Evasion, evasion, evasion

"Running scared", is how The Daily Express puts it – the refusal of Gordon Brown to answer Cameron’s question on the EU constitution.

The Sun, on the other hand, has "Cam hammers PM on EU pledge", which is a good sign, when the paper starts using a nickname. The Boy might start realising that "there's votes in that thar referendum."

The sour notes came from the left-leaning papers, such as The Daily Mirror which accused the Boy of trying to portray himself as a Eurosceptic by attacking Labour's refusal to hold a referendum on a European treaty.

It was, says the paper, "a desperate attempt in the last Prime Minister's Question Time before Parliament's summer break to please revolting right-wingers in his own party. But Gordon Brown said it showed the wheels were coming off the Tory bicycle." And, in a brutal Commons put-down, the PM told the Tory leader: "You are back to the old agenda. It didn't take long after the Ealing Southall by-election for you to retreat."

A similar note came from The Guardian political columnist, who apparently applauds Brown's evasion.

But, if the prime minister lived to fight another day, The Telegraph tells us that he might have trouble in his back yard with, potentially, 40 Labour MPs considering backing a backbench campaign for a referendum.

Possible rebels include Ian Davidson, an MP close to Mr Brown and Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston. She intends to demand a referendum in a debate in the Commons today.

Another Labour MP, unnamed, says it was disgraceful that the government was claiming that the new treaty was less far reaching than its predecessor - the Constitutional Treaty - and therefore did not merit a referendum. "It is being spun by the Government as a different treaty in a way that is totally dishonest," the MP is cited as saying.

Today, however, is the last day of this Parliamentary session and the political establishment go off for their long break, not to return until October. It leaves the issue to fester, ready to be picked up at the same time Brown is jetting off to Lisbon to agree the revamped EU constitution.

By then, of course, we will have the full draft and Brown's next attempt at evasion might not be so successful. But, drawing on his predecessor's example on education, he will simply have to redouble his efforts. For the next session, therefore, he will have to offer evasion, evasion, evasion. Not a bad slogan for this prime minister, one thinks.

COMMENT THREAD

An avoidable death?

We are not going to say, "told you so", because we do not have enough details. But this report is disturbing.

It recounts that, yesterday a British soldier was killed and two others injured by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan, while riding in a Pinzgauer Vector. The soldier, from the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, died after an attack on a patrol in the outskirts of Sangin in Helmand province early in the morning.

This dangerously inadequate vehicle has been the subject of many posts on this blog, for instance, here and here. The question must be asked, therefore, as to whether a better vehicle, such as the Mastiff or RG-31 (or even a Bushmaster: this Dutch example, pictured below, was hit by an IED last week - none of the crew were harmed), could have prevented this death and injuries.

Of course, if we asked the question officially, the MoD would not give us any answers, hiding behind "operational security" as it always does on such occasions. But, if the answer is "yes" (and it is not necessarily so - see here), then I hope the people involved in manufacturing and procuring this vehicle have trouble sleeping. At least they will be alive and whole.

It seems too much to hope for however, that the MoD and the Army will begin to understand that the currency of counter-insurgency is soldiers' deaths. The more the casualty rate builds, the harder it is to sustain operations in the face of mounting public opposition. Inevitably, some deaths are unavoidable but the emphasis should be on preventing avoidable deaths. Given that this vehicle is so ill-protected, the presumption must be that this was an avoidable death.

This, we cannot afford.

COMMENT THREAD

Cameron on the constitution

Returning to PMQs and Cameron's question on the "EU constitution", the Hansard is now posted and we are able to read the details of his exchange with Brown.

Cameron kicked off by stating that the prime minister had said in an interview that morning "about the EU constitution" … At that point, he was interrupted by an uproar in the House, generated from the government benches, at which point he noted: "There is plenty more."

When he could resume, Cameron continued: "if I thought I was doing something that needed a referendum I would say so." He then went on to say:

The Irish Prime Minister says that 90 percent of the constitution remains in the treaty and the Spanish Foreign Minister says that 98 percent remains. What figure would the Prime Minister put on it?

Again, there was a huge uproar, with the speaker having to intervene. Cameron had to repeat his question.

What followed was a classic example of not answering a question – a combination of bluster and evasion:

I see, Mr. Speaker, that we are quickly back to the old agenda. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, if he examines each aspect of the treaty and what we secured in our negotiations, he should support it, not oppose it. The first issue is the charter of rights—it is non-justiciable in British law, so we secured our negotiating objective. The second is justice and home affairs—we have an opt-in, so we secured our negotiating objective. The third issue is security, foreign affairs and defence policy, which remains intergovernmental, so we secured our objective. The fourth is social security—no expenditure affecting us will be made without an emergency brake that we can put on, so we secured our negotiating objective. National security will remain a matter for individual Governments, so we secured our negotiating objective. He might be better off, in the interests of unity within his own party, looking at what the chair of his democracy taskforce said only a few days ago. He said that, as a result of what we had negotiated, a European referendum would be "crackpot", "dotty" and "frankly absurd".

At this point, frankly, one switches off. That sort of answer may go down well with the troops (and there is every indication that it did) but we are the "outside" looking in. The question was simply put – and it was not answered.

For the record, though, we continue the exchange, with an example of the "Punch and Judy politics" that the Boy foreswore:

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to trade quotations from former Chancellors, I can tell him about a former Chancellor who promised a referendum and who put it in his manifesto. That former Chancellor is him. He talks about his red lines, but he had red lines with the constitution, and they are pretty much the same red lines. That is why the man who wrote the constitution says that the changes have been few and far between. That is why the President of the Commission is going round saying that it will usher in "the world's first non-imperial empire".

Mr. Giscard d'Estaing says that more than 90 per cent. remains and Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former Prime Minister of Belgium, says that the figure is 95 per cent., so which is it? The Prime Minister claims to be a numbers man, so is it 90 per cent., is it 95 per cent. or is it 98 per cent.? Come on.

And do we get an answer? Nope. We get the standard "line". Says Brown:

Let me just read from the mandate agreed at the Council:

"The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single text called 'Constitution', is abandoned."

That was the decision made at the intergovernmental conference in Brussels. The Conservative party should recognise that that was achieved and that all our negotiating objectives, including the opt-outs, so that the charter is non-justiciable in English and British law, were also achieved. The Conservative party has got to wake up to the fact that we succeed when we negotiate in Europe, and we do not need to have an empty chair.

Oh dear. It is just as well so few people watch PMQs. And they wonder why politicians are held in such low regard? Thus does Cameron continue:

Why does the Prime Minister not wake up and read this quotation from his trade Minister? He said, "This is a con to call this a treaty; it's not. It's exactly the same: it’s a constitution." That is the man whom the Prime Minister put in the House of Lords as his trade Minister. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to restore trust in a Government that he has been part of for 10 years; he says that he wants to involve people in the decisions affecting their lives; and he says that he wants the state to be the servant not the master. Yet on the key test of whether to honour the commitment that he personally gave to hold a referendum, he has failed. Why is he afraid to trust the people and hold that referendum?

And now we get the pure politicking:

The right hon. Gentleman is back to the old agenda. It did not take long after the Ealing, Southall by-election for him to retreat—the old agenda on Europe, the old agenda on grammar schools, the old agenda on spending and the old agenda on tax cuts. The wheels are falling off the Tory bicycle, and it is just as well that he has got a car following him when he goes out on his rounds. Let me just quote what his old friend Lord Kalms has said to him: "We're having a very bad period." He said that they needed to do some rethinking and that. "Some of the policies need substantial working on." He continued: "What we should do is pack up", go to our constituencies, "and come back in the autumn" and rethink.

That is what the Tories have got to do.

Nice knockabout stuff, but the underlying agenda is serious – "Europe" is no-go territory. Not only am I not going to answer your questions, but you shouldn't be asking them in the first place.

Cameron may indeed be returning to the "old agenda", for his own motives, but is Brown seriously suggesting that the leader of the opposition should not be questioning him about an issue that is of such great importance to the nation?

And somebody has got to deal with this "constitutional concept" scam.

COMMENT THREAD

Comprehensive Spending Review

Boring title, but this is what all the posturing has been about, and why Dannatt has been spitting out his dummy.

Announced by Brown in Parliament today, with a comment on the MoD website, Defence is to be awarded an additional £7.7bn by 2011, equating to 1.5 percent average annual real growth (after deduction of the "modernisation fund" allowance in the previous CSR).

This breaks down into an annual budget of £34bn in 2008/9, £35.3bn in 2009/10 and £36.9bn in 2010/11 and is separate from the additional cost of operations. These are funded directly by the Treasury. Since 2001, says the MoD, £6.6bn has been in supporting the front line.

In immediate terms, this paves the way for the purchase of two new aircraft carriers, although these have not yet been ordered, and over half a billion is going into improving service accommodation.

However, behind the scenes there is a major rethink going on. While the carriers have survived, there is a fundamental review in progress, examining the costs of major projects, together with a substantial drive to reduce overheads. The latter is aiming at a five percent year-on-year saving in MoD's administrative overhead over the next three years and a 25 percent reduction in costs to the MoD's head office. These are in addition to the £2.8bn in "efficiencies" delivered over the previous spending review period.

On the major projects, one is looking for an acknowledgement that the defence budget is not the plaything of defence contractors, who are grabbing a larger and larger share of the cash, but to fund operations.

It is there that the "creative tension" is bringing the likes of Dannatt to the fore, a man who so much wants to protect his big spending items and his fully-equipped conventional army that he is prepared to see a reduced operational tempo to pay for it.

Interestingly, the debate about where the split should occur between "core army" and counter-insurgency operations is one which is taking place behind closed doors, mainly because the media seems to have no idea what is going on (and perhaps cares less - the BBC has not even reported the announcement), while the Conservative opposition has simply failed to engage.

However, with the headline increases just announced, it will be more difficult to push their "underspend" mantra, when funds are increasing in real terms and Cameron has yet to sanction any increased spending on the forces. Until he does that, and the Tories come up with some sensible ideas of how they would spend it, the debate will go on without them.

It now appears, though, that that would be the least worst option. Leaks from Cameron's "national and international security" commission, chaired by Dame Pauline Neville Jones, is to recommend complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. That, at least, would absolve the Boy from finding more money and resolve the "creative tensions". Dannatt could have his new toys and he need not get them dirty, fighting those grubby little insurgents.

COMMENT THREAD

Quote of the day

Debating with Tories is futile. They win because I lose the will to live.

Anon

Nowhere but down

According to The Guardian today – which has published the results of an ICM poll giving Labour a six point lead - David Cameron is losing his appeal to voters. It suggests that many Conservative voters have come to dislike the Tory leader and that he is no longer attracting new support to the party.

This is accompanied by wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Tory blogs at the lack of press coverage of the Boy's latest adventure in Rwanda, the counterpoint to which is a robust op-ed in The Telegraph from Simon Heffer.

But if it is press coverage the Tories want, it is there aplenty in the reports of Hague's speech on the case for an EU referendum – not least on the front page of the Telegraph, the print edition carrying the headline, "Hague savages Brown over EU".

With this, The Mail and The Sun, there are signs that the media is beginning to wake up to the dangers of the EU treaty-to-be, and the enormity of the lie perpetrated by Brown, in pretending that is is not the EU constitution in disguise. But, for the turgid Boy, this is the wrong type of publicity. He would have the media gushing over his touchy-feely stunt in Rwanda instead of dealing with real issues.

Strangely though, it is not in the pages of the print media that the shape of that most pressing of all issues is coalescing. Rather, it is on the BBC website where Ruth Lea confronts Charles Grant on the treaty-to-be.

Breaking the near monopoly of Open Europe, which has assumed the role of unofficial spokesman for the Eurosceptic cause – despite its limited thinking and lack of strategic understanding – Ruth sets out in just one paragraph nearly the essence of our objections to what the "colleagues" are styling as the "reform" treaty. She says:

It cannot be emphasised too strongly that, however significant the previous EU treaties were, the Reform Treaty is unique. Once enforced, there will quite simply be no more significant powers left solely with the governments of the member states, and outside the orbit of the EU's formal institutions.

This is countered by Charles Grant who utters the standard line, declaring:

…if the treaty had been blocked, Europe's governments would have had to spend longer discussing treaties and institutions, instead of real issues in the real world. But with the treaty out of the way, Europe's leaders will be free to focus on big challenges like energy security, international terrorism, climate change, illegal immigration, Russian authoritarianism and the Middle East.

What, in effect, he is saying – but would never articulate clearly – is that the "colleagues" want to take over the reins of government in order to do wondrous things. But, instead of "government", he uses the code word "institutions" to disguise the agenda.

And that is where the Boy is so lamentably missing – not only from his own constituency, with even Rwandan journalists asking why he had not remained in crisis-hit Witney, which in places has been six feet deep in water, but from the debate on the latest and vital stages of the take-over by the EU of the governments of the member states.

Trapped not by rising flood water but by his determination not to "do" Europe, he is now set to be beached by the receding waters of voter interest, as the vacuity of his leadership is finally beginning to hit home. The tragedy is that, just as we needed an inspired and determined effort from the Conservatives, we have leader who is going nowhere but down.

UPDATE

Such is the Boy's predicament that he actually asked about the EU treaty-to-be at PMQs today, challenging Brown to state what percentage was drawn from the failed constitution. The prime minister resorted to the now familiar mantra, taken from the "mandate", that the constitutional concept had been abandoned.

We will do a full review of this exchange when the text is up on Hansard.

Photoshop by Anoneumouse.

COMMENT THREAD

The Hague speech

Speaking to Policy Exchange yesterday, shadow foreign secretary William Hague gave a speech entitled: "The new EU treaty: the case for a referendum". It is available here.

The most important thing about the speech is that Hague actually made it. At the tail end of the Parliamentary session, it locks in the demand for a referendum on the treaty-to-be firmly into Tory policy. Leaving it to gestate over the summer break means that it will have the maturity of established policy by the time the MPs return and the treaty is in place.

Furthermore, Hague's main theme is simple enough. He calls in aid the new trade minister Digby, Lord Jones, who says, "this is a con to call this a treaty - it's not. It's exactly the same - it's a constitution". Actually, it is both but the shadow secretary thinks Digby Jones is right about it being a constitution. And he is.

Open Europe - preening itself on having got out the first translation of the treaty (it didn't, but never mind, even if theirs is better) – estimates that ten out of 250 proposals in the new treaty are different from the proposals in the original EU constitution. In other words, 96 percent of the text is the same as the rejected constitution.

At the heart of Hague's argument, he says, is "a simple syllogism": one, that at the last election every major party promised a referendum on the EU constitution. Two, that this new treaty is the constitution in all but name so, three, that we should have that promised referendum. Failure to put it to a referendum would be a fundamental breach of trust between the government and voters.

If this was anything else but party politics, that would be enough. This is a constitution in all but name and Labour did promise a referendum on the constitution. So we should have one. But this is party politics and the Labour tribe has, so far, rejected the idea.

To win the game, therefore, Hague has to discredit his opponent's arguments, not just to the satisfaction of a friendly audience but in a manner that can withstand robust attack or outright denial.

As we know, the government is relying on the mantra that the "mandate" declares the "constitutional concept" to have been "abolished" and it is this to which Hague also refers. But, rather than take the argument head on and expose it for the dissembling that it is, Hague sidesteps it, dismissing this by saying that "this simple relabelling has little, if any effect on the substance." An open goal thus goes by default.

Nevertheless, the man is on stronger ground when he tells his audience that it is “important to understand that this Treaty's full impact lies not merely in the shifts of power that it would create immediately but in the processes it would set in train.” He adds, "It is not a final settlement, nor is it meant to be one. Instead it is a basis for evolution."

That indeed is the case and, rightly, Hague argues that the posts of president of the European Council and the EU foreign minister, with his diplomatic service, are intended to grow in power and weight. And he gets the UN situation right, saying that the foreign minister, "who would gain for the first time the right to speak for EU Member States at the UN Security Council," will in time not merely supplement member states' voices in foreign affairs, but replace them.

On that basis, he claims, this new treaty would mean the same fundamental restructuring of the EU and shift of power from the member states to the EU as the constitution. Thus does he dismiss the government's "red lines" as a ploy to distract attention from what had been agreed elsewhere: not red lines but red herrings, he says.

Further in though, Hague – eyes wide shut – walks into the huge elephant trap that Cameron has been fabricating for him. The tragedy of this situation, declares Hague, is that it is completely unnecessary:

Had there been a British Government prepared to show a modicum of leadership and let our partners understand that the constitution's rejection was not a problem we would not now be wasting our time navel-gazing about yet another push for more powers for EU institutions but would be able to concentrate on the issues where the EU can really add value: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

This should have been the time for a confident British government to give a lead to those who question the need for a new treaty at all, he adds.

This is the trouble with the Hague speech – good in parts, like the proverbial curate's egg. On the one hand, it was pedestrian, predictable and offered nothing that the government has not seen coming and cannot dismiss with the greatest of ease. On the other, he holds himself and his Party hostage to fortune with his comments on global warning. The "colleagues" have seen him coming and must be mightily delighted with the speech.

Nothing was there that could be construed as opening a new line of attack – not for Hague any exploration of the role of the European Council, nor of how the Council of Ministers will be bound by the new aims and objectives to serve the interests of the Union rather than their respective nations, nor even of how the treaty is attempting to turn Parliament into a subordinate institution of the Union.

These were matters which, in a long speech, he could have rehearsed. They are ones which strike at the heart of the fundamental change in the relationship between the member states and the Union, which the treaty brings.

But neither did Hague attempt to address the Conservative's own "elephant in the room" – the Maastricht treaty. Time and time again, whenever the Tories call for a referendum, the government argues that they did not offer a referendum back in 1992-3 when the treaty came before the House – and that gave away more powers.

Invoking the new aims and objectives of the institutions, embodied in the treaty-to-be, would be enough to lay that ghost to rest, but Hague chose to ignore it. And if he cannot deal with it in front of a friendly audience, how will he fare in a hostile environment?

Thus, while some may say it was a good speech, even now the BBC website is chipping away at the edges while even the more supportive Telegraph is having to concede points to Miliband. Hague has not yet landed the killer blow.

But, maybe, it doesn't really matter. The Daily Mail has been running an online poll and, so far, 91 percent of respondents are calling for a referendum.

It could, therefore, be enough that Hague simply accuses Brown of being guilty of a "flagrant breach" of Labour's 2005 election manifesto for failing to grant a referendum. That is a hard charge to beat and one that could, just, drive the man to distraction. The Mail certainly seems to think so and with The Sun also on the case, things might not be a bleak as they look, despite Hague's less than adequate performance.

COMMENT THREAD

Hoist with his own petard

The Beeb and its fellow-travellers (not least the moronic Times) have been quick to harness the recent flooding to the global warming bandwagon. Latest in the line of pundits, on the midday news, is Sir David King, the government's chief scientist.

As a qualified surface chemist, latterly slayer of animals (foot and mouth) and now climate expert, he told the BBC that there was an "underlying trend" of increased rainfall, attributable – according to the climate models, to global warming. That, he said, brought with it the risk of "extreme events". In King's view, therefore, there was no doubt that climate change was a "factor" in the recent floods.

King, though – as always – is not telling the whole truth (has he ever?). there are indeed many predictions of increased precipitation linked to global warming but, on one thing most of the modellers seem to agree; that we will be seeing a trend towards larger rainfall totals during winter and reductions in summer, especially in southern UK, and an increase in the intensity of precipitation especially during winter.

Now, unless I am very much mistaken, it is currently summer (and easy mistake to make if you missed it) and the recent flooding occurred in the er… southern UK.

Nevertheless, through the passage of time, the long wet and cool summer will be fixed as a phenomenon linked with global warming, just as sure as would have been if we had enjoyed and long, hot and dry summer. Whether it is hot or cold, wet or dry, there is now only one cause – climate change.

But there is a strong political element to this. Inserted into the treaty-to-be, after being included in the Berlin Declaration, is an amendment to Article 174 on the Union's environment policy which, for the first time, explicitly sets out dealing with climate change as a Union objective.

This is going to be the centrepiece of the counter-attack against the Tories' calls for a referendum, using Cameron's enthusiasm for the global warming agenda. Seeing as the treaty-to-be will now include specific mandate to deal with climate change (as if it needed it), the Boy will be accused of hampering the fight against this modern-day evil, by risking the treaty rejection in a referendum - thereby further isolating the "loons and bores".

Not least, the "colleagues" will be able to rely on the Boy's statement during the June European Council meeting then he accused the "EU leaders" of discussing the wrong issues for the wrong reasons, when they should have been debating. inter alia Europe's contribution to climate change.

Alongside that - now that the flood damage has exceeded the magic £2 billion qualifying threshold, there will be a high profile gesture from the EU commission, as it pays a very small amount to the UK from the EU "solidarity fund" to cover some of the costs incurred by public authorities in dealing with the flood clean-up.

This will be paraded as an example of the benefits of EU membership (we get to see a fraction of our money returned to us), on top of which Cameron will be told that, in order to prevent future "extreme events", he should support the very treaty he is putting at risk. Essentially, the pitch will be, "support the treaty to save the planet". Cameron, having put his weight behind the EU on this issue, will find it very difficult to counter the attack.

The phrase, "hoist with his own petard" comes to mind.

COMMENT THREAD

Tony Blair, call your office

Or if you can't do that Mr Blair, call the office of the Wall Street Journal. Actually, you might like to talk to a few bloggers but I expect you would not really like to do that.

The point is that today's WSJ confirms what several blogs have been mentioning for some time. Syria has once again invaded Lebanon (if she had ever really left), which causes a certain amount of tension in the region, would you not agree Mr Blair, and ought to be dealt with.

The news comes by way of a fact-finding survey of the Lebanese-Syrian border just produced by the International Lebanese Committee for UN Security Council Resolution 1559, an American NGO that has consultative status with the UN. Because of the sensitivity of the subject, the authors have requested anonymity and have circulated the report only among select government officials and journalists. But its findings cannot be ignored.

What do you think Mr Blair? Should it be ignored or should there be a certain amount of investigation and discussion, perhaps with the Syrian and Lebanese governments?

Coming on top of evidence of Syria and Iran supplying Fatah al-Islam and other insurrectionist groups in Lebanon (yes, Mr Blair, they exist in Lebanon, too) does this not constitute a reasonable subject for your mission? Oh, I am sorry. You are not there to see whether the Middle East can have peace but to ensure that Hamas gets what it wants. Which, as we know, is not usually peace.

Move on … nothing to see here!

The government's White Paper on the IGC is up on the FCO website.

With the really catchy title, "The Reform Treaty - The British Approach to the European Union Intergovernmental Conference, July 2007", it is part propaganda… and part propaganda, with the usual red herrings about protecting Britain's "red lines".

At 42 pages, the document is boring, and intended to be so – that is the core of the emerging strategy, summed up in one short paragraph:

This amending Treaty will allow the EU to move on from debates about institutions to creating the outward-facing, flexible Europe that we need to meet the fundamental challenges of globalisation.

It is that theme which is highlighted in the introductory passage, which tells us that: "The EU must focus on finding practical solutions to pressing issues such as climate change, energy security and competitiveness in the global economy."

In other words, boys and girls, don’t bother your pretty little heads about the details of this treaty – only the "loons and bores" are making a fuss about it. This treaty is simply about how best to equip the EU to meet future challenges.

It is in that context that we can see the Europe minister, as reported by the Telegraph, dismissing calls for a referendum as "absurd". We want to get on with things - we're "facing the future" - and these silly Eurosceptics mustn't be allowed to hold us back, is the underlying message.

Of course, the broader media – to say nothing of the bulk of the political blogs – are falling in with that agenda. The lack of coverage screams out indifference: move on … nothing to see here. It is boring doncha know. And so, in the shadows, do the colleagues thrive.

COMMENT THREAD

A charmed life

First it was the highly theatrical Blair departure, then it was the Brown "honeymoon", then we get the by-elections and now we get the floods – all driving out news about the treaty-to-be.

England Expects complains that the only news he could find on Miliband (pictured) and the IGC was a story about a mouse while a reader complains that the number one story on the web in Wales is this.

Deutsche Welle covers it, but the BBC website tell us that the text is for lawyers, not for voters. It also tells us that, at 277 pages in all, it's been slimmed down from the 480-page doorstopper which was the draft EU constitution.

We also get the commission "line". It is telling us that it wants to get the treaty out of the way. "For a long time, we have been discussing institutions, procedures, reforms and treaties," says Barroso. "OK, it is enough. Now we need to concentrate on delivering results."

Interestingly though, the fragrant one, on her blog, tells us that she "no longer give a … about people trying to tell me how to live my life", although she is intent on telling everyone else how to run theirs.

Altogether, it seems that the treaty-to-be is enjoying a charmed life. Despite being the EU constitution in drag, being rushed through at an unseemly pace, hardly anyone seems to care. For sure, it's early days yet – and we haven't seen all the morning press – but it is not exactly setting the world on fire.

We have, as another of our readers remarks, a mountain to climb.

COMMENT THREAD

EU taxes on the way

A new provision in the treaty-to-be, lifted almost intact from the failed constitution, allows the EU to define its own taxes in order to fund its ever-expanding budget and powers.

This is through a new "own resources" system - the name given for the sources of income from which the EU derives its budget. These are currently confined to custom duties and levies, a proportion of VAT receipts and the so-called GNI (Gross National Income) contribution from member states.

Under the existing treaty (Article 269), the obligation is for the budget to be financed "wholly from own resources", the wording effectively telling the EU to keep within the budget allocated by member states.

However, the proposed amendment (261) changes this, telling the Union that is "shall obtain the means necessary to achieve its goals and to conclude its policies", a provision taken directly from Article I-54 of the failed constitution. This now requires the Union to find the money to meet its objectives, rather than tailor its objectives to meet its income.

As to new taxes, for the first time, the treaty will include a specific reference to the system, allowing the Union to "establish new categories of own resources or to repeal an existing category." Changes must be approved unanimously by the European Council but since this is to become a Union institution, its responsibility to the Union is to "promote its values; advance its objectives; and serve its interests".

This clears the way for the EU to propose new revenue streams, such as environmental taxes or aviation fuel levies and, effectively, obliges the member states to agree to them. Presumably, this is what the government means by making the EU "more efficient".

Photoshop by Anoneumouse.

COMMENT THREAD

A statement in the House

This is an amending treaty "which will be good for the UK", says Jim Murphy, Europe Minister (not Miliband, as earlier suggested), delivering a statement on the IGC to a House of Commons that had rapidly emptied after two long statements, one the flooding in England and another on housing.

It was the usual extruded verbal material, of course and, strangely, the statement was not repeated in the House of Lords, depriving their Lordships of an opportunity to make their views known. That, it seems, it largely down to the Conservatives, who could have had a statement, but never asked for it.

Needless to say, Murphy did not actually report that the Treaty was now available – albeit in French - hence he could not tell the House that his "reform" treaty was 277 pages long, packed with detail. But he did also tell us that the government had, today, issued a White Paper on the government's approach to the IGC. (This is not yet up on the FCO site but we'll look at it when it is.)

Given the rush to get the treaty agreed, however, the House – which breaks up at the end of the week – will have no opportunity to debate the issue before Brown goes to Brussels to agree the final treaty. So much for Parliamentary scrutiny. We are being railroaded.

COMMENT THREAD

The new treaty: a whopping 277 pages

Rough translations here, here and here (Word format).

The new "reform" treaty is now up on the Council site. Including the main text (145 pages), the protocols (69 pages) – which are legally binding – and the declarations (63 pages), the whole production comes to a whopping 277 pages, with 296 amendments to the existing treaties.

And now for the downside: it is available only in French, not that this makes much difference. It would be unreadable in any language which, of course, is the intention.

Accompanying the treaty draft are the presidency speaking notes, to be delivered to the conference by the Portuguese foreign minister Luis Amado.

In an attempt to hold the line, Amado is reminding the delegates that the IGC must conclude its work as quickly as possible, on the basis of a draft Treaty. Furthermore, he says, the Presidency will guide the IGC in strict compliance with the mandate we received. This mandate, he declares:

… is the unique basis and exclusive framework for the work of the IGC. We shall not deviate one millimetre from that mandate. The mandate set out the explicit will of all the Heads of State and Government which approved it. The general responsibility for the conduct of this IGC falls on them.

It is also vital that we remain fully alert to the aim of this exercise: to amend the Treaties currently in force with a view to strengthening the efficiency and the democratic legitimacy of the enlarged Union, and the coherence of its external action. The mandate we hold is the sole instrument which will allow us to pursue those aims.

He adds:

… it is vital that the Union should not allow itself to be paralysed once again on account of internal, institutional problems, so that is may respond to the real challenges that it must face. Thus, we must conclude this debate on the Treaties, which has already gone on long enough.

He then declares:

At political level, there is a consensual wish that we organise our work in such a way that we can conclude it as swiftly as possible. It is essential to respect the undertakings we have all given. Good faith and the principle of honest cooperation must constantly guide the action of every participant in this Conference.

Amado tells us he has organised the working of this IGC with the aim of concluding negotiations on 18 and 19 October, in Lisbon. That is the target, and the "colleagues" do not intend to let anything get in their way.

UPDATE 1

Barroso, in a parallel move from Brussels, is also talking up the prospects of "success", saying he is "confident" that political agreement will be reached by October. "We now have the draft treaty text," he says. The political consensus that was reached at the last European council is now translated into legal language.'

To him, the IGC is merely a forum for "some details to be addressed 'technically'", adding that there is a 'clear' political consensus to fully respect the mandate that was reached.

UPDATE 2

MEPs, we are told, will resist any attempt to water down the "reform" treaty. Elmar Brok, speaking at a press conference, said, "The IGC should not attempt to unpick or renegotiate the treaty. This is not possible... Parliament will be watchful that the treaty mandate received from the European Council will not be watered down and will remain in place."

He adds: "It is important that the rights guaranteed in the mandate are preserved. This is our challenge for the next few months. Parliament will then scrutinise the text which is finally agreed."

COMMENT THREAD

Turkey has the same government

As expected, the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party has won a very comfortable majority in the Turkish elections, having "won at least 341 seats in the 550-member parliament, with over 46 per cent of the vote". This will presumably mean that they will be able to form a government without resorting to a coalition. Erdogan had said he would resign if that happened.

Two other, secularist parties also crossed the 10 per cent threshold to enter parliament.

The Republican People's Party (CHP) won about 20.7 per cent and the National Movement Party (MHP) took about 14.4 per cent.

No other party passed the threshold, though over 20 independent Kurdish candidates also won seats.

Erdogan has vowed to continue the reforms needed to join the European Union and the negotiations, though it is now well known that most of Turkey is cooling to EU membership.

More importantly for Turkey's future, he said:

We will support and protect what our nation has entrusted us with. We will work to undertake the duty you have given us.

We will never compromise the basic principles of our republic. These principles are needed for a strong and wealthy Turkey.

Adding that AK continued to believe in plurality of political voices (something that Kemalists do not often accept) and free market reforms.

We shall have to see how things develop. Turkey is facing a few problems, not least the renewal of fighting in the Kurdish parts. Erdogan will not be able to deal with that without the army, who views him with some suspicion.

COMMENT THREAD

A small entertainment

If you are one of the Economist's loons or bores (or both), this is for you. Dr Richard North interviewed by John Loeffler - on "Stealing Government by Stealthy Steps". About 34 minutes – listen here, courtesy of Britannia Radio.

COMMENT THREAD

They do not appear to be happy

In yesterday’s International Herald Tribune Dan Bilefsky, who rarely says anything particularly critical of the European project, looked at the curious case of Portugal. It is a frequent assumption in this country that the EU is immensely popular with the Mediterranean countries, particularly those that came in latish after several decades of a rather unpleasant authoritarian regime.

This is not uniformly true. In Portugal, for instance, the EU’s popularity just tops the 50 per cent mark, which makes it quite clear that there is not going to be a referendum there on the treaty that is to come out of the IGC.

According to a recent Eurobarometer poll, support for the EU dropped to 49 percent last year compared with 58 percent the year before but edged up to 55 percent in the first quarter of this year. In 2006, half of the respondents believed the process of European integration undermined the country's economy and contributed to its 8 percent unemployment rate.

Bilefsky looks for the obvious reason that is the remaining nostalgia for the Portuguese Empire. We have heard all that before. Possibly there are Portuguese who feel cheated because the empire that was the first of the modern world and lasted longer than any other has now definitively disappeared. But I would suggest that it is not so much the empire that matters but a certain outlook.

Portugal has traditionally looked outwards and still tries to preserve links with its former colonies, the largest of which is Brazil. The EU is essentially an inward looking, continental empire with few ideas on how to deal with people elsewhere.

In the end, however, it is the economy, stupid (though, one must admit that it would have been a reasonably good idea for President Clinton to pay some attention to what was going on in the big bad world).

While the Spanish economy grew at about 3.9 percent last year, Portugal had the lowest economic growth in Western Europe, about 1.3 percent. Its budget deficit of 3.9 percent of gross domestic product also breaches EU rules requiring countries in the euro zone to maintain deficits under 3 percent.

Fernando Teixeira dos Santos, Portugal's finance minister, argues that its economy is lagging because the country failed to enact essential structural reforms in the late 1990s - including a much-needed overhaul of the public sector - before rushing to join the euro, the EU's single currency, in 1998. He said that in the countdown to joining the euro, as Portuguese interest rates converged with France's and Germany's, Portugal experienced a "wealth effect" as credit poured into the country and created a false sense of security.

To a great extent the Spanish economic growth is relying on the housing boom and that is not necessarily useful in the future. Nevertheless, the resentment of Spanish goods that the Portuguese cannot keep out festers among the producers.

Joining the euro legitimately or otherwise was probably not a good idea. Above all, Portugal is suffering from the problem the East European countries are just beginning to experience: the EU does not provide you with solutions but very swiftly becomes part of the problem.

Which raises the question of what the Prime Minister José Socratès is to do at a time when all his attention will be directed at keeping the presidency going and running an IGC. Even Angela Merkel, who had garnered rapturous and entirely undeserved plaudits for her diplomatic efforts during the German presidency, was chivied by a large section of the German media for not paying more attention to the problems at home.

Back in 2005 when José Socratès was elected to his premiership we mentioned once or twice and, indeed, a third time that Portugal and its government were facing serious problems. These problems do not seem to have gone away and the people of Portugal have noticed.

COMMENT THREAD

Playing the "Europe" card

Drowned out by the domestic agenda (to use rather an unfortunate phrase, considering the weather) the EU treaty-to-be gets short shrift in the papers today. This is despite the fact that the IGC starts tomorrow and our Europhile foreign secretary, David Miliband will be jetting off to Brussels to defend Britain's interests.

This, at least, is the "take" offered in a very short piece in The Sunday Times which has Nicola Smith writing under the headline, "Miliband ready for EU fight".

Miliband, we are told, "will be on the defensive when he makes his Brussels debut tomorrow", given the "legal doubts about the strength of the British opt-out from the treaty's Charter of Fundamental Rights".

He is, writes the fair Nicola, "also expected to face a battle to maintain UK independence in foreign policy." On foreign policy, she adds, "concerns have already been raised that Europe could take the UK's seat on the United Nations security council when presenting a common position."

This is really cut-and-paste journalism, but it conveys a degree of naivety which gainsays any idea of hacks being hard-bitten and cynical. Does anyone really think that Miliband is going to defence British interests, or do anything other than applaud the "colleagues'" attempts at sliding the EU constitution past the peoples of Europe?

Meanwhile, The Economist has its own "take" on the Ealing by-election, suggesting that, although it was bad news for Cameron, it was, perhaps, worse for the EU.

The defeat of "project Cameron", says The Economist, hurts the modernising tendency within the Conservatives, and strengthens those who want a shift away from the centre. Hence, it reasons, Cameron will face calls to re-embrace "such familiar Tory shibboleths as anti-Europeanism and stricter limits on immigration".

Brown, on the other hand, is having a painful time fighting off demands for a referendum on the EU treaty-to-be, mainly – we are told - because he cannot speak aloud the real reason not to have a referendum (he would lose it, plunging Britain's EU relations into a deep crisis). At least then, we get the truth – or The Economist's version of it. He has to pretend that the new treaty is so different from, and so much more modest than the old constitution, that a national popular vote is not needed.

Nevertheless, the magazine thinks Brown will eventually get away without a national vote, simply because Cameron can only hammer away at the topic for so long but will then have to drop it, otherwise he will irritate voters. But all this changes with Ealing. Cameron chances of fighting off the "loons and bores" are now weakened, even though "a betting man would still put money against a referendum in Britain".

But if the unthinkable happens, muses the magazine, and Brown feels obliged to call one, and a "no" vote prevents Britain from ratifying the new EU treaty (destroying it in its current form), recall that the road to disappointment in Lisbon (where the new treaty is due to be signed), took a wrong turn in Ealing Southall.

That, as one might say, is an interesting perspective, and one at odds with this blog. In our view, a weakened Tory Party is less likely to prevail.

Anyhow, tomorrow Miliband is due to give a statement to the House on the IGC and will be answered by Hague. We might then get some idea of which way the post-Ealing Tories intend to play the "Europe" card.

Photoshop by Anoneumouse.

COMMENT THREAD

Competence

A piece in the Sunday Times perhaps indicates quite how badly "team Cameron" misread the situation in the Ealing by-election.

Written by Nirpal Dhaliwal, a controversial writer if ever there was one (the Left hate him), it nevertheless seems to have the ring of truth.

Discuss.

COMMENT THREAD

Global warning

Booker, in his column today picks up on our biofuels and Friends of the Earth stories. He also has a delicious story about the BBC and windfarms.

COMMENT THREAD

An example of failure

"We have run out of troops, says head of Army", screams the front page of The Daily Telegraph today, a headline mirrored by other newspapers, not least the The Daily Mail and the BBC website.

However, the story is based on a memorandum from General Sir Richard Dannatt, leaked to The Telegraph, which says something very different, the operative phrasing being found in the last paragraph, which states:

In sum, with regard to support for current operations, I judge the situation remains manageable, but I am very concerned about the longer term implications of the impact of this level of operations on our people, equipment and future operational capability.

This is in start contrast to the rest of the memorandum and indicates that, yet again, Dannatt is playing politics, a process he started last October, when he went public about the state of the Army. In so doing, he is playing a very dangerous game. In pushing his agenda so publicly, he is riding for a fall.

More to the point though, Dannatt is reflecting the tension in the Armed Forces between supporting the current counter-insurgency commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to maintain a fully trained and equipped Army for conventional warfare. What comes over clearly from Dannatt’s memorandum – once you realise this – is his concern that operations are preventing the Army from training for its "proper" role.

Stepping aside from Dannat's imediate concerns, of more interest is the paper's leader which, for once, hits the nail on the head. Although the headline reads: "Armed Forces stretched to breaking", it offers the following observations:

The easy thing is to demand more money; and it is true that our defence spending has fallen since the end of the Cold War at a time when, perhaps unexpectedly, our troops are doing more than ever before.

But a higher budget is only part of the answer. Britain is, after all, spending £32 billion a year on defence - second, in absolute terms, only to America. The trouble is that this money is misallocated, spent in the interests of our defence contractors rather than our soldiers.

To take just one example: our forces in Afghanistan are suffering avoidable casualties for want of adequate helicopter lift, yet we refused to buy cheap, battle-ready American helicopters so as to prop up domestic manufacturers.

We throw away monstrous sums on weapons for which we have no practical use - the Eurofighter being the supreme example - but fail to invest in modern war-fighting systems: drones, unmanned naval and aerial vehicles, communications satellites, guided missiles.

This is a theme we have rehearsed again and again on this blog and it is heartening to see that, at last, the message is getting through to some quarters.

However, such is the validity and importance of these arguments, they should not be coming just from a newspaper. Rather, they should be part of the mainstream attack of the opposition, for it is here that the defence debate should be centred – an issue which strikes to the heart of determining the role of our forces, and one which the government has manifestly failed to address.

Yet, as we have observed many times, this is also an issue from which the Tories have retreated. Again and again we have pointed out how the Conservative Party has failed to take defence seriously, instead relying on the simplistic mantras of overstretch and under-resourcing instead of getting down to the nitty-gritty of what our forces really need.

Instead, they have concentrated on the peripheral "cuddly issues" leaving, as I put it, the Tories panting in the rear.

And, although we can concede that some of the issues should have raised, they have been to the exclusion of the more hard-edged issues, the absence of which from "team" Cameron's thinking has contributed to making him and his Party a laughing stock.

It is probably too late for Dave Cameron's Conservative Party to effect change and, in any event, its is highly doubtful as to whether they are capable of change. They are not even capable of realising that they have done anything wrong. But, it you ever want to know why the Cameron project failed, their attitude to defence is a perfect example.

COMMENT THREAD

People tend to laugh

Judging from the many attempts by some of the commentariat on Tory Home and elsewhere to spin the results of the Sedgefield and Ealing by-elections, it is clear that a goodly proportion of "Dave Cameron's Conservative Party" have no idea of the extent of the disaster that has hit them.

Even the Tory-leaning Daily Telegraph is unable to put much gloss on the debacle with the House pundit, Anthony King, serving up a gloomy prognosis under the headline, "By-elections show Tories lack public confidence".

Columnist Simon Heffer – predictably – takes a more robust line, his analysis sporting the headline, "Ealing tragedy threatens Project Dave".

Neither does the editorial leader offer any cheer, telling its readers, "The Conservatives need to stop digging", observing, rather mildly, that David Cameron has not succeeded in engineering any "mood-swing" in the Tories' favour so far.

But, it is Peter Hitchens, of the Daily Mail, who puts the boot in. Above all, he writes:

…I think the Grammar School fiasco put an end to David Cameron's strangely charmed political life. It did so because it told several important truths about the Tory Party. That it remains irreconcilably split between traditionalists and liberal 'progressives', and that the split will not heal.

It reminded them that Mr Cameron himself is definitely on the liberal side of that split, that he is inexperienced and intolerant, and that he is a son of privilege who has little clue how most people live. He had sort-of survived 'Hug a Hoodie' and 'Let sunshine win the day', but this argument took us back to the dreary dank wastelands of normal bread-and-butter politics. The bread was stale, the butter rancid.

And that did it. For some time, Mr Cameron had been like one of those cyclists one sees in London who cannot bear to admit that they have stopped. They are much preferable to the ones who ride through red traffic lights, because at least they observe them.

But instead of putting one foot on the ground and waiting for green, they writhe and twist as if infested by savage biting insects, doing anything to keep both feet on the pedals and to maintain their balance. Sometimes, they manage to stay like this until the light changes. Sometimes they have to give up. For all I know, Mr Cameron actually does this. I have yet to see him at a traffic light. But the moment when they abandon their attempt to stay up is a pretty hard one. People tend to laugh.

It is that last, short sentence, that will do for the Boy: "People tend to laugh". Outside the Westminster bubble and the chatterati of the media – out on the streets – Cameron is being summed up in one word: "prat", offered spontaneously when you ask what they think of the man. The man is seen as lacking gravitas, conviction - anything and everything that ordinary people might expect of a leader of the opposition and potential prime minister.

And once you have acquired that reputation, no amount of policies, no amount of spinning, no amount of point scoring at PMQs is going to make any difference. Prat he is, and prat he will always be. When assessing him as a future prime minister, as Hitchens writes: "People tend to laugh".

The tragedy is that now is the time that we need a robust, effective opposition, especially as now there is insistent murmuring about an early general election. We, on this blog, have tended to dismiss these rumours but, if Brown reads the state of the Tory party in the same way that we do, he might indeed be tempted to go to the country in October.

That would be more than a tragedy. It would be a disaster. Such is the disarray of the Tories – and their general incompetence – that even with a new EU treaty hanging, support for a referendum would not be enough to turn the electoral tide in favour of "Cameron's Conservative Party". With a new electoral mandate, an emboldened Brown could then ignore calls for a referendum, sliding the new treaty through Parliamentary ratification with minimal opposition from a shattered Tory Party, reeling from the impact of their fourth successive defeat.

In a time when it is fashionable for politicians to talk about their "legacy", that could be Cameron's. Any failure to lead the Tories effectively will allow through one of the most dangerous EU treaties yet. And that could all be because of one simple but lethal reaction: people tend to laugh.

COMMENT THREAD

All too familiar

The reform of the EU's "wine regime" is one of those subjects that seems to be forever on the agenda, a regime that is now costing taxpayers some €1.3 billion in annual subsidies. We did a post in February last year and in the following June.

Now, it is back in the news as the details of the latest reform programme have emerged, attracting the opposition of both French and German growers – to say nothing of those in Luxembourg.

However, on the basis that the policy must be sound if everyone objects, the EU commission must be feeling vindicated as "new Europe" growers have joined the fray and are also complaining about the plans.

They say that setting a target of rooting up nearly half a million acres of vines, to solve the over-production which is driving down prices, will disproportionately affect the new member states. The grants of offer will be more attractive to "new Europe" growers than the established producers in countries like France.

Laszlo Kiss, president of Hungary's National Council of Wine Communities, is predicting that, if the reforms are approved, the size of the vineyards under cultivation in Hungary will be halved – a huge irony as there is no over-production in that country.

But such has been the scale of over-production elsewhere (did I mention France?) that it has driven down the price of wines throughout Europe, which means that "less efficient" small growers cannot make a living. Add to imports from the New World, which have risen by 10 percent annually over the past 10 years, and the industry is under real pressure.

If the Hungarians take the money and run though, it may well shrink the industry to below the critical mass needed to finance ongoing restructuring and modernisation. It will also heavily erode the capability to support then promotion campaigns needed to market high quality but relatively unknown wines.

Altogether, therefore, joining the EU could prove a disaster for eastern and central European wine growers, while the industrial scale producers of "old Europe" (did I mention France?) will benefit at their expense.

Why does this seem all too familiar?

COMMENT THREAD

We shall soon be losing this

Her Majesty's Government is once again showing itself determined to deal with the really important constitutional issue: the destruction of the House of Lords as an independent and constitutionally functional body.

It behoves us all to support this excellent institution as long as it is possible and to pay some attention to what their noble lordships manage to achieve without getting paid for it, unlike their colleagues in the Lower House.

Today, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to call attention to several Written Questions put to HMG by several peers, some hereditary, others not so.

First off, there is a Question by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who is a life peer, so HMG will have to introduce some other piece of legislation to get rid of him. He asked HMG

Whether there is any conflict between the aims announced in their Green Paper, The Governance of Britain (Cm 7170), and the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Union, bearing in mind the quantity of British law which now originates in Brussels.

Well, what could be the response to that, one wonders. A good deal of waffle, as it happens and a curious non-sequitur:

The Government's Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, is the first step in a national debate on further constitutional reform. It sets out the ways in which we can reinvigorate our democracy and make both the executive and Parliament more accountable to the people.

These proposals do not present any conflict with the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.

Oh well, that's all right then. After all, one would not like to think that any discussion about making the executive and Parliament (which, actually, includes the executive) more accountable to the people, raised any questions as to how legislation was carried out in this country.

Then there is a Question from Lord Blackwell, who is also a life peer and who usually behaves himself but you can never tell with these peers. He asked HMG

What are the significant provisions of the draft constitution for Europe that they do not now expect to be included in the proposed European Union reform treaty based on the mandate of the current inter-governmental conference.

Replying for the government, Lord Malloch-Brown, so far as we know, still Vice-President of the Soros Hedge Fund, wrote the following:

The treaty establishing a constitution for Europe, on which the Government proposed a referendum, is now defunct. The mandate for a reform treaty agreed by the European Council states clearly:

“The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single text called ‘Constitution’, is abandoned”.

As my right honourable friend the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) set out in his Statement in another place on 25 June, the reform treaty will differ fundamentally from the constitutional treaty in both form and substance. Among other things, we have ensured that there is nothing in the mandate for the reform treaty which will require us to change our existing labour and social legislation. Our common law system and our police and judicial processes will be protected. Our independent foreign and defence policy will be maintained. Our tax and social security system will be protected.

Gosh, how they love to go on about that concept that was abandoned in favour of a new concept. It was not the concept that Lord Blackwell was enquiring about but significant provisions. Which ones will not be included?

Far it be from me to accuse a Minister of the Crown of telling porky-pies but, sadly, that is precisely what Lord Malloch-Brown was doing. I don't suppose he even noticed the difference, having run interference for ex-SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo).

The only reason matters to do with labour and social legislation are not in the text of the new treaty is because they are in the text of the existing Consolidated Treaties, both of those having become EU competences some time ago.

A good deal of the legal and judicial system has been signed away under the European Convention of Human Rights and we do not know what the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (a. k. a. the Beano) will be. Then there are those pesky agreements known as Tampere I and Tampere II, which enabled the Commission to dismiss Michael Howard's election promises that he would tighten up asylum laws and border control.

Foreign and security policy? Well, actually, there is quite a lot of it in the new mandate and, in any case, it is there in the Consolidated Treaties, not to mention such minor details as the St Malo Agreement.

Taxation system safeguarded? Well, give or take VAT and the probable encroachment on corporation tax.

Three Questions from Lord Inglewood, who is a hereditary peer, deal with the question of veto and extent of legislation that is coming out of Brussels. Lord Malloch-Brown, for it is he again, made it clear that the veto is never exercised since if there is a feeling that one Minister might do so, the matter is withdrawn. This is known as consensus.

There was one really interesting Question:

How many directives or regulations since the general election of 1997 determined by (a) qualified majority voting, and (b) unanimity have gone onto the European statute book.

To which Lord Malloch-Brown replied with the time-honoured formula:

The information as requested by the noble Lord is not held centrally by the Government. To collate this would incur disproportionate cost.

Oh really? Does the Noble Minister mean that UKREP, the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Union, does not keep track of the legislation that is put on the European statute book? Why not, precisely? That's one of its jobs.

Has the Commission ceased to keep a list of European legislation that has been put on the statute book?

Do the telephones in Whitehall no longer operate? There is, I ought to point out to Lord Malloch-Brown, an excellent internal phone system, that includes the Commission and the European Parliament, as well as the UKREP offices. Easy enough to pick up the receiver and ask for the information.

COMMENT THREAD

Getting it wrong

Should one be outraged by the revelation in today's Telegraph that the government has conceded the right of the new EU "foreign minister" to speak from Britain's seat on the United Nations Security Council?

Certainly, William Hague has attacked this "shocking" development, declaring that it is "a big step towards a United States of Europe". The trouble is that it is not true - the EU will not speak from Britain's seat.

The Telegraph report is based on the statement of an EU official who tells us that which we already know in respect of the proposed High Representative for foreign affairs, "We retain, except for the name of the minister, the Constitutional Treaty text of 2004 including the provisions on the UN."

According to this same official, "There is a provision which provides for the representative of the EU to state the position of the EU at the UN Security Council," on which basis do we see Hague protesting.

The basis for this is Article III-296. 2 of the failed constitution which states:

2. The Minister for Foreign Affairs shall represent the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy. He or she shall conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union's behalf and shall express the Union's position in international organisations and at international conferences.

Now, from this, it is clear that the "High Representative" must represent the Union to the United Nations, and then we move to the last paragraph of Article III-305. 2 which states:

When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position.

It is that which is the source of objection and, in pursuit of which, The Telegraph reminds us that the government has insisted that negotiations on the treaty had ensured that the British presence on the Security Council would never be replaced by an EU representative.

Says Hague: Brown has allowed, "one of the most damaging and important provisions in the rejected EU Constitution to be resurrected." "It would seriously compromise the independence of our foreign policy," he adds, then telling us: "It is shocking that the Government have yet again let this through and it totally destroys their claim that their so-called red line on foreign policy is effective."

However, this is where Hague goes off the rails. If one refers to the Security Council rules, there is provision to accredit additional members to the Council who are accorded "the same rights as other representatives".

The story, therefore, is not that the UK will be required to give up its seat, but that the EU will be given its own seat. Britain will be still have its own seat and be represented but, where an EU "common position" has to be conveyed, the British representative will be silent and EU "High Representative" will speak.

Even then, there is a certain amount of hyperbole here. Ever since the Maastricht Treaty, the UK has been obliged to toe the line on "common positions" agreed with the EU. That includes representing those positions in the security council, which are currently presented either by Britain or France.

That the position will be put directly by the High Representative is, therefore, largely symbolic. In an organisation where symbolism is everything, however, this is an important change, but not the one which Hague is declaiming.

In the propaganda game of attacking the treaty-to-be, Hague's declamation may sound good and provide a startling sound-bite. But, since it is not true, it can so easily be batted away by the government which can state, in all honesty, that there is indeed no question of the UK giving up its seat to the EU.

The fact is that the EU, if the treaty-to-be goes ahead, will get a seat on the Security Council in its own right. There is no need for the UK (or France for that matter) to move aside. And, from its own seat, the EU will have the sole right to speak for the UK and other member states on certain issues. That, the government could not deny, but that point is not being made.

Once again, it appears, Conservative tactics and intelligence are proving to be less than sound. Hague, and the others, really do need to up their game.

COMMENT THREAD