element. Potentially, the EU’s necessity to have foreign action and to keep enlarging because it sees no alternatives, is destabilizing.
The now accepted idea that as soon as it is capable of doing so, the EU should send combat groups to sort out troublesome parts of the world in order to further the CFSP reminds one of nothing so much as the usual policy of a weak dictatorship: have a foreign adventure or two in order to take people’s minds off the problems at home.
Nowhere is this vacuum seen more clearly than in the EU’s dealings with the neighbouring countries. Back in 1998 as the negotiations with the East European countries were coming into their own Bill Jamieson (then Economic Editor of the Sunday Telegraph) and I wrote a paper in which we argued that enlargement to the east was not in anybody’s interest, least of all the post-Communist countries. Instead, we said, the EU should take this opportunity to review its own ideological attitudes and start turning the whole structure into a series of free-market agreements.
Naturally, this was not accepted and we were criticized by, among others, Sir Samuel Brittan for producing a political and economic heresy. Early next year I shall be attending the 10th Central and Eastern European Forum, organized by Euromoney plc. The starting point of the conference is rather a sad one. The East European countries, having made enormous advances and achieved great successes in the ten years before their membership of the EU, are now finding that this “may prove a handicap in certain key regards”. The malaise of the EU is now extending to take in the hitherto vibrant economies, as we predicted it would.
The conference is hoping to come up with some answers but the participants will be faced with one immovable obstacle: members of the EU can no longer think merely in terms of their own economy and what is best for them.
Why the problem became insoluble was the EU’s inability or reluctance to think in terms of anything but membership for these countries. They had to be groomed to become EU members, whether it was the right course of action or not. At no time was there a suggestion at the political level that other relationships are possible with neighbouring states.
Having missed the possibility of reassessment with the ten new members, the EU is faced with an impasse. If it offers less than potential membership to other countries this is seen as a slap in the face. If it cannot take the countries in and cannot even think of doing so in the near future, it has no policies. This explains the floundering over Ukraine. The Neighbourhood Agreements give nothing and are there as a palliative to immediate neighbours in the east and not so immediate ones in North Africa.
Turkey is a large, fairly poor country with a history and culture that is very different from that of the European countries. The problems western Europe faced with the post-Communist states will be magnified. That is not to say we should just ignore Turkey or throw it the odd hand-out. It is an unusual country in that it is Muslim but relatively secular; it has been a staunch ally in the Cold War (though that was partly motivated by the knowledge that it was in the front-line); it is making strides towards democracy and a rule of human rights.
Will membership of the EU help in any of this? Probably not. Least of all will it be a help in ensuring that Turkey becomes a constitutional democracy, as the EU is not a democracy itself. It is a seriously flawed political entity and its faults are entirely those already in existence in most non-European countries: lack of accountability, legislation by diktat, an endemic institutional corruption. How has becoming part of it benefited the East European countries? How will it benefit the Balkan states or Turkey?
Everybody understands that taking Turkey in is problematic on many levels; but nobody can think of what else to do. The EU has no other alternatives. It has no particular reasons to stop after Turkey, though the chances are the whole project will collapse, should that membership ever come about. Whatever reason it will advance will be seen as an excuse. At the same time, this constant growth, accompanied by ever greater centralization will, inevitably, destabilize the whole area.
Russia moving backward
Development since the collapse of communism has been varied in the different countries: some have progressed towards freedom and liberal capitalism quite fast (too fast, in fact, for the European Union, who has tried to unravel some of the reforms in order to impose its own brand of state-driven managerialism); some, like Belarus and the Central Asian states (all those “stans”) have stayed in place, with the difference that more is known about events than before; some, like Ukraine and, perhaps, Romania, are struggling to get free; one country has been moving backward: Russia.
The most recent news from Russia, apart from the ongoing saga of Yukos, which is being destroyed by the government partly to punish its Chairman, Khodorkovsky, for trying to break away from it and for giving money to the political opposition and partly to restore control of the production of energy to the state, has been one of a new law presented to the Lower House of the Duma. This will specify that foreigners who can be shown to have criticized Russia, its people and its culture, which, one must assume, includes the political structure, can be refused a visa without further ado.
One has to accept that a country must be able to choose whether to allow certain people to enter its territory. However, Russia until recently has proclaimed its intention to become an open country like other open countries (give or take complete state control of the media and the abolition of elections on regional level and of individual deputies of the Duma). If this law goes through, all pretence will be finally abandoned.
As a matter of fact, this is not entirely new (or new-old, since this was common practice in the Soviet Union, though there had been no specific judicial base for it). In the spring I applied for a visa to go to a conference organized by the Cato Institute. I wanted a business visa as being easier to get and cheaper – no hassle with hotels, which I did not need as a Russian friend had found me a flat to stay in.
The Institute of Economic Transitions that was supposed to issue the invitation for me to take to the Russian Consulate, explained that all sorts of documentation was needed just to get as far as an invitation. (This had not been true under Yeltsin.) Nothing happened until the last week-end, when the Institute was told that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not issuing visas that week-end as the border was being reconstructed. The Senior Research Fellow I had been dealing with was so stunned that he sent me the exact wording. It seems that somewhere along the line something I had done displeased the Russian authorities. Clearly, they have now decided that it is expensive to keep reconstructing the border: why not pass a law that would once and for all get rid of troublesome foreigners.
Other rules are being tightened. The old Soviet propiska is back. You now have to register with the police if you are more than 72 hours away from your home. Actually, those rules never quite disappeared; nor are they unique to Russia. After all, our own Bill to introduce ID cards (or internal passports) states that we shall all have to register every time we move. (And people actually wonder why anyone should oppose the idea.)
Even in the days of Yeltsin long-distance train journeys (and there are quite a few of those taken by Russians) as well as flights required the production of a passport. When I stayed in a Russian town near the Volga, I could not go into the university library to have a look around, because I did not have my passport with me. The fierce guardian of the entrance hall was stunned that I should even think of such an idea.
At the time one could shrug this off with the words: “old habits, old thought processes die hard”. Now as the rules are becoming tighter and tighter and individuals are allowed less and less freedom, shoulder shrugging is no longer in order.
The most recent news from Russia, apart from the ongoing saga of Yukos, which is being destroyed by the government partly to punish its Chairman, Khodorkovsky, for trying to break away from it and for giving money to the political opposition and partly to restore control of the production of energy to the state, has been one of a new law presented to the Lower House of the Duma. This will specify that foreigners who can be shown to have criticized Russia, its people and its culture, which, one must assume, includes the political structure, can be refused a visa without further ado.
One has to accept that a country must be able to choose whether to allow certain people to enter its territory. However, Russia until recently has proclaimed its intention to become an open country like other open countries (give or take complete state control of the media and the abolition of elections on regional level and of individual deputies of the Duma). If this law goes through, all pretence will be finally abandoned.
As a matter of fact, this is not entirely new (or new-old, since this was common practice in the Soviet Union, though there had been no specific judicial base for it). In the spring I applied for a visa to go to a conference organized by the Cato Institute. I wanted a business visa as being easier to get and cheaper – no hassle with hotels, which I did not need as a Russian friend had found me a flat to stay in.
The Institute of Economic Transitions that was supposed to issue the invitation for me to take to the Russian Consulate, explained that all sorts of documentation was needed just to get as far as an invitation. (This had not been true under Yeltsin.) Nothing happened until the last week-end, when the Institute was told that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not issuing visas that week-end as the border was being reconstructed. The Senior Research Fellow I had been dealing with was so stunned that he sent me the exact wording. It seems that somewhere along the line something I had done displeased the Russian authorities. Clearly, they have now decided that it is expensive to keep reconstructing the border: why not pass a law that would once and for all get rid of troublesome foreigners.
Other rules are being tightened. The old Soviet propiska is back. You now have to register with the police if you are more than 72 hours away from your home. Actually, those rules never quite disappeared; nor are they unique to Russia. After all, our own Bill to introduce ID cards (or internal passports) states that we shall all have to register every time we move. (And people actually wonder why anyone should oppose the idea.)
Even in the days of Yeltsin long-distance train journeys (and there are quite a few of those taken by Russians) as well as flights required the production of a passport. When I stayed in a Russian town near the Volga, I could not go into the university library to have a look around, because I did not have my passport with me. The fierce guardian of the entrance hall was stunned that I should even think of such an idea.
At the time one could shrug this off with the words: “old habits, old thought processes die hard”. Now as the rules are becoming tighter and tighter and individuals are allowed less and less freedom, shoulder shrugging is no longer in order.
Mr Herron has been informed
The Turks might think they’ve got it in the bag, but now the guilty secret is out. Headlined in the news magazine "Turkish Weekly" is the proof that Turkey is not yet ready to join the EU. And the Headline? Ah… "Turkey inches towards EU membership".
But if that is not bad enough, consider the sacrilege in the daily "Turkish Press", which offered the stunning headline of: "EU inches towards historic decision on Turkey". Ouch!
We consider it our duty to inform the authorities immediately of these transgressions except that, woops… what about the Guardian? Picked up from the Financial Times database, which also publishes Guardian material, is the headline: "EU inches towards deal with Turkey".
The copy starts with the immortal line: "Turkey was last night inching towards an agreement that could pave the way for membership of the European Union…", obviously covering both bases. Strangely, the headline is missing from the Guardian site. Clearly, they have recognised the error of their ways and tucked it in the back copies
Never mind, Neil Herron has been informed and Trading Standards are on their way to confiscate the headline. As for Turkey… what can one say? Give 'em 25.4 millimetres? Nah.
But if that is not bad enough, consider the sacrilege in the daily "Turkish Press", which offered the stunning headline of: "EU inches towards historic decision on Turkey". Ouch!
We consider it our duty to inform the authorities immediately of these transgressions except that, woops… what about the Guardian? Picked up from the Financial Times database, which also publishes Guardian material, is the headline: "EU inches towards deal with Turkey".
The copy starts with the immortal line: "Turkey was last night inching towards an agreement that could pave the way for membership of the European Union…", obviously covering both bases. Strangely, the headline is missing from the Guardian site. Clearly, they have recognised the error of their ways and tucked it in the back copies
Never mind, Neil Herron has been informed and Trading Standards are on their way to confiscate the headline. As for Turkey… what can one say? Give 'em 25.4 millimetres? Nah.
Friday, December 17, 2004
And so to fishing
I know… boring. But actually, no it isn’t because even if you are not in the least bit interested in it, the issue – or at least the EU’s treatment of it – is the archetypal example of why the EU itself cannot work.
"But why now?" you groan – to which the answer is simple. Traditionally, the last council of the year is the fisheries council, this year set for 21-22 December. All the fisheries ministers, including those from the landlocked countries of Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia, gather together in Brussels to decide how many fish our fishermen can take from our waters.
Together with the ministers from the Mediterranean states of Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Greece – whose countries do not even operate the CFP in their own seas – will also agree the rules and regulations by which our fishermen will be bound.
They will come under pressure from countries like Spain and Portugal, who bring no resources to the table but will insist on their "share" of the maritime bounty that inhabits our water, and will devote a mere two days to considering extraordinarily complex and contentious proposals presented to them by Maltese commissioner, Joe Borg, who has been in the job less than a month.
When the ministers have finished their bit, it will be down to the commission to work out what has been agreed, to tie all the compromises and fudges together and draw up the detailed regulations which will then apply to our fishermen.
Having left it so late in the year, they have no chance of actually publishing these rules by 1 January but, this notwithstanding, they will come into force on that day when the fishermen will be expected to obey them sight unseen.
By past experience, they will get copies several weeks later and take several weeks to understand them, by which time the many flaws will be revealed, and the ministers will have to meet again in an attempt to clean up the mess, without admitting in the first place that they got it wrong.
Quite frankly, you could not even run a p**s-up in a brewery this way, much less a fisheries policy, yet there are still morons out there who say that the CFP "offers the best available framework for tackling the urgent problem of over-fishing in the EU’s waters." Their mantra, of course, is that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish.
Our problem is that there are too many so-called policy makers and researchers for whom lobotomies would make no difference to their IQs, as there would be so little material to remove.
"But why now?" you groan – to which the answer is simple. Traditionally, the last council of the year is the fisheries council, this year set for 21-22 December. All the fisheries ministers, including those from the landlocked countries of Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and Slovakia, gather together in Brussels to decide how many fish our fishermen can take from our waters.
Together with the ministers from the Mediterranean states of Italy, Malta, Slovenia and Greece – whose countries do not even operate the CFP in their own seas – will also agree the rules and regulations by which our fishermen will be bound.
They will come under pressure from countries like Spain and Portugal, who bring no resources to the table but will insist on their "share" of the maritime bounty that inhabits our water, and will devote a mere two days to considering extraordinarily complex and contentious proposals presented to them by Maltese commissioner, Joe Borg, who has been in the job less than a month.
When the ministers have finished their bit, it will be down to the commission to work out what has been agreed, to tie all the compromises and fudges together and draw up the detailed regulations which will then apply to our fishermen.
Having left it so late in the year, they have no chance of actually publishing these rules by 1 January but, this notwithstanding, they will come into force on that day when the fishermen will be expected to obey them sight unseen.
By past experience, they will get copies several weeks later and take several weeks to understand them, by which time the many flaws will be revealed, and the ministers will have to meet again in an attempt to clean up the mess, without admitting in the first place that they got it wrong.
Quite frankly, you could not even run a p**s-up in a brewery this way, much less a fisheries policy, yet there are still morons out there who say that the CFP "offers the best available framework for tackling the urgent problem of over-fishing in the EU’s waters." Their mantra, of course, is that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish.
Our problem is that there are too many so-called policy makers and researchers for whom lobotomies would make no difference to their IQs, as there would be so little material to remove.
“The oil-for-food program or the soon end of Kofi Annan”
That irresistible headline on the Russian news website Pravda.Ru with an article that outlines briefly the present travails of the UN Secretary General and the troubled relationship between the United States and the United Nations.
Mr Annan is apparently promising full co-operation with the investigations into the “allegations of bribery, kickbacks and influence-peddling in the oil-for-food program” but it is not clear which of the many committees he has in mind, the six congressional ones, who have all found the UN extremely unhelpful, or the UN’s own under Paul Volcker, which has produced no results so far and has no power to subpoena or discipline.
Mr Annan himself having obviously not managed to collect too much support in Washington, has gone to Brussels, where he achieved what he wanted. After he repeated his promise to co-operate fully with the investigations, Commission President Barroso patted him on the shoulder:
Mr Annan is apparently promising full co-operation with the investigations into the “allegations of bribery, kickbacks and influence-peddling in the oil-for-food program” but it is not clear which of the many committees he has in mind, the six congressional ones, who have all found the UN extremely unhelpful, or the UN’s own under Paul Volcker, which has produced no results so far and has no power to subpoena or discipline.
Mr Annan himself having obviously not managed to collect too much support in Washington, has gone to Brussels, where he achieved what he wanted. After he repeated his promise to co-operate fully with the investigations, Commission President Barroso patted him on the shoulder:
"Kofi Annan can be sure of the EU’s support for him and the for the United Nations."This is, of course, music to the ears of those of us who have been saying for some time that the problem is not Mr Annan, though he and his record have not exactly helped the UN much, but the system of the various supranational organizations who have to stick together to justify each other’s existence. Could the domino theory work with them? In the meantime, Señhor Barroso might like to consider that if he wants to go on supporting the UN, he might have to drop his support for Mr Annan.
Join up the dots…
It was in the air before this Blog started, when on 5 April, defence ministers of the EU member states agreed in Brussels to continue with the implementation of plans to deploy rapid reaction "battle groups" in international danger zones. The groups, each consisting of 1,500 troops, were scheduled to be deployable by 2007 (see link here), forming a central part of the EU's broader defence ambitions.
The story re-emerged in May with the BBC reporting that the defence ministers had now committed themselves to forming seven such battle groups, all part of a broader strategic plan known as the "2010 Headline Goal" whereby the EU should, by 2010 be able to respond “with rapid and decisive action... to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations."
Then, on 21 November, we get the Sunday Times article telling us that Britain is "to commit more than 2,000 troops to a new 18,000-strong European Union army that will be deployed as a peace keeper to the world’s trouble spots".
Not only that, this force would expand by 2007 to comprise a multinational force of up to 12 elite rapid-reaction battle groups — each with 1,500 soldiers. At least two of these groups would be ready to deploy at 15 days’ notice to humanitarian or peacekeeping emergencies, primarily in Africa. Soldiers from the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines had been earmarked for the new force.
Three days later, we get a front page headline in The Times declaring that "Infantry reforms put historic regiments in the line of fire", putting detail to the expected restructuring of the infantry "to create larger regimental formations".
And what is the size of the "larger regimental formations"? Er… about 1,500 men, exactly the size of the "battle-groups" which are to form the core of the new EU Army.
We pointed out this EU dimension in our Blog, at the time, also pointing out that the groups, which would have to a air-portable, would be structured around the FRES concept, which is essential for rapidly deployable expeditionary forces.
As recently as yesterday, we again pointed out the EU dimension and now we are able to look at the text of Hoon's announcement in the Commons yesterday, and what does he say? This is his opening text:
Furthermore, everything Hoon tells us about the Army restructuring shows us that it is being tailored specifically to fit the operational demands of the expeditionary warfare of the type envisaged in the "Headline 2010 Goal" set by the EU. We are, therefore, shaping our Army to an EU agenda and that is why he is cutting the regiments. If there was any shadow of doubt, he then reveals it further into his statement. The capabilities are not being cut, he says:
Yet, in July, when we raised this subject, we remarked that all this was happening without a single debate on the implications, which seemed to be bringing Mr Monnet’s dream of European integration to fruition in a manner that he could not even have imagined. Should not we have had at least a debate about it before Hoon commits us to yet another massive round of European integration, we asked.
Strangely enough, that is effectively what The Telegraph is asking for in its leader today. "It is time we had a proper defence review," it says. "If the Government will not hold one, the Conservatives should." But, as we remarked yesterday, that would mean that the Conservatives would have to confront the implications of the ongoing EU defence integration – and that they are not prepared to do. For the rest of us, however, all you have to do is join up the dots, and it is obvious what is happening.
The story re-emerged in May with the BBC reporting that the defence ministers had now committed themselves to forming seven such battle groups, all part of a broader strategic plan known as the "2010 Headline Goal" whereby the EU should, by 2010 be able to respond “with rapid and decisive action... to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations."
Then, on 21 November, we get the Sunday Times article telling us that Britain is "to commit more than 2,000 troops to a new 18,000-strong European Union army that will be deployed as a peace keeper to the world’s trouble spots".
Not only that, this force would expand by 2007 to comprise a multinational force of up to 12 elite rapid-reaction battle groups — each with 1,500 soldiers. At least two of these groups would be ready to deploy at 15 days’ notice to humanitarian or peacekeeping emergencies, primarily in Africa. Soldiers from the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines had been earmarked for the new force.
Three days later, we get a front page headline in The Times declaring that "Infantry reforms put historic regiments in the line of fire", putting detail to the expected restructuring of the infantry "to create larger regimental formations".
And what is the size of the "larger regimental formations"? Er… about 1,500 men, exactly the size of the "battle-groups" which are to form the core of the new EU Army.
We pointed out this EU dimension in our Blog, at the time, also pointing out that the groups, which would have to a air-portable, would be structured around the FRES concept, which is essential for rapidly deployable expeditionary forces.
As recently as yesterday, we again pointed out the EU dimension and now we are able to look at the text of Hoon's announcement in the Commons yesterday, and what does he say? This is his opening text:
In July, I announced a re-balancing of the Army designed to make it better able to meet the challenges and threats of the 21st century. The changes that I announced then reflect the need both to complement our existing heavy and light-weight capabilities with new medium-weight forces, and to ensure that the Army is equipped, trained and organised to meet the demands of multiple, concurrent and above all expeditionary operations across the full spectrum of military tasks. Reductions in heavy armour, heavy artillery and the infantry will be accompanied by an increase in the number of key specialists, without whom the Army cannot deploy on operations. Our objective is therefore to develop a more deployable, agile and flexible force.He then goes on to give more detail, in a lengthy quote, which needs careful study:
The future Army structure is underpinned by two complementary changes. First, a move towards a more balanced force organised around two armoured brigades, three mechanised brigades, a light and an air assault brigade, in addition, of course, to the Royal Marines Commando Brigade.The lie – or deception, if you prefer – is in the second paragraph where he talks about 19 Mechanised Brigade being “ready for deployment on operations if required in the first half of 2006, when it will serve as the contingent NATO response force.” Actually it is deception, because what he doesn’t say is that Brigade will be "double-tasked" and will also serve as the first of the EU "battle groups".
We are moving ahead quickly with the changes required to put that in place, and 19 Mechanised Brigade, based in Catterick, will start its conversion to a light brigade in January. The brigade will be ready for deployment on operations if required in the first half of 2006, when it will serve as the contingent NATO response force. Based in Germany, 4th Armoured Brigade will convert to a mechanised brigade in 2006, and the other brigades will adopt their new structures in a similar time frame. The key foundations on which the future Army structure is to be built will be in place by 2008.
However, it is important to emphasise that we cannot use front-line soldiers if they cannot be deployed and sustained on operations because we lack sufficient supporting forces. In parallel, therefore, we are moving ahead with the second element of the re-organisation—making the Army more robust and resilient and able to sustain the enduring expeditionary operations that have become commonplace in recent years. The overriding requirement is to make significant enhancements to the key specialist capabilities—communications, engineers, logisticians, intelligence experts and other key capabilities. At the same time, we want to make fighting units, including the infantry, more robust by ensuring they have adequate numbers.
Furthermore, everything Hoon tells us about the Army restructuring shows us that it is being tailored specifically to fit the operational demands of the expeditionary warfare of the type envisaged in the "Headline 2010 Goal" set by the EU. We are, therefore, shaping our Army to an EU agenda and that is why he is cutting the regiments. If there was any shadow of doubt, he then reveals it further into his statement. The capabilities are not being cut, he says:
They are being backed up by an impressive re-equipment programme, introducing new communications equipment such as Bowman and Falcon, enhanced intelligence collection assets such as the Watchkeeper unmanned aerial vehicle and Soothsayer electronic warfare capability, modern vehicles such as the Panther armoured reconnaissance vehicle, and looking further ahead, the ambitious FRES armoured fighting vehicle programme, which will modernise the armoured vehicle fleet and form the basis of the medium-weight capability.Yet, as we remarked yesterday, Soames, the conservatives and the seried ranks of MPs all missed the point. Obsessed with the detail of the regimental cuts, they all missed the bigger picture.
These enhancements will directly improve the ability of the Army to deploy, support and sustain itself on the range of operations that we envisage. That can only be achieved as the result of the planned reduction by four in the number of infantry battalions, which will release around 2,400 posts for redeployment across the force structure.
Yet, in July, when we raised this subject, we remarked that all this was happening without a single debate on the implications, which seemed to be bringing Mr Monnet’s dream of European integration to fruition in a manner that he could not even have imagined. Should not we have had at least a debate about it before Hoon commits us to yet another massive round of European integration, we asked.
Strangely enough, that is effectively what The Telegraph is asking for in its leader today. "It is time we had a proper defence review," it says. "If the Government will not hold one, the Conservatives should." But, as we remarked yesterday, that would mean that the Conservatives would have to confront the implications of the ongoing EU defence integration – and that they are not prepared to do. For the rest of us, however, all you have to do is join up the dots, and it is obvious what is happening.
The slow motion coup d'etat
The Telegraph business section today - the grown-up bit of the newspaper – runs a story about the Financial Services Authority, styled as the "city watchdog", being "out of touch" with business.
The lament is that it is operated by poor quality staff who have a "civil service mentality" and little understanding of the businesses they oversee. So says a survey of more than 3,000 financial companies on the performance of the FSA, which also criticised it for "over-zealous implementation of EU directives".
Among its other sins, it was also said it was focusing on consumer protection "to the detriment" of its other responsibilities.
The report was commissioned by the Financial Services Practitioner Panel, made up of senior industry figures and chaired by Prudential chief executive Jonathan Bloomer. Half the companies surveyed said they "strongly agreed" that they were over-regulated and another third agreed to a lesser extent.
This is the regulator that has handed down more than £22m in fines since it become the single financial watchdog in December 2001. One can speculate that, if there was a regulator of regulators, whether the FSA would also be paying out fines for its own poor performance.
But chief executive of the FSA, John Tiner, partly excused his own organisation’s performance by arguing that European directives were "a huge influence" amounting to 70 percent of FSA policy work. Such is the drag of the EU on one of our most important and profitable industries.
But there is another lesson here. No one could blame the EU directly for the stranglehold the FSA has over the financial services industry, but what you will note from the Telegraph piece is not what it says, and who it quotes, but who it doesn't quote. There is no political voice speaking.
The existence of EU law and its every-growing control over vast sections of our productive life not only creates increasing burdens, it also de-politicises the business of regulation. MPs and even ministers no longer take an interest in the activities of the regulators because so much of their work is outside their responsibility. Effectively, these regulators take their orders from Brussels, and what they do is none of the business of UK legislators.
Brussels – i.e., the commission – however, has neither the resources nor the immediate interest in controlling the day-to-day activities of the regulatory authorities in the member states, which means that they effectively run themselves – with the results that are now all to plain to see.
That is one of the important, if little understood side-effects of rule from Brussels. Our own systems of political scrutiny, oversight and control have been broken down and no longer function. What has replaced it is ineffective – and ever more will be so.
What we are seeing, therefore, is the effects of what Christopher Booker and I have called a slow motion coup d'etat, where gradually the bureaucrats are taking over, and the politicians have been robbed of their power to do anything about it.
The lament is that it is operated by poor quality staff who have a "civil service mentality" and little understanding of the businesses they oversee. So says a survey of more than 3,000 financial companies on the performance of the FSA, which also criticised it for "over-zealous implementation of EU directives".
Among its other sins, it was also said it was focusing on consumer protection "to the detriment" of its other responsibilities.
The report was commissioned by the Financial Services Practitioner Panel, made up of senior industry figures and chaired by Prudential chief executive Jonathan Bloomer. Half the companies surveyed said they "strongly agreed" that they were over-regulated and another third agreed to a lesser extent.
This is the regulator that has handed down more than £22m in fines since it become the single financial watchdog in December 2001. One can speculate that, if there was a regulator of regulators, whether the FSA would also be paying out fines for its own poor performance.
But chief executive of the FSA, John Tiner, partly excused his own organisation’s performance by arguing that European directives were "a huge influence" amounting to 70 percent of FSA policy work. Such is the drag of the EU on one of our most important and profitable industries.
But there is another lesson here. No one could blame the EU directly for the stranglehold the FSA has over the financial services industry, but what you will note from the Telegraph piece is not what it says, and who it quotes, but who it doesn't quote. There is no political voice speaking.
The existence of EU law and its every-growing control over vast sections of our productive life not only creates increasing burdens, it also de-politicises the business of regulation. MPs and even ministers no longer take an interest in the activities of the regulators because so much of their work is outside their responsibility. Effectively, these regulators take their orders from Brussels, and what they do is none of the business of UK legislators.
Brussels – i.e., the commission – however, has neither the resources nor the immediate interest in controlling the day-to-day activities of the regulatory authorities in the member states, which means that they effectively run themselves – with the results that are now all to plain to see.
That is one of the important, if little understood side-effects of rule from Brussels. Our own systems of political scrutiny, oversight and control have been broken down and no longer function. What has replaced it is ineffective – and ever more will be so.
What we are seeing, therefore, is the effects of what Christopher Booker and I have called a slow motion coup d'etat, where gradually the bureaucrats are taking over, and the politicians have been robbed of their power to do anything about it.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
A Turkey is not just for Christmas
The outcome of the talks at the European Council on Turkish accession seem now to be decided. The EU will open accession talks but with one condition: Turkey must recognise Cyprus as an independent nation. That, presumably, means that in the not too distant future Turkey must remove its troops from the island.
But the decision has not been formally announced and we are all left on tenterhooks overnight. Yet, for all the apparent drama – with BBC radio 4's "World Tonight" having devoted most of the programme to the issue of Turkish accession - it is as well to remember that much of what has been and is going on is pure theatre.
Tonight is the night when the heads of state and governments wine and dine, with their foreign affairs ministers dining in a separate room. And with over twenty-five in each venue, sitting round elongated dining tables, the conditions are hardly conducive to proper negotiation.
In fact, the negotiations are actually carried on elsewhere. The really serious talks are between high-level officials and technical teams of Turkish and EU officials, which "continue synchronously" before the meeting of the European Council.
There have also been a series of bilateral meetings, with Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan meeting Silvio Berlusconi, while foreign minister Abdullah Gul met his counterparts, all with continuous telephone traffic between all the parties.
By the time a European Council actually starts, the substantive issues have usually been resolved and, immediately after breakfast, the first task of the members – before they get down to their discussions - is to agree the communiqué which will be issued at the conclusion of the council.
This will be no different in this case as, on the agenda, is a meeting with Kofi Annan. This will eat into the time available for any serious talks, had there ever been any really serious intention of having them.
I guess that when we finally see the communiqué, it will say just what we all expected – that accession talks with Turkey will start, and resolution of the Cyprus issue will be made a condition of them proceeding.
Then we will be in for the long haul – something which Turkey is quite used to, having first applied to join the EEC in 1963. The smart money is on the negotiations taking at least ten years, if not longer, which means that the European Council will be dealing with the ongoing drama year after year after year at their Brussels meetings.
One thing is for sure though. The members may announce formally one decision tomorrow, but they will all also be aware that a Turkey is not just for Christmas.
But the decision has not been formally announced and we are all left on tenterhooks overnight. Yet, for all the apparent drama – with BBC radio 4's "World Tonight" having devoted most of the programme to the issue of Turkish accession - it is as well to remember that much of what has been and is going on is pure theatre.
Tonight is the night when the heads of state and governments wine and dine, with their foreign affairs ministers dining in a separate room. And with over twenty-five in each venue, sitting round elongated dining tables, the conditions are hardly conducive to proper negotiation.
In fact, the negotiations are actually carried on elsewhere. The really serious talks are between high-level officials and technical teams of Turkish and EU officials, which "continue synchronously" before the meeting of the European Council.
There have also been a series of bilateral meetings, with Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan meeting Silvio Berlusconi, while foreign minister Abdullah Gul met his counterparts, all with continuous telephone traffic between all the parties.
By the time a European Council actually starts, the substantive issues have usually been resolved and, immediately after breakfast, the first task of the members – before they get down to their discussions - is to agree the communiqué which will be issued at the conclusion of the council.
This will be no different in this case as, on the agenda, is a meeting with Kofi Annan. This will eat into the time available for any serious talks, had there ever been any really serious intention of having them.
I guess that when we finally see the communiqué, it will say just what we all expected – that accession talks with Turkey will start, and resolution of the Cyprus issue will be made a condition of them proceeding.
Then we will be in for the long haul – something which Turkey is quite used to, having first applied to join the EEC in 1963. The smart money is on the negotiations taking at least ten years, if not longer, which means that the European Council will be dealing with the ongoing drama year after year after year at their Brussels meetings.
One thing is for sure though. The members may announce formally one decision tomorrow, but they will all also be aware that a Turkey is not just for Christmas.
Please don't call it a summit
Slightly after 6.30 this evening the heads of government and some heads of state of the 25 members of the European Union will arrive at the Justus Lipsus building in Brussels for the second European Council of the Dutch presidency.Says the council website, European Council is the name given to the regular meetings of Heads of State and Government of EU Member States, and the President of the European Commission. Sometimes, it adds, it is also called a summit.
But summit it most definitely is not. Although not included in the original Treaty of Rome, the council is an institution of the European Union. It was formally recognised in the Maastricht Treaty and, within the new constitution, it is proposed that it will become a fully-fledged tier of the emerging government of Europe. It is, in effect, the "cabinet" of the EU.
Right from the start, this was the intention of its founder, none other than Jean Monnet, who initially called it the "provisional European government".
That was back in 1972, at the Paris summit on 18 October, the day after Heath's European Communities Bill received Royal Assent. The idea for this summit, to celebrate the "enlargement" of the "Six" to the "Nine", had also originated with Monnet where, amongst other things, Heath called for "a clear timetable for economic and monetary union".
By and large, however, the summit was inconclusive. Monnet felt it had lacked focus and, more importantly, mechanisms for carrying its resolutions forward. His great regret in establishing his "community", the Treaty of Rome had not set up "a supreme body to steer Europe through the difficult transition from national to collective sovereignty". By the end of August 1973, he had decided to remedy this deficiency.
He therefore produced one of his famous plans, outlining a structure for a "Provisional European Government". This body would draw up a plan for "European Union", to include a "European Government" and an elected European Assembly. This "provisional government" would meet regularly. Those taking part would keep its deliberations secret.
Monnet came over to England to discuss his proposal with Ted Heath at Chequers on 18 September 1973, telling him "we must give public opinion the feeling that European affairs are being decided: today, people have the impression that they’re merely being discussed."
Heath readily agreed, but had a reservation about making the proposal public. "Let's just do it," he told Monnet. He also worried about the term "provisional government". "That would get me into great difficulties." he said.
Monnet then approached Georges Pompidou and Willi Brandt. They were equally enthusiastic and neither shared Heath's reservations about the title, although Pompidou warmed to the name "European Union". A member of Pompidou's staff was heard to inquire of a close confidant of Pompidou what this phrase meant. The reply came, "nothing… but then that is the beauty of it".
In late September, Pompidou mentioned Monnet's proposal at a press conference. Heath then took up the baton at the Conservative Party conference on 13 October. "I believe", he said,
...that already some of my colleagues as Heads of Government feel the need for us to get together regularly without large staff so that we can jointly guide the Community along the paths we have already set. I would like to see the Heads of Government of the member countries of the Community meeting together, perhaps twice a year, as I have said, alone and without large staffs, with the President of the Commission being present, as he was at the Summit …our purpose in meeting together would be to lay down the broad direction of European policy.Heath failed to mention that he was talking about what was being called a "provisional government", and said nothing about it being intended to steer Europe through the "transition from national to collective sovereignty".
Two weeks later, on 31 October, Pompidou told his Cabinet that regular meetings of heads of states were needed "with the aim of comparing and harmonising their attitudes in the framework of political co-operation". He wanted the first meeting to be held before the end of 1973.
Monnet was now confident that, despite the turmoil into which the world had suddenly been plunged that autumn by the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East, his plan was back on track. Then, as he was to recall, "when all seemed well, everything was thrown into turmoil".
In the aftermath of the war, the price of oil had quadrupled, threatening chaos to western economies. The governments of the Nine rushed to strike individual deals with the oil sheikhs. Heath was later to write that, at this moment, the Community:
...lost sight of the philosophy of Jean Monnet: that the Community exists to find common solutions to common problems. Each member state drifted back to seeking its own, unilateral solutions. So we all had to relearn painfully that there is no solution if we act on our own.Despite this, Monnet continued to make progress with his plan. By March 1974 he was circulating another paper, proclaiming:
Existing European practices have proved inadequate as a means of enabling our countries to organise themselves for collective action… We must break out of this vicious circle, in which the common interests of the Community countries are inadequately served. The existing European institutions are not strong enough today to do it on their own.Then, in the three leading Community states, there were changes at the top table. In a general election in Britain, Heath was replaced by Wilson. In Germany Brandt retired, to be replaced in May by Helmut Schmidt. The same month in France, after Pompidou had died, he was replaced by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
The old alliance between Pompidou and Brandt was soon replaced by a similar friendship between Giscard and Schmidt. The two new Franco-German leaders soon agreed that there should be "no more separate national actions, only European actions". They accepted Monnet's "provisional government", giving it the title "European Council".
The new body was approved at an informal meeting of heads of government at the Elysée on 14 September 1974.
The Council's first meeting was held in Paris on 9-10 December 1974. Its main business was to make the Council a permanent institution. Giscard pointed out that there had only been three "summits" between the heads of government in five years. They had to become "more organised" and regular, as Monnet had proposed.
Nothing appeared in the communiqué about the Council becoming a "provisional government", but one of its first actions was to ask the Belgium prime minister, Leo Tindemans, to draft a report on how further integration could be achieved. Giscard brought proceedings to a close with the words: "The Summit is dead. Long live the European Council".
Yet, despite this landmark in the evolution of what was now becoming known as "European construction", journalists and others continue to refer to meetings of the Council as "summits". Even today few realise the significance of what had happened. Monnet himself, however, had no doubts. In his Memoirs, he wrote:
...the European institutions were in charge of immense sectors of activity, over which they exercised the share of sovereignty that had been delegated to them. But if they were to work effectively, the governments had to have the same European will and be prepared, acting together as a collective authority, to transfer the additional sovereignty required to achieve a true European Union. The creation of the European Council supplied the means for reaching that essential decision. A major step had been taken.It was, effectively, Monnet's last great coup. His "provisional government" survives to this day, so, as the heads of government and state arrive today in Brussels for their European Council, please don't call it a summit.
The elephant strikes again
The widely trailed cuts in the British Army have been announced today by defence secretary Geoff Hoon, who has confirmed the axing of four infantry battalions in what is described as a major restructuring of the Army.
According to various reports, this move prompted angry scenes in the Commons with Scottish National Party MP Annabelle Ewing ordered out of the chamber by the Speaker after calling Mr Hoon a "backstabbing coward".
She was angered by Mr Hoon's confirmation that two single battalion regiments in Scotland – the Royal Scots and The King’s Own Scottish Borderers – would merge into a single battalion and would combine with the other four Scottish regiments, including the Black Watch, to form the new Royal Regiment of Scotland. Details of the other cuts can be found on the Scotsman site.
Hoon claims that his plans "…will make the Army more robust and resilient, able to deploy, support and sustain the enduring expeditionary operations that are essential for a more complex and uncertain world". He added: "The move to larger, multi-battalion regiments that these changes bring about is the only sustainable way in which to structure the infantry for the long term."
But what is significant is that we are not just seeing the "axing" of famous regiments, which has tended to obscure the wider debate. This is but one part of a "wider rebalancing" of the mix of light, medium and heavy forces. This revolves round that magic word FRES, standing for Future Rapid Effects System.
This is the driver of all these changes. Hoon needs to re-equip the Army to fit the expeditionary role required for Britain's forces to fulfil Blair's commitment to playing a leading role in the EU's rapid reaction force. FRES is the answer, but it is expensive. So, with it not becoming available until 2010, at the earliest, he is taking the savings now to fund the future. costs of the project.
Nothing of this emerges from the Conservatives, with shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram, completely missing the "elephant in the room" when he confined his attack on Hoon to a condemnation of his search for "cost cutting", without seeking to enquire what the savings were for.
Good theatre, it might have been as Ancram declared: "It is a dark day for our armed forces. And an even darker day for the proud regiments it seeks to scrap. It is also a day of shame for this discredited and ineffective Defence Secretary," but he has failed to get near the real issues.
In fact, Ancram has assiduously avoided discussing the underlying agenda: "The Secretary of State says that this is all about reorganisation", he told the Commons, "But this statement is not driven by a need to reorganise. It is driven by the chancellor's demand for financial cuts."
Unfortunately, this is partially true and close enough to sound plausible. But it is also badly wrong. Hoon is being driven by the need to reorganise, and that is being driven by Blair's plans for a greater EU military role for the Army. But Hoon is trying to do it on the cheap, because Brown will not give him the money he needs. That is where the infantry cuts come in.
Thus, instead of trying to ignore the fact that the Army is being subject to one of the most fundamental reorganisations in its history, for an entirely political objective, Ancram should be asking why it is being reorganised.
But then the answer might include the word "Europe" and, as we know, Ancram would not like that. If he was confronted with that, he would have to recognise the "elephant in the room".
According to various reports, this move prompted angry scenes in the Commons with Scottish National Party MP Annabelle Ewing ordered out of the chamber by the Speaker after calling Mr Hoon a "backstabbing coward".
She was angered by Mr Hoon's confirmation that two single battalion regiments in Scotland – the Royal Scots and The King’s Own Scottish Borderers – would merge into a single battalion and would combine with the other four Scottish regiments, including the Black Watch, to form the new Royal Regiment of Scotland. Details of the other cuts can be found on the Scotsman site.
Hoon claims that his plans "…will make the Army more robust and resilient, able to deploy, support and sustain the enduring expeditionary operations that are essential for a more complex and uncertain world". He added: "The move to larger, multi-battalion regiments that these changes bring about is the only sustainable way in which to structure the infantry for the long term."
But what is significant is that we are not just seeing the "axing" of famous regiments, which has tended to obscure the wider debate. This is but one part of a "wider rebalancing" of the mix of light, medium and heavy forces. This revolves round that magic word FRES, standing for Future Rapid Effects System.
This is the driver of all these changes. Hoon needs to re-equip the Army to fit the expeditionary role required for Britain's forces to fulfil Blair's commitment to playing a leading role in the EU's rapid reaction force. FRES is the answer, but it is expensive. So, with it not becoming available until 2010, at the earliest, he is taking the savings now to fund the future. costs of the project.
Nothing of this emerges from the Conservatives, with shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram, completely missing the "elephant in the room" when he confined his attack on Hoon to a condemnation of his search for "cost cutting", without seeking to enquire what the savings were for.
Good theatre, it might have been as Ancram declared: "It is a dark day for our armed forces. And an even darker day for the proud regiments it seeks to scrap. It is also a day of shame for this discredited and ineffective Defence Secretary," but he has failed to get near the real issues.
In fact, Ancram has assiduously avoided discussing the underlying agenda: "The Secretary of State says that this is all about reorganisation", he told the Commons, "But this statement is not driven by a need to reorganise. It is driven by the chancellor's demand for financial cuts."
Unfortunately, this is partially true and close enough to sound plausible. But it is also badly wrong. Hoon is being driven by the need to reorganise, and that is being driven by Blair's plans for a greater EU military role for the Army. But Hoon is trying to do it on the cheap, because Brown will not give him the money he needs. That is where the infantry cuts come in.
Thus, instead of trying to ignore the fact that the Army is being subject to one of the most fundamental reorganisations in its history, for an entirely political objective, Ancram should be asking why it is being reorganised.
But then the answer might include the word "Europe" and, as we know, Ancram would not like that. If he was confronted with that, he would have to recognise the "elephant in the room".
EU budget agreed
Quick as a flash, the EU commission has posted the good tidings that the EU parliament has agreed the budget for 2005.
The largely empty ritual of the EU parliament voting for the budget means that the money for next year's EU finances is secure. It elicited an equally ritual response from Dalia Grybauskaité, commissioner for financial programming and budget, who said: "Financial resources for the enlarged Europe are now secured. The European priorities have been respected."
That is so European… they do love that word "respect". You never obey laws in Euroland, you respect them. You never observe, recognise or conform with traditions, you respect them. Likewise, you never accept, endorse or agree priorities… you guessed it, you respect them. Urghh.
So little Dalia drivels on in her leaden Eurospeak, telling the world that "We have increased funding to support the Lisbon Strategy, to promote freedom, peace, liberty and justice, and to reinforce information to citizens and the debate on the future of the Union." Everything is fine in the world. We can all sit back and relax.
Wait a bit though - what's that about "…reinforce information to citizens and the debate on the future of the Union"? Ah, that's the hike in the EU propaganda budget to help push through the ratification of the constitution. Nice to know our tax money is being well spent.
Anyhow, the 2005 budget for EU 25 is going to be €106.3 billion, representing 1.004 percent of the combined Gross National Income (GNI) of member states. It is an increase of 4.4 percent compared with the budget for 2004.
The rise, we are told, arises from the full incorporation of the new member states and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. And 2005 is the first year when the reform of the CAP has an important financial impact, says the commission. For "reform" read increase. Spending goes up to €49.7 billion, a hike of 10.2 percent.
Regional policy commitments are set at €42.4 billion, the second largest appropriation in the EU budget - much of which will require co-funding before it is paid – but the commission is alrady warning that there might not be enough money in this pot, suggesting that it may need to present "a preliminary draft amending budget" in the middle of 2005. When the commission comes out with its begging bowl, the EU parliament and the council "have committed themselves to take a swift decision". You bet.
Internal policies "concentrate on the fight against international terrorism" which, together with the budget for health and consumer protection, research, education and culture and transport and energy, amounts to a relatively modest €9.1 billion, although much greater expenditure will be borne by member states in complying with EU requirements.
You will be pleased to know, also, that the EU is going to focus actions on "restoring peace and democracy". Commitments here are set at €5.2 billion, including a paltry €200 million for Iraq (as against £3.1 billion so far from the UK).
Pre-accession aid is set at €2.1 billion. For the first time Croatia is included under this strategy and will receive €105 million, an of 60 percent on 2004. The Turkish Cypriot community, in recognition for their support of the EU island unification, gets €120 million, Romania and Bulgaria get €1,552 and Turkey €286.2 million.
Another day, another dollar, as they say. A good day's work for the parliament, wrapping up €106.3 billion of other peoples' money, and a nice little Christmas present for the commission. I do hope the MEPs enjoy their Christmas dinners in the fleshpots of Strasbourg this week.
The largely empty ritual of the EU parliament voting for the budget means that the money for next year's EU finances is secure. It elicited an equally ritual response from Dalia Grybauskaité, commissioner for financial programming and budget, who said: "Financial resources for the enlarged Europe are now secured. The European priorities have been respected."
That is so European… they do love that word "respect". You never obey laws in Euroland, you respect them. You never observe, recognise or conform with traditions, you respect them. Likewise, you never accept, endorse or agree priorities… you guessed it, you respect them. Urghh.
So little Dalia drivels on in her leaden Eurospeak, telling the world that "We have increased funding to support the Lisbon Strategy, to promote freedom, peace, liberty and justice, and to reinforce information to citizens and the debate on the future of the Union." Everything is fine in the world. We can all sit back and relax.
Wait a bit though - what's that about "…reinforce information to citizens and the debate on the future of the Union"? Ah, that's the hike in the EU propaganda budget to help push through the ratification of the constitution. Nice to know our tax money is being well spent.
Anyhow, the 2005 budget for EU 25 is going to be €106.3 billion, representing 1.004 percent of the combined Gross National Income (GNI) of member states. It is an increase of 4.4 percent compared with the budget for 2004.
The rise, we are told, arises from the full incorporation of the new member states and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. And 2005 is the first year when the reform of the CAP has an important financial impact, says the commission. For "reform" read increase. Spending goes up to €49.7 billion, a hike of 10.2 percent.
Regional policy commitments are set at €42.4 billion, the second largest appropriation in the EU budget - much of which will require co-funding before it is paid – but the commission is alrady warning that there might not be enough money in this pot, suggesting that it may need to present "a preliminary draft amending budget" in the middle of 2005. When the commission comes out with its begging bowl, the EU parliament and the council "have committed themselves to take a swift decision". You bet.
Internal policies "concentrate on the fight against international terrorism" which, together with the budget for health and consumer protection, research, education and culture and transport and energy, amounts to a relatively modest €9.1 billion, although much greater expenditure will be borne by member states in complying with EU requirements.
You will be pleased to know, also, that the EU is going to focus actions on "restoring peace and democracy". Commitments here are set at €5.2 billion, including a paltry €200 million for Iraq (as against £3.1 billion so far from the UK).
Pre-accession aid is set at €2.1 billion. For the first time Croatia is included under this strategy and will receive €105 million, an of 60 percent on 2004. The Turkish Cypriot community, in recognition for their support of the EU island unification, gets €120 million, Romania and Bulgaria get €1,552 and Turkey €286.2 million.
Another day, another dollar, as they say. A good day's work for the parliament, wrapping up €106.3 billion of other peoples' money, and a nice little Christmas present for the commission. I do hope the MEPs enjoy their Christmas dinners in the fleshpots of Strasbourg this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)