Friday, January 25, 2008

Despotism in the European Parliament

Despite our little spat, we have not forgotten that Hannan does do some very useful work, his latest post picking up the dire situation in the European Parliament.

In so doing, he builds on the work of England Expects, whose latest posts is a cry of despair. Both should be read.

The interesting thing is that the great Europhiliac mantra is that the EU parliament is the repository of democracy in the European Union, perpetuating the myth that the election of its members necessarily confers democratic status.

What Hannan and England Expects both show is that the EU parliament is simply an elected tyranny – the tyranny of the majority. And, if there is no democracy in that institution, there can be none anywhere else in this profoundly anti-democratic political construct.

COMMENT THREAD

How could we possibly disagree?

"It is up to all of us to demand honour and decency from our parliamentarians. If we did, they might have to live up to expectations," writes Daniel Hannan in The Daily Telegraph.

How could we possibly disagree with such sterling, well-crafted sentiments, so nobly uttered by such a fine, upstanding young man? Parliamentarians should most certainly act with honour and decency. How about it Hannan? You're a "parliamentarian".

COMMENT THREAD

A short hiatus

click here to go to the blogI've taken some time out from writing EU Referendum posts to think about our response to the behaviour of Daniel Hannan who seems to be taking ownership of the information so laboriously gathered for this blog.

I have discusssed the issue with my co-editor and we are agreed that this sort of behaviour is intolerable.

That said, I've taken the opportunity to write a long post on Defence of the Realm, taking into account recent events, on a theme that I have been planning to address for some time.

These posts take a lot of careful research and time, as do many of the EU Ref posts and the strain of running both blogs is now considerable. If we see any more misuse of our material, I am minded to shut this blog down and make it invitation only - or just concentrate on my Defence site. I was not put on this planet to feed the egos of overpaid MEPs.

For the time being though, normal service will be resumed later this morning - maybe.

COMMENT THREAD

Thursday, January 24, 2008

The UN again

Oh no, not again, I hear our readers cry. Unfortunately yes, but I promise to leave the subject alone for a little while. It has always been our contention that the fight against the EU has to be part of a fight against all unaccountable and too often corrupt transnational organizations (tranzis) that are trying to take power from the few democratic countries that exist, prevent the others from becoming democratic and impose their own governance by transnational lawyers and officials who are always nice to tyrannical kleptocrats.

For once, the news is refreshingly good. Canada has announced that it will not attend the next anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic hate fest, otherwise known as the Durban Anti-Racism Conference in 2009.

We have written about this conference before, pointing out that the committee that is organizing it is chaired by Libya, a country that knows a thing or two about freedom and tolerance (lack of), and includes Iran, “whose President has repeatedly and forcefully called for the annihilation of Israel, proclaimed that the Holocaust was probably a joke invented by the international Zionist conspiracy and hosted an anti-holocaust cartoon festival”.

Gateway Pundit published a really interesting hand-out from the 2001 conference that sighs over the fact that Hitler did not win.

According to Reuters (we always acknowledge our sources on this blog)
A similar meeting at the same venue in 2001 was marred when Israel and the United States walked out in protest over draft conference texts branding Israel as a racist and apartheid state -- language that was later dropped.

"(We) had hoped that the preparatory process for the 2009 ... conference would remedy the mistakes of the past. Despite our efforts, we have concluded that it will not. Canada will therefore not participate," Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier said in a statement.

Jason Kenney, the secretary of state for multiculturalism, said the Conservative government was sure the conference would "showcase the same regrettable anti-Semitism" as the 2001 meeting.

"Our government sees no value in allowing Canada's participation to continue to dignify or legitimate such hateful and un-Canadian propaganda," he told Reuters.
Now there’s a secretary of state for multiculturalism one can have some time for. He clearly believes that racism is racism, no matter who expresses it and anti-Semitism is wrong, no matter how it is phrased.

There is, at the moment a certain amount of ghashing of teeth and whining about those nasty Canadians misunderstanding and not wanting to get involved in true multilateral activity blah-blah-blah. As CTV.ca says with a collective straight face:

But African governments complained at the last conference that Western governments had chosen to highlight treatment of the Israeli issue as if it was the only one on the agenda.

South Africa, the host country, stopped short of calling U.S. President George Bush a racist, saying instead that he was not "anti-racist." Other African countries were upset that Britain and the West refused to overtly apologize for their support of centuries of slavery.
Well, I don’t know. I remember noting at the time that rich, spoilt, largely white middle class kids were screaming racist abuse at Colin Powell, then Secretary of State. Nor did that endless demand for an apology for slavery escape everybody’s attention.

Perhaps what the British should have apologized for is abolishing the slave trade in 1807, thus depriving the Arab slavers, whom the Royal Navy fought, and certain African chieftains of their income from selling slaves.

The real question is whether Canada will be supported by, at the very least, the other Anglospheric countries. The new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is a former diplomat, at ease with the tranzis, so one need not rely on him. The United States are going through an agonizing if entertaining election, so no decisions taken now would be binding. That may be a good reason for President Bush to make a significant gesture, especially after the ridiculous Annapolis Conference and equally ridiculous trip to the Middle East.

What of our own Prime Minister? He made a half-hearted gesture over President Mugabe and the EU-Africa Summit. Will he go that extra mile and pull Britain from the Durban Conference? Oh wait, I am not sure he can. This is probably part of the common foreign policy and, as such, EU competence.

Who needs enemies?

Well, well. It turns out that the great Daniel Hannan has finally woken up to the fact that every one of the NGOs cited by David Miliband as a supporter of the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty is in receipt of Brussels money. And so pleased with himself at his "discovery" that he actually sent us an e-mail telling us how clever he was, directing us to his clog.

As befits the great man, he could not possibly acknowledge that we got there first, having written in detail about this on 16 January. He even has the gall to tell us that "this information comes courtesy of the 'brilliant' blog Devils kitchen" - who posted on the subject on 23 January, having picked up the information from us in the first place (which, unlike the great Hannan, he had the courtesy to link back to us).

Then we get Tim Worstall on his blog on The Business site currently singing the praises of the fearless young Daniel. He also refers to the Devil site, obviously not having gone through the links to see from where the information came.

We don't complain when people take our information and use it – that is what this blog is for – a resource for people to use, and we are pleased to see it used. But the name of the game is you take care to acknowledge the source of your information and link back to it. Hannan knew (or should have known) the source of the material as we sent him back a link to the original piece we had written, which quite obviously pre-dates Devil's Kitchen.

Furthermore, while Hannan, from his lofty position at the heart of Europe – on his lofty salary – has just woken up, this was an issue I was exploring with some alarm in 2001. This stems directly from the commission's White Paper on European Governance, as I pointed out in an earlier post dated 25 October.

In 2001, I wrote an analysis of that paper, but one of my mistakes was to do it in the name of Farage when it was published by the Bruges Group. He did not really understand its significance, and I doubt whether Hannan even read it (just as he has never read The Great Deception) – he is far too grand to soil his magnificent brain with such "trivia". Had he done so, he might have learned something, which would never do.

So often, we attract criticisms for pursuing our own independent line, and not falling in with the group-think, but more often we are ahead of the game. I think it is fair to say that our blog has a higher proportion of original material and research than any other in the British blogosphere. Unlike Hannan, we do not get paid for our work, and our only gain is the recognition that we are providing a service to the cause.

For that, we rely on fair play from the people who use our information – and at least some of our fiercest detractors at least do acknowledge our material when they attack it. But Hannan, whom we are told is a friend and ally to the cause, whom we should support, clearly feels himself under no such obligation.

Is it really surprising that, occasionally, we take a jaundiced view of the man? With friends like him, who needs enemies?

COMMENT THREAD

How very appropriate

Somehow, I have never been able to take George Clooney seriously even as a cinema actor. Possibly, that is because the only one of his films I managed to watch right through (I was in an aeroplane above the Atlantic but even that is a poor excuse) was “Intolerable Cruelty”. It was bad.

Prettyboy Clooney was completely unbelievable as the ultra-smart divorce lawyer who could out-run and out-gun anyone until love found him in the shape of Catherine Zeta-Jones (OK, you guys, here are some pictures of her – this is an equal opportunities blog). Sadly, there was zilch chemistry between the two and I have never wanted to see another George Clooney film again.

In particular, I have always despised Clooney as the political activist. His idea of courage – I kid you not – is to make an anti-McCarthy film as if there had not been a few self-glorifying films of that kind in Hollywood before. In any case, “Good-night and good luck” is a pack of lies. All those “innocent victims” were Communist agents, some merely of influence, some actual providers of information, like Laurence Duggan, found conveniently dead under his office window when the investigation came too close, the supposed “innocent victim” of the film.

Now Georgy-Porgy has found another outlet for his ultra-fashionable left-wing views: SecGen Ban Ki-Moon has appointed him to be the UN Messenger of Peace. If one needed an example of the preposterousness, nastiness and complete idiocy of the UN, this could be it.

A Messenger of Peace, eh? Was there not one in the Bible already? As one of the commenters on Libertas asks, did Jesus Christ resign or retire? Did we all miss the news?

The best and angriest comment on the subject is, predictably, by the admirable Claudia Rossett, who still has not been given the Pulitzer Prize for uncovering all sorts of skulduggery in the UN.
This would all be great if UN peacekeeping actually produced peace. But the illusion that the UN is a grand force for good in this world deserves to be catalogued somewhere between World’s Most Amazing Scams and Believe It-Or-Not Best-in-Special-Effects. The reality of today’s UN is more like a cross between “Animal House” (the movie, with John Belushi) and “Animal Farm” (the book, by George Orwell). Libya and Vietnam have just joined the Security Council, where China and Russia hold permanent seats. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has turned the General Assembly into its Manhattan clubhouse — which Iran’s mushroom-cloud-in-chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now uses every September as a base to parade around New York and lecture his audiences that Iran is a country of peaceful intentions and no homosexuals.
Nor does she forget those wonderful peacekeeping UN troops that will be His Peacefulness Clooney’s “special focus”:
In UN peacekeeping, which will be Clooney’s special focus, peacekeeper sex scandals continue to bubble up, with their own special focus on under-age locals the peacekeepers are supposed to be protecting (almost three years after the UN declared a zero-tolerance policy for such outrages). Peacekeeping has been one of the major areas of UN corruption, with even the UN itself finally acknowledging hundreds of millions worth of tainted contracts.
We have said it before and we shall say it again: the only genuine peace-keeping force in the world are the US Marine Corps, closely followed by the US Army. All else is for the birds.

Just as I cannot take Georgy-Porgy Clooney seriously, so I cannot share Ms Rossett’s anger. I should, I know, and I often do when it comes to the UN or the World Bank. But the sight of G-P Clooney pratting round carefully controlled and secured so-called war zones in fetching uniforms and helmets, dispensing fatuous and predictable comments merely makes me laugh. The whole notion of idiot film stars as UN Messsengers of Whatever is completely ludicrous and entirely appropriate to that ghastly organization.

I was going to say it all adds to the gaiety of nations but the last time I did so I was ticked off severely by a reader who was completely unimpressed by my frivolity. Oh what the heck – it does add to the gaiety of nations. And it might just bring nearer the day when that prime piece of real estate in Manhattan is reclaimed from the crooks and tyrants whose representatives infest it.

Now we know they are mad …

As we have remarked before, the Germans are wedded to their fast cars and their autobans without speed limits. One theory as to why this is the case is that it provides an authoritarian and over-regulated state with something of a safety valve.

But, such is the hubris of the Greens that, despite their initial rebuff, they are still planning to take on the motoring lobby, calling in aid the current EU commission emission proposals.

Facing the reality that Germany without nuclear power has very little chance of meeting the EU targets for greenhouse gas emissions, the environment minister is turning to speed limits on the autobanen as a way of getting the count down.

The man in the frame is Social Democrat Sigmar Gabriel who has – like the rest of the political classes of the member states, welcomed proposals and, like the idiot Hilary Benn, has no idea how he is going to comply with them once they are written into law.

Thus says Gabrial, clutching at straws, "A speed limit is becoming ever more important with the tightening of climate targets," adding – according to Deutsche Welle - "Every penny counts." Shurely he means "cent", now they Germans are in the Euro.

However, despite the fact that a limit of 130 kilometers (82 miles) per hour is estimated to offer pathetically small savings in emissions of around 0.5 percent, Gabriel has declared that a speed limit would become unavoidable after 2009.

Needless to say, there is a domestic political issue here. The next federal elections are in 2009, and the assumption is that the current coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats will become history. The Christian Union parties currently in the coalition would not allow a speed limit to be introduced.

Up to press, such emission reductions as have been achieved have been gained from the collapse of East Germany's industry in the early 1990s. But, with the phasing out of nuclear power and its replacement with coal fired power stations (26 of them have been ordered), Germany is going to be hard-pressed to keep up any momentum without going nuclear.

This is something that Gabriel is not prepared to accept, so we have the unedifying prospect of a German environmental minister rejecting the one thing that might work, in favour of something that will not, and seeking to put to an end one of his nations most cherished freedoms.

This only goes to prove that these people are well and truly mad.

COMMENT THREAD

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Push me-pull you

So, today's the day when our government in Brussels has issued its long-expected proposals on "climate change" – prevention thereof.

As a massively inflationary measure, it comes on the same day that Mervyn King, he of the Bank of England, issues an inflation alert warning that inflation could rise significantly above target this year.

Rising oil, gas and food prices, he says, will push up household bills to such an extent that inflation could rise above three percent, the level at which the BoE governor is forced to write to the Chancellor to explain.

We have, therefore, a push-me, pull you situation where the local government in Whitehall – with a little assistance from Westminister – is trying to do its best to keep inflation down, while our central government in Brussels is doing precisely the opposite, driving the costs of living upwards.

Mind you, when it comes to "spin", the commission leaves New Labour standing, its press release (link above) headed, "Boosting growth and jobs by meeting our climate change commitments". This is a measure which German industry alone reckon may cost 500,000 jobs.

The proposals themselves will compel EU member states to reduce "greenhouse gases" by at least 20 percent and increases overall to 20 percent the share of renewable energies in the energy consumption by 2020. Also, there is a commitment to reduce emissions by 30 percent by 2020 in the unlikely (one hopes) event that a new global climate change agreement is reached, and other countries follow the EU into economic perdition.

Britain's contribution to the decline of Western civilisation is to increase its use of renewable energy more than sevenfold to 15 percent of all energy consumption by 2020, and to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent by the same deadline.

That mad fool president, José Manuel Barroso regards this particular madness as "the ultimate political test for our generation," describing it heroic terms as, "Our mission, indeed our duty …" to provide the right policy framework for "transformation to an environment friendly European economy". "Environment friendly" it might be – although that is debatable – but people friendly it ain't.

However, the biggest joke of all is tucked away in the small print of the draft legislation: "The revised legislation only takes effect as from 2013, and there is no end date for the action…".

Thus, our own dismal environment secretary, Hilary Benn, is able to welcome the commission's proposals in the sure knowledge that he will not have to bear the consequences of them. By the time the law comes into force, we will almost certainly have the Conservatives running our provincial government so Cameron will have to implement it and take the flak.

In a way, there is a kind of rough justice in this. One has to laugh.

COMMENT THREAD

Lieber Herr Kollege... I would like more power

click here to go to the blogThe imperceptible rise of arbitrary government in Brussels: Something very funny is going on in the European Parliament, and something that should concern every citizen of every member state of the Union. That is the slow and deliberate leaching of power into the hands of the executive and the elite.

Posted on England Expects.

This must have hurt

Via a posting on American Thinker we can find this article in the New York Sun about the latest report to the UN Security Council by that organization's special envoy to Iraq (well, actually Baghdad, as he does not seem to spend too much time away from the protected areas), Steffan de Mistura. It is astonishingly upbeat, given that the UN's attitude to that war was summed up by the last SecGen, Kofi Annan, according to whom, unseating Saddam was "illegal".

Even so, the upbeat mood is slightly peculiar:
In the most upbeat assessment by a U.N. official since America invaded Iraq, Secretary-General Ban's top envoy in Baghdad, Steffan de Mistura, told the Security Council yesterday that it "cannot ignore the recent improvements" in Iraq since last year's troop surge.

Mr. de Mistura, who arrived in Baghdad last fall, acknowledged that Iraqis and the coalition forces still face serious "challenges" in the near future, but in yesterday's periodic report to the council, he noted marked progress since last year and said the security situation has not only improved but that there have been "welcome steps towards national reconciliation and inclusive political dialogue," though "tentative and overdue."
One can almost hear the grinding of the teeth in that "cannot ignore the recent improvements". Oh how they would like to ignore and for how long they have managed to do so. It has just become impossible for the UN just as it has become impossible for the American MSM (though ours is still doing well on that) to ignore those improvements.

It is also interesting to know that the UN's gopher thinks that those "welcome steps towards national reconciliation and inclusive dialogue" are still sadly tentative and terribly overdue. Um, says who?

Take back our government

A superbly splenetic op-ed in The Daily Telegraph from Simon Heffer rightly points the finger at David Cameron, as the man on whom we are going to have to rely to get us out of the maw of the European Union and its ghastly constitutional Lisbon treaty.

Essentially, this always was and is a parliamentary battle. Parliament agreed that we should join the EEC in the first place and – short of an armed insurrection - it can only be parliament that can get us out. And, since it will never be Labour (as we know it) that will do the deed, our only realistic option is to convince the Conservative Party that its best interests are served by withdrawing us from the "project".

Thus does Heffer use Cameron as the proxy for the Conservative Party, having first stated his Eurosceptic credentials and then set out the vade mecum which drives us all in our campaign against this alien form of government. He writes:

The root of my opposition is straightforward. I wish to live in a country that governs itself. I wish to vote for people who, if elected, have power to take decisions and to alter the policies with which we are governed. I am not sure that is too much to ask.
He then adds:

What is the point of electing governments, if there are vital policies that they cannot alter? That to me has always been the clinching argument against our entering the single currency. We would be slaves to someone else's economic policy.

At present, if the way a government runs our economy is offensive, we can change the government and with it the policy. If we were economically administered from Frankfurt, simply unelecting one government and replacing it with another would be a footling exercise. The economic policy would stay the same.
This really is the point, and one which has not had the degree of focus. On this blog, we have referred to the European Council, its role as part of the government of the European Union – our supreme government – and the fact that our prime minister, on appointment by the Queen, becomes a de facto member of the European Council.

Thus, the situation at the next election is that we will elect MPs and the majority party will be invited to form a "government" which will then select (or adopt) its own leader as prime minister. But that prime minister will immediately join the European Council while his ministers join the Council of the European Union, thus becoming members of our supreme government.

The faces, therefore, will have changed but the government will not. Its rules and policies will continue unchanged, entirely unaffected by our general election, to the extent that – as we have described it – all we will have achieved is an electorally mandated reshuffle.

We will have changed some of the people in our government, but not the government or its policies. And the policy of our local or provincial government will remain the same – to implement the law and diktats of our supreme government, and to ensure that it is enforced against our increasingly unwilling "citizens", who have never had an opportunity to vote for their real government, the one which resides in Brussels.

Thus does Heffer say what has many times been reflected in this blog and in the forum, that "the only way we might change things would be to riot to such an extent that a new European political accommodation would have to be made."

We hope he is right when he adds that, "The EU is now reaching a point where its centralising, sovereignty-stealing obsessions will cause day-to-day outrage to the public…", but it does not seem likely that this will happen in a hurry. Not least, as we have so often observed, the all-pervasive role of the EU in our government is so often concealed or ignored that very few people (including, or especially our MPs) fully realise the extent to which we are governed in Brussels.

Heffer writes that, "It may take this, or perhaps even one more federalising pile of dishonesty after it, to push us to breaking point: but we will break. We will break because we are, in our hearts, a democratic people," and there he is probably being realistic.

There is no evidence of, or feeling of rebellion in the populous, but with the Lisbon treaty under its belt, the EU will be back for more. It may have to wait perhaps ten years, but already, the text of another treaty is being written and, in due course, it will be unveiled and presented to the "citizens of Europe" as another essential "reform" needed to make the European Union more "efficient" – or whatever excuse they can think of to suit the particular exigencies of the moment.

Already though, as Heffer writes, "We resent the spectacle of our politicians - low though so many of them are - being humiliated by having to kow-tow to their, and our, masters in Brussels. We are revolted by the sight of our Parliament being rendered impotent."

That applies to some of us – many do not notice or care. So it is just those few who "feel special disgust - and here the Conservative Party should take note - at not being offered an adequate choice at elections on the future of Europe."

But the Heffer prescription is absolutely right when he says that the Conservatives "need a clear plan of what to do if, or rather when" the treaty is ratified. And, he says, "It is obvious what it must be: an unequivocal commitment to repeal the Act ratifying the treaty should they be returned to office after the next election,". So does he conclude:

…he can make a principled and populist commitment to stop any more of our democracy being flushed down the euro-lavatory… there is no excuse for a responsible opposition - and an opposition that says it would like to win power - to have no plan in place for when and if the horrid day comes, however much it might frighten the horses.
The danger is that Cameron may bank on the likelihood of being elected anyway, with or without a commitment to repeal the Act, calculating that the electorate will have forgotten all about the Lisbon treaty but the time of our next "electorally-mandated reshuffle". And he may well be right.

But, once in "power" he will not be able to ignore the fact that there is no power – that it has been given away. If he wants to take over the government of the United Kingdom, first of all he is going to have to take it back from Brussels.

COMMENT THREAD

A Letter from Limburg

The Brussels Element

As the father of 6 children (1 at university, 4 in school, and the youngest starting school in April), making ends meet has never been that easy. With increasing interest rates more than doubling my morgage over the last 2 years, the gradual 20% increase in my grocery bills over the past 4 months has not been a pleasant development. If I didn't have 2 jobs, I think we'd have gone under a long time ago.

Regardless of the wisdom of the action (it will be financed by increasing traffic fines), it therefore came as a pleasant surprise to learn late last September that the government intended to make school books 'free'. The parents of each child in further education were to be 'given' the sum of 308 euro per year, tax free. Instead of the schools buying the books, as they have done for years, and then sending the bill to the parents, the schools would buy the books and send the bill to the Ministry of Education. Sounds simple enough ... ahh, but they forgot the Brussels element.

Because the purchases will in many cases be larger than 200,000 euro, they are 'governed' by the EU purchasing regulations. The purchase therefore has to go out for European public tender; the specifications, invitations and sealed bids have to be sent to Luxemburg or Brussels for approval. It is estimated that the whole process, with a continual flow of paperwork in both directions, will take between 19 and 24 weeks ... and most schools haven't a clue where to start, and even if they did, the enabling legislation hasn't passed yet.

This week we've been told to forget it for this year. Instead, the government will see if they can arrange some kind of tax deduction ... isn't the EU wonderful!

It's too late...

click the pic to enlarge
... to do a proper post - so here's a picture of Picadilly Circus at nightfall. Enjoy!

COMMENT THREAD

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

SNAFU

Once again, thanks to our readers who supply us with material when we nod off with boredom. In this case we nearly missed a delightful tale from the land of all tales, Italy.

As Il Giornale puts it, “La bomba arriva alle 18,30 del Lunedì”. I guess my Italian runs to that. The “bomba”, as the Financial Times helpfully explains, is the withdrawal of a small Catholic party, Udeur, from the coalition, leaving it without a majority in the Senate.

In his statement the leader of the party, Clemente Mastella, until recently the Justice Minister, made no bones about it:
“This majority, the life of this centre-left is finished. It is over. I am not discussing it,” Mr Mastella told a news conference.
It should be interesting to see what will happen tomorrow “when the upper house considers a vote of no confidence in Pecoraro Scanio, the environment minister, over the rubbish crisis in Naples”.

What is it that made Clemente Mastella withdraw from the government in such a huff.? He resigned a week ago because he “was reported to be under investigation for corruption following the arrest of his wife”. So sensitive, these people. What’s an investigation or two between friends?

Clearly, Romano Prodi thought it was not important as he tried to refuse Signor Mastella’s resignation but failed to do so. Now the entire party has gone and quite possibly there will be no Italian government this time next week.

The FT is sanguine, pointing out that the president does not want another election under the present electoral system but the various small parties that are still in the coalition have a vested interest in the system remaining precisely as it is. So, Prodi might hang on in there with the help of the littlies.

An even more interesting question is what is to happen with the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty if the government collapses.

Treaty text

The consoldiated version of the EU treaties is on the Europa website - all 331 pages of it. This is your new constitution folks, a text that consolidates the powers of our supreme government in Brussels.

Another reminder

It would appear from some comments, on this and other forums (in this case the forum is an English word and has an English plural), that my warnings have not been heeded. The Second Reading in the House of Commons is not the end or even the beginning of the end. In any case, there was never the slightest doubt that it will be voted through. There never is the slightest doubt about the Second Reading of a Government Bill. Could we have less hysteria and more attention paid, please?

The fun starts today with the first day of the Committee of the whole House. As we pointed out yesterday, the "usual channels" have agreed to go through the various stages at a gallop.

I cut my teeth (eurosceptically speaking) on the Maastricht debates and campaigns, which is why I do not find it in me to go into terminal decline or have fainting fits over this treaty. That was a colossal battle and the sight of a government slowly losing its lifeblood over the prolonged battle was extraordinary. I guess you had to be there.

This will not be the same. Mr Brown's majority is bigger than Mr Major's was and the Labour Party is not going to throw up significant numbers of rebels, unlike the Conservative Party then. This, I believe, we also predicted. Those 150 rebels would melt away like morning mist, we said.

On the other hand, some people might find some of the debates entertaining and instructive.

Our government has spoken

While the House of Commons was busy giving away more powers to our central government in Brussels, that government was sending out a stern message to Mr Darling, our state treasurer, that he had better watch his step over Northern Rock.

The Forbes financial news agency was one of the very few to carry the report, which has the EU commission saying it will "analyse under strict EU aid rules" any new British government support for Northern Rock.

Not even bothering to step up to the plate herself, competition commissioner Neelie Kroes relied on her spokesman to deliver her warning to the British provincial government, saying: "Any UK government support for Northern Rock beyond the rescue aid authorised by the Commission (last year) will have to be assessed by the Commission to verify whether there are elements of state aid involved and, if so, whether the aid is compatible with the guidelines on restructuring aid".

Despite a remarkable absence of comment in the MSM, the commission has been closely involved in the Northern Rock debacle. In early December, it approved the rescue aid given by our provincial government, but then warned that any future restructuring plans would be under similar scrutiny and "also necessitate clearance".

All this underlines the fact that any idea of our government being an independent sovereign authority is a hollow joke. Mr Darling acts under license from our central government. Every move he makes is subject to scrutiny by Brussels and he cannot do anything without the approval of his masters, who must be constantly informed of everything he intends to do.

Thus, while Darling outlined his rescue plan to the British parliament yesterday, this was for information only. He does not need and nor did he ask for its approval. But he does need the approval of Brussels before he makes any move.

This is the reality of once Great Britain in the 21st Century, a situation which only survives because of the wilful neglect of our MSM and politicians to bring this home to the British people, and by the failure of our own movement to point it our at every opportunity. "Brussels" is not just the headquarters of the EU commission. It is also the headquarters of our central government, and it is about time this was properly recognised.

Admin note: light blogging today - off to London to give a talk on defence spending. Don't forget to have a look at Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

He who turns and runs away …

… lives to fight another day, as the saying goes. Although this blog has been condemned in some quarters for its negativity, we would prefer to call it realism. The AFP news agency headlines its report, "Government wins first round in battle over EU treaty," and indeed it did, with 362 votes to 224, a very safe majority of 148 as the Lib-dims pitched in to support their beloved European Union.

The amendment for a referendum was not even heard, the great Labour rebellion never materialised and the debate was truncated to less than five hours with back-benchers allowed to speak for a mere eight minutes. There were some good speeches but nothing we have not heard before and Labour was not for turning.

We now have five weeks of committee, on the floor of the House, where we expect a referendum amendment, which will be defeated as decisively as the motion for the second reading was agreed. After the report stage and the third reading, it will go to the House of Lords, where there will be some ritual fireworks but the arithmetic does not favour a victory.

The great Peter Riddell, a legend in his own lunchtime, offers his wisdom in The Times, its headline reading, "Trouble ahead, but this is no Maastricht". We do not always agree with this man (in fact, we rarely agree with this man), but he dissects the arithmetic and takes soundings of the political mood.

In truth, the Conservatives find this ratification process as much an embarrassment as Labour, so both main parties will be glad to see the back of it. Their need, as we have always maintained, is to fight the good fight – and to be seen to do so – without appearing "too obsessive and Europhobic", as Riddell puts it – and then move on. The Lisbon Bill looks unlikely to be another Maastricht, Riddell concludes and he is, unfortunately right.

But to lose the battle, as we said in our previous post, is not to lose the war. We were always in this for the long haul and we will not be the only ones to have said that the EU carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. Quite when it will collapse is anyone's guess, but collapse it will.

It was always the case, however, that the Eurosceptics could never actually win the war, but simply hasten its end, and – looking optimistically at the situation, the greater the power the acquires, the higher its visibility and the more opportunities it has to foul up. The fishing industry is one thing, but when it screws up the entire energy market, people will really begin to notice.

And, in "winning" this battle for its constitution - which it will - it will leave a legacy of bitterness and distrust in the political process. No matter how much it payrolls its supporters, it cannot buy all of us. Its "victory", therefore, will be of the Pyrrhic variety.

In that sense, perhaps, this vote yesterday evening (the picture shows MPs during the vote), to paraphrase a certain prime minister, was not the beginning of the end, but it may well have been the end of the beginning, the start of the downfall of the European Union.

COMMENT THREAD

Monday, January 21, 2008

The "debate" progresses

After the delay occasioned by the statements to the House, the Commons is now debating the second reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill. We are "entertained" by Kenneth Clarke telling us to stop this "theological nonsense" about the Lisbon Treaty being the same as the EU Constitution.

According to Millibland, it's the "opt-outs" wot make it different. The "myth" that we are threatened by a European "superstate" has faded, he says. The consequence of Conservative policy is to prolong the institutional debate that we wish to end. John Major used words about these people "that I cannot use in this House". He adds, "The real divide is between those who believe that Europe is good for Britain and Britain is good for Europe, and those who do not." We are better off in says the boy.

UPDATE: As expected, the vote went for the Bill, with 362 for and 224 against.

COMMENT THREAD

Another Vector?

click here to go to the blog News came in this morning of another mine strike killing a British soldier in Afghanistan, with another five injured. The dead soldier, who has not yet been named, was from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME), attached to 5 Regiment Royal Artillery.

According to the MoD, the vehicle in which the troops were travelling was hit by the mine approximately two miles north east of Musa Qala. Informed sources are suggesting it may have been a Pinzgauer Vector.

Posted on Defence of the Realm.

Mr Bolton agrees with EUReferendum

We are not altogether surprised to find that John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, agrees with this blog. He does not say it in so many words but that does not matter.

According to Ha'aretz, John Bolton has publicly disagreed with Prime Minister Olmert's account of what motivated UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the international pressure put on Israel to stop before it could destroy Hezbollah (who has since shown its gratitude by destroying Lebanon's political structure).

It was not Israel's ground offensive but the shock caused by the Qana episode or, to be precise, the way the Qana episode, about which we still do not know the truth, was presented by Hezbollywood and its willing agents, most of the Western MSM.
However, the former ambassador said, the main reason for America's retreat from its initial position was U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who "changed her mind fundamentally" after an Israeli aerial assault killed 28 civilians in Kana on July 30. "Rice exerted enormous pressure on me to reach an agreement already," he said. "Until Kana, the U.S. wasn't interested in another typical Middle Eastern cease-fire. We thought we would exploit the fighting to fundamentally change the situation, especially in Lebanon and Syria. But under the influence of her shock over Kana, the secretary of state changed her mind and only wanted an immediate end to the fire. That was the policy Rice dictated."
This blog was convinced at the time that the Qana episode was crucial in the propaganda war, which is an intrinsic part of the war against terror we are all fighting and which Israel had to fight in the summer of 2006 against Hezbollah.

A reminder

The Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, whose purpose is to implement the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty in British legislation, will be taking place this afternoon.

Timing is a little hard to judge. Defence Questions, going on at the moment,will last till about 3 but it seems that there will be at least two statements. So the debate might not start till about 5.

As far as anybody knows they will vote around 10 both on the Amendment and the Substantive Motion. Normally, there has to be a certain amount of time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage but there is a rumour going round that an agreement between the various party leaders (or, as it is usually known, "the usual channels") that the Committee of the Whole House will start its work tomorrow.

In the meantime, Bob Spink's EDM that demanded the publication of a detailed analysis of the treaty together with the protocols and declarations and an explanation of how they might affect the British constitutional structure as it exists and future legislation has been comprehensively ignored. Why am I not surprised?

The war goes on

"A massive and fundamental" shift of power. So says Michael Connarty MP, reported by The Daily Telegraph today, marking, says the paper, an "explosive start" to five weeks of Parliamentary debate on the Lisbon Treaty.

Connarty is of course right and, as chairman of the all-party European Scrutiny Committee, he has some authority in the matter – but not very much. He, like all the others, will be totally ignored by a government which is simply not listening. Today and through the next weeks, it will rely on pre-formed mantras and its payroll vote to ram its ratification bill into law at breakneck speed.

It says something for the "explosive start" that the Telegraph predicts that its story is at the bottom of the front page, under the lead item which hails, Drivers to face random breath tests.

Ministers, we are told, "are convinced that tougher enforcement is the key to cutting the number of alcohol-related road deaths. Their plans for random testing will be unveiled within weeks". However, they were not convinced during the passage of the Road Safety Bill last year and rightly so. The evidence does not support random testing as an efficient way of catching drink-drivers.

What has now "convinced" ministers, however, is pressure from the EU which, as we have pointed out, now has exclusive competence over road safety issues. It is the EU that is insisting on random testing and our provincial government has no choice but to fall into line.

If you want an example of a "massive and fundamental" shift of power, therefore, this is it. But you will not find a single mention of the EU dimension in the Telegraph's piece by its transport editor, David Millward, who shares with the paper's political correspondent James Kirkup a blindness for all things emanating from the European Union.

Another example of the "massive and fundamental" shift of power comes in a small piece on page six of the newspaper, headlined, "Biofuels will harm the planet, MPs warn". This previews a report to be published today by the Commons environmental select committee which accuses the EU of being "reckless" in subsidising fuels made from plants, claiming that plans to promote "green" petrol and diesel made from plants "will do the planet more harm that good" and should be scrapped.

The EU commission, of course, knows this from its own experts. But it is not inclined to take any notice of those experts and it is certainly not going to listen to MPs from one of its provinces. The environment committee is wasting its time and our money.

These "massive and fundamental" shifts of power, however, have come with previous treaties, most notably Maastricht, and with the Lisbon treaty, we are going to see more of the same.

But, as the media and politicos over the years have failed and continue to fail to point out the degree to which power has moved to Brussels, the population is largely unaware of the extent to which they have been betrayed, and the full nature of the current betrayal.

Thus, while the lead editorial in the Telegraph is extremely robust and very welcome, it is too little too late. It calls for us to "play a part in holding our MPs to account," writing to them, reminding them of what they promised in their manifesto. It also tells us that we can lobby them in person. Particularly, though, it wants us to support the I Want A Referendum campaign which is planning to hold mock referendums to demonstrate support for a real referendum.

That campaign is also highlighted in the Speakout blog, which takes this blogger to task for his "familiar mix of world weary cynicism and bitterness at being left on the 'wings' while others take centre stage." With friends like this, says Speakout, the Eurosceptic movement is once again demonstrating how little it is prepared to work together for the common good.

"But surely," it continues, "over the next few months, those of us who want a referendum on the Constitution have a duty to put aside our differences and to ensure maximum support for the I want a referendum campaign. Anything less, and Brown will laughing all the way to the division bells."

What Speakout and its fellow travellers are having difficulty is coming to terms with, though, is that this phase of the battle in a long war is almost certainly lost. Barring a miracle – which will have nothing to do with the activities of Open Europe and its I want a referendum front - Gordon Brown is indeed going to march his troops through the lobbies, in defiance of public opinion. There is nothing we can do about it.

The trouble is that this battle was lost years ago and, as we pointed out in a post written in December, we have only ourselves to blame.

Above all else, like guerrilla warfare, this is an intellectual battle, in which the Eurosceptic movement has refused to engage. With 30 years of failure behind them, Eurosceptics could have at least learned from the tactics of the Europhiles. Like all minority groups who eventually prevailed, they invested the bulk of their funds and effort on winning the intellectual arguments before they committed their "troops" to the field. In common with guerrilla warfare, to commit troops to the battle before the ground is prepared is to invite certain defeat.

Nevertheless, Speakout's idea of a winning strategy is to do precisely that, asserting that, in order to work for the "common good", we should roll over and support a flawed strategy, launching into a burst of frenetic, last-minute activity, however futile that might be.

Despite that, this blog remains committed to winning the war by continuing a strategy which really works, one proven by experience - winning the intellectual argument. And, in the history of such wars, we can afford to lose battles on the way. We only have to win the last one.

COMMENT THREAD

They lied yesterday; they will lie tomorrow

An absolutely stonking column on the Lisbon treaty from William Rees-Mogg hits the streets in The Times today, the title of which we have borrowed for our own post.

With the strap line, "The Lisbon treaty is a dangerous betrayal", Mogg tells us he is against the treaty "because it involves an important constitutional transfer of powers from the European nations to the European institutions, from national democracy to supranational bureaucracy."

He adds that he is in favour of a referendum, not only because it was promised by Labour, Tories and Liberal Democrats at the last general election, but also because it would be the best way to ratify - or reject - a big constitutional change. The people, he writes, should be consulted when their powers of self-government are being given away.

Continuing in this vein, he then writes:

I was struck yesterday by an observation of the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. He said: "The reform treaty gives Britain a bigger voice in Europe." That seems to me to be the opposite of the truth. The reform or Lisbon treaty gives Europe a much bigger voice in Britain. It follows the original constitutional treaty in giving the European institutions that are not democratically accountable important additional powers, while failing to repatriate any powers to the individual European nations.

The original constitutional convention was supposed to reduce the democratic deficit of Europe. The Lisbon treaty has done the opposite, taking powers away from the nations and their electorate. The treaty is a defeat for the idea of a liberal democratic Europe; it is surprising that British Liberal Democrats are among its keenest supporters.

The Government's handling of the referendum issue has been shameful, because that, too, has been anti-democratic…
There is no need to re-invent the wheel. Go to the site and read the piece in full – and fume.

Meanwhile, The Times also tells us that Brown is on his way back from India and will arrive back too late to vote for his own treaty in the House of Commons – not that it matters, as the slime masquerading as Labour MPs will do his dirty work for him.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague, who will be leading the "debate" for the Tories today, managed to get in a jibe at Brown's expense. "The Prime Minister who was prepared to sign the EU treaty but not in front of the cameras is now the Prime Minister who wants to ram the treaty through Parliament but not vote for it himself," he says.

In a way it is rather symbolic. Brown was late for the signing and now he will be so late that he will miss the vote. It is a pity it wasn't the other way around, not that that would have made any difference either. His faithful little lapdog Minibrand did the job for him, and one signature is all it takes to betray our country.

COMMENT THREAD

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Flying blind

Rather confirming our premise that the forthcoming ratification debate in the Commons will be about anything and everything but the constitutional Lisbon treaty itself, Booker writes in The Sunday Telegraph that the MPs will be required to ratify it without reading it.

Specifically, they will have sight of the amendments to the existing treaties – which forms the basis of the Lisbon treaty – but, as readily acknowledged by former Italian prime minister, Giuliano Amato, this document is unreadable, and quite deliberately so.

The only way it can make sense is if all the amendments are amalgamated into the existing texts, to produce a publicly available consolidated treaty. This is something which neither the EU officials nor the government have done, for very obvious reasons.

Should they do so, it will then become readily apparent that the differences between the final document and the EU constitution are so marginal that, to all intents and purposes, they are the same. But we have known this for months anyway.

Fortunately, Booker tells us, there will be a consolidated version available, produced by a small private business organisation, the British Management Data Foundation (BMDF), run from the Cotswolds by Brigadier Anthony Cowgill and his son Andrew, and funded by some of Britain's leading blue-chip companies.

Unfortunately, draft copies of this version will not be available until the end of this week (to order, ring 01452 812837; cost £27.50), after the second reading debate. Thus will MPs be asked to give away another huge tranche of our powers to govern ourselves without even being allowed to know what they are giving away. "Like Mr Brown's broken promise of a referendum," Booker writes, "it seems a suitably seedy epitaph for our democracy."

COMMENT THREAD

An interesting time?

As the parliamentary ratification process of the constitutional Lisbon treaty starts in earnest tomorrow, three of the four national Sunday "broadsheets" carry stories on it, the exception being The Independent on Sunday which, despite its Europhiliac tendencies, has chosen to remain an EU-free zone.

The possible reason for that is that there is only one story of the moment, that today, in anticipation of the MPs going in to debate the second reading of the ratification Bill, the Labour-controlled foreign affairs select committee is due to report that, in its area of interest, the "new" treaty differs little from the draft European constitution that would have been put to the country.

Despite its Europhiliac sympathies, The Observer is honest enough to headline its story, "Boost for referendum on EU treaty" as it tells us the news, with a strap reading: "Influential committee of MPs says there is 'no material difference' between new measure and the old constitution".

The Eurosceptic Sunday Telegraph, on the other hand, has, "Tell truth on EU treaty, say MPs", retailing that, "The battle over the EU Reform Treaty has been reignited after an influential committee of MPs said that the document is no different to the defunct EU Constitution."

The leaves The Sunday Times to declare that, "Ministers mask effect of EU treaty", reporting that, "The significance of the new EU treaty has been deliberately downplayed by the government, according to a damning report by MPs published today."

Matthew d'Ancona in his column in the Telegraph then gives us a long dissertation about how David Cameron has a "cunning plan" to deal with the treaty, but doesn't want to tell us what it is.

The Cameroons, writes d'Ancona, do not want the focus to be upon their long-term plans - which is to say that they do not want to let Labour present the debate as an argument about staying in the EU or leaving it. The Conservatives want the focus to be upon Brown, and the debate to be about the broken referendum promise.

To back that up, we are also going to see some action from the provisional wing of the Conservative Party, as Neil O'Brien cranks his moribund I want a referendum campaign into gear, with a series of constituency-based referendums to be held across the country, targeting the Labour marginals. They wish to convey to the MPs with threatened majorities that breaking the referendum promise could cost them their seats at the next reshuffle general election.

This will certainly give the media Daily Telegraph something to write about, but the government has ideas of its own. The Observer tells us that the attempts by a cross-party group of Eurosceptic MPs, including most Tories, to amend the treaty bill to include a referendum will fail because Nick Clegg has decided, in his first major decision as Liberal Democrat leader, to abstain.

Then building on the story broached by its sister paper, The Guardian, claims ministers are confident they will defeat the referendum calls, even when the treaty goes to the Lords, because they have embarked on a lengthy lobbying campaign to explain to MPs and peers how the measure will benefit the environment, international development and children's rights.

We then get Europe minister Jim Murphy – he of mature debate fame – chirping that the ratification process would highlight how "the Tories are more marginalised in Europe than they were under Margaret Thatcher" because no EU government or official opposition party shares their rejection of the treaty.

Murphy "mocks" the Tories by asking: "Who opposes this treaty in Europe? The Animal party in the Netherlands, the Greek Communist party, Sinn Fein and the British Conservative party."

He adds, "Whose company would I rather have internationally? The government and opposition of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the new eastern European countries, the children's charities in Britain, the green charities, the development charities, the sports organisations, ourselves, the Liberal Democrats. I know whose side I am on and I know where the British national interest lies. It is an outward-looking Britain rather than a Britain being outside looking in."

So, he is calling in the payroll vote and avoiding any discussion of the treaty. And since the Cameroons are also avoiding any serious discussion of the treaty as well, we are in for an interesting (not) time.

COMMENT THREAD

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Where it really matters

While various parts of the British blogosphere and clogosphere are getting all worked up about some non-story about possible adultery among journalists who are showing themselves to be ... ahem ... hypocritical, other parts of the world are facing greater problems to do with lack of freedom, specifically lack of freedom of speech.

The ever estimable Sandmonkey reports that Google is up to its tricks again, suppressing information on the internet if it is unhelpful to some tyrannical government or other.
The Fantastic people at google seem to have it for the egyptian opposition to the Mubarak regime. It's not bad enough that they had disabled Wael Abbas' youtube account with all the egyptian police human rights abuses and torture videos (only to have it restored again when the outrage became too big), now they have made the website for Kefaya (the egyptian movement for change), which has been around for 3 years and very active, disappear completely off of their search engine. You can't find it anywhere.
The tale of Wael Abbas and his anti-torture videos were reported last year by the Big Pharaoh, an excellent site when the hard-working writer has time to post. It seems that, for once, Google paid attention to the outrage its actions caused.

Will they restore Kefaya? And will the British blogosphere get its head out of its own fundamentum for long enough to pay attention to some of these stories? Oh never mind, forget I asked.

Parish pump politics

This week, almost unnoticed, Charles Moore tells us, the House of Commons voted to increase hugely the amount Britain pays to the European Union.

There is, of course, a reason why this event went "almost unnoticed". Quite simply, it is because none of the major national newspapers chose to report it, in part because, as we observed, the Conservative Party chose not to make it a big issue.

Moore chooses the event, however, not to make a point about the huge amounts of money now pouring out of our taxpayers' pockets into the coffers of the EU. In fact, so careless is he of this issue that he claims that from now until 2014, the British net contribution will be £5.5 billion each year.

We do not know from where he obtained his information but, according to government figures, he is way out.

In 2007, the gross contribution before abatement was £14.2 billion with an abatement of £3.9 billion. For 2008, the figure is £14.6 billion with a projected abatement of £4.6 to 4.7 billion. The year 2009 will cost us £13.7 billion with an abatement of £4.8 to 4.9 billion, in 2010 it is £14.4 with a £3.8 to 3.9 abatement, and for 2011-13, the range is £14.1 to 14.5 billion with projected abatements of £3.5 to 4.1 billion.

On that basis, the average net payment is nearer £10 billion a year, almost double the figure Charles Moore has given us.

That carelessness with detail (it would have taken only seconds to check the details on Google) betrays the mindset. Moore's concern is not with the money, but with personality politics, in this case the possibility of Tony Blair becoming the first "president of Europe".

Frankly, this is not going to happen but, as Moore remarks, "there is growing talk…" about the possibility, no doubt in the gilded circles inhabited by Mr Moore and his friends. And because the chatterati talk about it, it assumes sufficient importance for this ex-editor of The Daily Telegraph to acquaint us with his wisdom (and factual errors) on a grey Saturday morning.

If you look back over our own coverage of the last few weeks, however, you will see issues that the chatterati are not talking about. By far the most prominent of those is the forthcoming publication by the commission of its proposals for emissions quotas, included in which is the insane target for a ten percent quota of biofuels for 2020.

Already, we are paying for this madness, in our food prices, in our energy bills and at the pumps when we fill our cars with petrol but, if the proposals go through (which is more likely), the effect on our economy, our jobs, inflation and our way of life will be profound.

Furthermore, the issue is clearly one of high politics, as we have noted and one of enormous political controversy. But, because it is being played out in Brussels, amongst people of whom we have never heard, largely behind closed doors, it escapes the attention of the gilded chatterati of the London political circuit. And, because they know nothing of it, do not understand the issues, and have no knowledge of the personalities involved, it is not important.

This we saw with James Kirkup, the Telegraph's political correspondent. Like the rest of the chatterati, he is determinedly London-centric, and cannot get his head around the fact that the most important political decisions that are taken today happen not in his tiny little world bounded by Whitehall, Westminster and Victoria – where his newspaper office happens to be – but in a foreign country of which he knows little, despite its proximity.

Not only have we exported our government to Brussels, therefore, we have exported our politics. The likes of Moore cannot cope with the fact that the power has drained away from their gilded circle. Instead, they have retreated into their comfort zone of pump-parish politics, indulging in the local tittle-tattle and gossip that used to be the fare of the elders and the women as they gathered at the focal point of their village, to collect the water.

Only when a personality like Tony Blair is involved in the wider world of which they know so little, do they look up from their claustrophobically narrow little worlds and start taking notice. And then, it is only to prattle, soap-opera style, about familiar faces, rather than the issues. Parochialism, it seems, is the new black.

COMMENT THREAD

Piggy in the middle

With the news having drifted out that an "internal European Commission study" has criticised the EU plan for a mandatory ten percent quota of biofuels in transport, what is fascinating to see is how the EU is trying to disown its own report.

It must be acutely embarrassing for the commission to have the study find that the costs of biofuels outweigh their benefits, as it was produced by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission's in-house scientific body based in Ispra on the shores of Lake Maggiore in Italy.

Tomes such as this are usually published immediately in the institute’s website but, up to press, there is no sign of the publications, despite it having been leaked to a number of press sources, including AFP and The Financial Times.

The European Commission spokesman on energy is trying to hold the line, claiming that the study was "just a working paper", even though it was actually produced for the commission by an institute wholly owned and financed by the EU which states that its mission is "to support European policies".

All this is suggestive of a right royal row going on in the commission in the run up to the publication of the commission's emission plans on Wednesday, with some indications that key figures have taken fright at the extra $33-65 billion the switch to biofuels will cost between now and 2020, if the plans go ahead.

Nevertheless, the commission's energy spokesman is saying that the 10 percent biofuels objective for vehicles remains, telling a press conference that, "Economically speaking there is only one option, that is biofuels … It is good for the environment, it is good for transport and it is good for European agriculture".

The Greens have already declared their opposition to the scheme which now puts the commission firmly alongside the CEO of General Motors who has just announced that his company considers the days of petrol engines are numbered, saying that the switch to biofuels such as ethanol and electric cars is now inevitable,

This is creating a delicious situation as the commission is now open to accusations that its is aligning itself with big business against the Greens. Especially entertaining is that fact that the latter are protesting that the EU’s climate policy is "too negative", demanding a cut of 30 percent by 2020 instead of the 20 percent on the table while business representatives are squealing that the current proposals are set to drive major swathes of industry offshore.

Ironically, the EU has always regarded the "environment" as is strong suit, the need for “cross-border” action being used to justify its existence. But, as the opposing interests get more and more vociferous, the commission is not obviously gaining from its advocacy of Green issues. Instead, it is managing to aggravate just about everybody, ending up as piggy in the middle.

COMMENT THREAD

Friday, January 18, 2008

Plumbing the depths

If Polly Toynbee shares with us a certain dread at the prospect of Monday's second reading debate on the treaty ratification, she is not averse to adding to the very reasons for our dread.

The essence of EU debates in the House is not only the tedium. It is the sheer dishonesty of the Europhiac speakers, and their reliance on their mantras rather than argument. It is impossible to have a debate with someone who resorts to trotting out "three million jobs" and all the rest of the garbage that these people use to justify handing over more powers to our central government in Brussels.

In a piece in the Guardian's comment is free section, however, Toynbee plumbs new depths in the dishonest department, telling us that, during the debate, Ed Balls will point out that all the big children's organisations are backing the treaty: their statement calls it a positive step as it includes children's rights.

She also tells us that Hilary Benn will stand up with the support of the environmental groups who see the EU as key to climate action, while Douglas Alexander will speak with support from Oxfam and the other aid organisations for the treaty's "potential for a stronger poverty focus".

"It's brave and honest of all these NGO umbrella organisations to join this fight," writes Toynbee. "They see qualified majority voting as no loss of British sovereignty but the only hope of action that can otherwise be blocked by any one of 27 countries."

Here we have organisations on the EU payroll, endorsing their paymaster without declaring the same, and Toynbee calls them "brave and honest"?

However, the deception does not stop here. With "third-party support" such a crucial part of Labour's strategy, we see The Daily Telegraph unwittingly enjoined in talking up the importance of such endorsements, allowing Phil Hope, Minister for the "Third Sector", to write about "the importance of charities in our society".

Yet in this long piece about charities, the only one he mentions (approvingly) by name is the NSPCC, which just happens to be the front-runner in the Labour strategy to gain endorsements for the EU treaty. Coincidence? I think not. Like Toynbee, Hope is plumbing the depths of dishonesty.

COMMENT THREAD

Russia's war against the British Council

Back in 1903 when D. D. Braham the Times correspondent sent back accounts of nefarious doings by the Russian government (though he did not write the articles about the pogroms that particularly displeased the authorities) he was ordered out of the country and the Times was not allowed another correspondent for some time. Russia, it was said, declared war on the Times, which responded in kind.

Autres temps, autres moeurs. The Russian government seems to have declared war on the British Council for no reason that anyone can discern except for the need President Putin and the siloviki around him seem to feel to whip up fervent nationalist feelings coupled with a fear of the West.

Usually, this sort of behaviour indicates a strong desire to take people’s attention away from domestic problems, particularly of the economic variety. But we are told endlessly that the Russian economy is flourishing and that is the reason for President Putin throwing his way around in this ludicrous, school bully fashion.

I have mentioned before the demands that British Council offices outside Moscow should be closed down because they allegedly have not abided by Russian laws. Foreign Secretary David Miliband and the British Council itself have maintained that they do abide by all international and national laws. The obvious solution would have been for the Russian Foreign Ministry to go to court but that might not have worked. There are still some Russian jurists who show themselves to be courageously independent.

Instead, the authorities did what they do best – hauled the Russian staff into the FSB offices, interrogated them and searched their homes. The British Council offices in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg duly closed, partly because they no longer had adequate numbers of staff and partly because they cannot endanger their Russian employees. The latter is always the weak point for any foreign enterprise in Russia – the local staff is at the FSB’s mercy.

Russia now hails the closure of those offices as a great victory. I suppose we should be grateful that they are not comparing it to Stalingrad or Kursk.

Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph also pointed out that the director of the St Petersburg office was stopped by the police and held briefly on suspicion of drink driving. Wearily I shrugged my shoulders and then I noted who this director is.

He is none other than Stephen Kinnock, son of Neil and Glenys, who used to work in the British Council’s extensive Brussels office when daddy was Commissioner and mummy a Member of the Toy Parliament, which she still is. He then returned to the London headquarters just as daddy became Chair of the organization (couldn’t run to a Table, I suppose). While I deplore the recent Russian habit of persecuting British representatives in the country because the British government had the temerity to ask for the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi on the somewhat serious charge of being involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, I cannot help wondering about a young(ish) man who seems content to follow his parents round the tranzi and NGO world.

So what is to be done next? Mr Miliband, rightly in my opinion, has made it clear that there will be no tit for tat on this one. Britain will not expel the two cultural attaches from the Russian embassy, though why they need to be here is beyond my comprehension.

Nor is that much discussed exhibition at the Russian Academy going to be stopped, now that the Russian government has graciously agreed to allow the museums to carry out their side of the long agreed deal. Mr Miliband also added words to the effect that if Russia wants to be a great country it should stop behaving like a spoilt brat.

All well and good, but as I was asked yesterday by the BBC Russian Service (and allowed to answer for as long as I wanted to) why should Russia care. Britain has asked for the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi; not only did that not happen but he is now a Duma Deputy. (For all of that, if President Putin thought he could gain something from a different action, Mr Lugovoi would find himself on a plane to London with a one-way ticket in his pocket.)

Russia has leant on the British Council and the regional offices have closed. Why should Russia worry about her international reputation if she can get away with this behaviour? Ought the British Council at least close its offices in the country completely?

The answer to that last question should be an unequivocal “yes”. The British Council’s mewling excuses as to why they do not simply sweep out of the country, making it clear that Russia has, in some ways, reached the level of other oppressive states, sets one’s teeth on edge. If I had any faith in their insisting that the Yekaterinburg and St Petersburg offices should remain open and winning that battle, I would take a different view. But it seems unlikely with the FSB playing very dirty.

The money thus saved could be used to bolster up the BBC Russian Service, which is needed ever more in that country. Master Kinnock would lose his present highly paid job but I am sure daddy can find him something else.

As to whether this harms Russia internationally, I replied to the interviewer, that is undoubtedly true and will come back to haunt the country. Using Soviet tactics on the grounds that nobody can touch us may well end up with a Soviet-style collapse.

Russia, I added, is not an essential part of the war on terror while it remains best friends with Iran and President Ahmadinejad (possibly one of Putin’s oddest policies, given Iran’s support for various terrorist groups around the world, including the Caucasus and Central Asia).

As ever it is hard to tell how the people of Russia react to all this. We cannot take our knowledge from Putin’s hooligans, the Nashi, who will have to be reined in at some point. The western media keeps insisting that the president is extremely popular. There is little evidence for his actual popularity though Russians are not too anxious to rock the boat.

His frenzied campaign before the December elections for the Duma did not yield the results he wanted. One Russia came top (surprise, surprise) but only with 64 per cent of the vote out of a 63 per cent turn-out.

Jamestown Foundation reports in its Eurasia Daily Monitor that a poll conducted by Gallup International’s Russian affiliate Romir last June showed that the majority of those asked believed that democracy was the best form of government but an equal proportion (though not necessarily the same people, obviously) did not think that the Russian form of it was quite the thing.
According to Gazeta.ru, 64% of the Russians polled by Romir answered in the affirmative when asked if democracy is the best political system. Among respondents aged 30 or younger, 71% answered this question affirmatively, while only 50% of those older than 65 answered in the affirmative. In addition, those with higher incomes tended to be more sympathetic toward democracy. Gazeta.ru quoted Romir consultant Igor Berezin as saying the age-determined differences were not surprising, given that the older respondents grew up under “different political conditions” – meaning under the Soviet system – and that they associate democracy with the 1990s (when economic dislocation and chaos hit older Russian particularly hard). …

Russians, however, are much less happy about democracy à la Russe: Only 57% of those polled by Romir said they were satisfied with democracy in Russia. That result was similar to those in the other countries of the former Soviet Union, where 56% of the respondents said they were satisfied with democracy in their countries. Worldwide, 69% of those polled said they were happy with democracy in their countries. In addition, 80% of the Russians polled by Romir said they doubted that Russia is governed by the will of its people – compared with 70% of the respondents in the other former Soviet republics and 63% worldwide. What is more, only 26% of the respondents in the Romir poll said they thought elections in Russia are free and fair. In the other countries of the former Soviet Union, 31% of those polled by Gallup International said they thought elections in their countries are free and fair, while worldwide 47% said they thought election in their countries are free and fair.
Opinion polls, particularly of a not very large sample, though presumably weighted by various factors, are far from conclusive. But coupled with the reluctance shown by Russians to turn out and vote for Vlad’s List in December we can, at the very least, express some doubt on the assurances we get from various correspondents in Russia that everybody is overjoyed with the way things are being run.