Making the Worst of a Bad Job

Brown and Miliband try on the new official Foreign Office treaty signing uniforms

Gordon Brown has been struggling with his decision decision over how involved he should be in the proceedings surrounding the signing of the rebadged EU constitution.

Yesterday he appeared to have two options to select from. Should he show a bit of nerve and show his personal support for the treaty he used to loathe so much by turning up in person to be photographed signing it? Alternatively, would he rather take the shifty and cowardly way by not wishing to be frozen for posterity with his pen hovering over a a document that will probably be causing bad headlines for years to come?

Even amongst those of us who are not that keen on the document in question and are even less happy with the fraud perpetrated on the electorate over the promised referendum, many would probably have preferred the former option. Not for once to further embarrass the walking embarrassment that is Gordon Brown, but because, at least in my case I felt that to be the only leader absent would look like an act of petulance that would reflect badly not only on Brown, but on the whole nation. The latter option would have been much more in character for Macavity Brown; cynical, calculating and counter-productive.

Amazingly though, the Prime Minister has truly excelled himself by coming up with a third option, worse than either of the two he was initially weighing up, by turning up late, missing the incriminating photographs and signing the treaty in private over lunch.

I don't like the treaty, but whether our Prime Minister should sign it is a private debate within this country, as much as the likes of Barroso may wish otherwise, just as although I'm sorry that the Danish Prime Minister has also lacked the courage to involve his own people in the way they clearly wish, that is purely a matter for the Danes.

If though, on the public stage, the treaty is going to be signed by our government, I would prefer it was done with a little dignity, but sadly that's another quality Brown lacks entirely.

Blissful Ignorance

Dan Hannan is becoming an increasingly prolific poster over at his Telegragh blog. He certainly ranks as my favourite blogger amongst elected representatives at the moment, with a powerful writing style reducing issues that the EU elite would rather remain obscure, or at least opaque, in the minds of the public to their stark essentials. It attracts a fair amount of intelligent comment, including familiar more reasoned pro EU voices in opposition such as Chris Sherwood, even if it does have the usual dose of Brussels fruitcake, in this case from a A-list loon called Johan de Meulemeester.

Most of Mr Hannan's postings are in his typical intellectual style, but in a recent posting he shows that he's still capable of a chuckle at more basic fare.



Well, at least somebody has fallen for line of the hardcore, federalist Eurofanatics, even if is one the Americans they detest so much.

The Price of Pride

Navstar...It's there,
it's free, it works

It appears that the faintest glimmer of hope that common sense may prevail has finally been extinguished over the ill-starred Galileo project, with the news that EU member states have decided that the opportunity to piss several billion euros up the wall, on what is essentially a vanity project, was too good to pass up on.

Last minute hopes that sanity may have prevailed with rumours that the Spanish had major objections quickly evaporated when it transpired, unsurprisingly, that these objections were not rooted in a principled disagreement with the fundamental wastefulness of the project, but rather rested on a demand that more of the money be wasted in Spain. In any case, in the shape of things to come Spain, a EU state of some size, was simply outvoted and ignored, until some face saving compromise could be agreed.

With the deal secured, the need to maintain the party line on the very questionable real world benefits of funding another new global positioning system from the taxpayers pockets (private enterprise having lost interest long ago) could finally be dispensed with:

...[EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot] pointed out that once up and running, Galileo will "ensure the economic and strategic independence" of the EU, as "special navigation is an indication of power" on the world stage.

Source: EUobserver

Yes, as it always was intended, we have to fork out at least €3.4 billion for something that is indeed nothing more than a dick length extension for our lords and masters.

Even the figure of €3.4 billion should ring alarm bells, not because it seems horribly large, but in a sense it seems far small. Considering the research and development still to do, the size of the constellation of satellites required, and the well known eye watering costs of space projects it seems completely and utterly unrealistic. I can't help but suspect the number is more related to the amount in the pot, from underspend on agriculture and administrative budgets, the 'politically acceptable' amount.

Naturally though, the 3.4 billion is enough in one sense. Once it has been expended the 'in for a penny, in for a pound arguments' can be deployed and more money can be squeezed from the taxpayer to see the dreams of EU leaders, if not those of any sane EU taxpayer, realised.

Anyway...the Commission says €3.4 billion, delivery in 2013, so I'll start the sweepstake. I'm going for €8.5 billion and I think that 2016 will be the year we will rush to buy Navstar GPS receivers before some form of compulsion comes in to use the EU alternative when it goes live in 2017.

Ad Astra (per Taxpayer)

One that works - Navstar

Through the ages addiction to 'grands projets' has been been one of the greatest vices of the political class. Successes? yes they do happen, but on a somewhat less of a common basis than the simple toss of a coin would suggest they should, even without totting up the consultancy hours that should have taken whatever assessment was performed out of the realms of uninformed guesswork.

This is not a 'brutal' capitalist assessment. It is one that factors in a lot of pride in the seemingly impossible being achieved that we can all appreciate. The US gave up at the first hurdle, Concordski as I understand it did fly, but never went into commercial operation, but Concorde did and, for all its costs to the relevant exchequers, I'm as happy as mes frères français that it did. It broke through a barrier, that in their own way, so did projects as diverse as Bazelgette's sewerage system and the channel tunnel. Not one of these would have or will ever return cash to the taxpayer, and I don't care. I believe in small government, but on occasion government can deploy the strength of the resources that even the most minimalist of administrations can muster to catalyse something that, even with the best will in the world, the private sector of its own volition would just find to be a little bit of a step too far.

There really are the opportunities a good government should consider big ticket expenditure on; unfortunately we have Gordon Brown, the EU, and Galileo.

GPS was a fantastic innovation. I used to go sailing now and again and its navigational predecessor, in terms of hopping over to the Channel Islands, DECCA, was the most unreliable pile of cack I have seen outside a local government IT department. Along came Navstar/GPS and you knew exactly where you were for the price of a crew night at the only decent subcontinental food emporium in Lymington.

For some though, there is a problem. Not one that actually will ever put lives in jeopardy, something worse than that, it was a project with its roots in the US military. It is true that it is less accurate than the proposed European alternative. So far though, the value in this enhanced accuracy seems to be explained as either the ability to support new and innovative ways of taking more money out of the taxpayer's wallet, or, for reasons I guess to do with frequency ranges, the capability for the new system will work inside buildings too, so that hard pressed bureaucrats can find the nearest lavatories in the Berlaymont after a prolonged lobbying session with all the free booze it may have entailed.

Everyone knows it is fundamentally what one could crudely, but fairly, call a 'dick length' project, even within the governing party:

"What taxpayers in the United Kingdom and other European countries really need and want is better railways and roads, not giant signature projects in the sky," said committee chairwoman Gwyneth Dunwoody.

"The government must stop this folly and endeavour to bring the European Commission to its senses," the Labour MP for Crewe and Nantwich added.

She called for independent evidence that proceeding with Galileo - a rival to the US GPS system - was worthwhile and offered value for money.

Source: BBC News

Ambitious is not a word you would use in its normal tired political context for Ms Dunwoody, but in the idea of bringing the "European Commission to its senses" she does show that a spark of naive optimism cannot be fully extinguished by the mandarins.

Slightly less pleasing from the same story was the BBC commentary that:

In September, the EC said that unused agricultural and administrative funds from 2007 and 2008 could be used to plug most of the £1.7bn (2.4bn euro) hole in the project.

Source: BBC News

How good would have a statement saying "we've saved some money, so we don't need a superinflationary increase in funding this year" have sounded in place of "we've found another wall to piss it up"?

I would comment on whether some of the target dates quoted in the BBC article sound remotely attainable, even with a fair wind, in the context as described, but to do so would be an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can read it, let alone anybody who has run a project of a fraction of such complexity.

Just so long as there are swish launch parties for the the right people, what's the problem?

Up in Smoke

In need of an update

Bonfire night hasn't ever had the same appeal since my father bought a dodgy batch of fireworks that fell of the back of a lorry a few years ago. Once you've seen an oversized rocket doing a mid air U-turn a couple of seconds after lift off and somehow fitting through the narrowest of re-entry windows (in this case a patio door opened only to a ventilation setting) and explode in the family lounge nothing else will quite match the excitement.

It's that whiff of gunpowder and controlled danger that I've always liked and I desperately hope the health and safety zealots fail in their annual whining for yet more draconian restrictions. They don't seem to publicise the annual injury toll on TV news outlets anymore, which is probably a sign that the numbers are becoming fairly small and un-newsworthy, but if true that would not deflect the zero risk brigade from their crusade.

There have also been the usual questions raised about the appropriateness of an annual celebration of Catholic burning from the usual suspects of political correctness as well as from more considered sources. I've got no particular views on Catholicism one way of the other, but I am inclined to believe that it is one area where perhaps we could include a little more diversity. A pub conversation last night covered some potential candidates to replace the historical Guido Fawkes, so I have now come up with my considered top 10. I've tried to stick to just a single victim from any given sphere or institution, otherwise I'd have just been able to cut and paste from a list of members of the current cabinet.

So here goes then…my top 10 for the bonfire kindled, of course with the entire print run (if that is sufficient) of The Independent, in effigy:

10 - Jonathan Davies
Davies is a fine rugby player in both codes of the codes, with an encyclopaedic knowledge of both games. That said, the Welsh accent can be a beautiful thing, but his isn't. If some digibox offers a 'mute Davies commentary' feature I will be out to buy one in a second.

9 - Jose Manuel Barroso
I was tempted to include two people from the commission so that, in EU style, it would be possible to satisfy the sensitivities of those both in Brussels and Strasbourg. In my opinion the more common hate figures of the Eurosceptic movement, such as Santer and Delors at least had a degree of honesty of what their ultimate goal was, even if they were not so open about how they were achieving it. Some may say that Barroso is just the EU village idiot and unworthy of the accolade, but I'd love to see him go up in his Napoleonic bicorn hat.

8 - The Poison Dwarf
Ok, a bit parochial. Those outside the Village will just have to trust me when I say that never before in the field of pub bores has so little knowledge been expounded so long and inaccurately to so many.

7 - Kate Moss
OK, it wouldn't add much to the blaze, but the Kate Moss effigy is there as a symbolic representation of British Tabloid culture at its worst. The mention of her name in the broadcast media used to be a cue that all the serious news had come to an end and you could switch off and go and do something else, now it's likely to somewhere up in the top three stories at some point in any given week.

6 - Quentin Davies MP
We have far too large a legislature for a country of our size so the back benchers must take their share of the cuts as well as the cabinet. Not only would Davies' oily bulk make up for Moss, but as people at least since the days of Dante have known, there is a special circle in hell reserved for traitorous scum. I suspect there are still plenty of his newfound colleagues that would help me drag his heavy effigy to the top of the bonfire.

5 - Richard Corbett MEP
The smug grin that the deputy leader of the Labour MEPs has worn since his wish to have the desires of the British People extinguished seems to have been granted is truly revolting. The stupefying dishonesty of his attempts to justify the most politically dishonest act of my lifetime are offensive in the extreme. His fervent hope that the gradual stripping away of real democratic control from the general public will continue is reason enough to give him a portent of what generally happens when self selecting elites scorn the people, in seeing his effigy meet the same kind of sticky end that ultimately befell many of his political forebears.

4 - Robert Mugabe
It's a rare person who can unite a vast swathe of the political spectrum in universal loathing. There are others whose leadership has turned their country into a complete mess, but so often it can be attributed to an obsession with failed and discredited ideologies. With Mugabe I'm not sure I could even credit a plea of insanity; I believe he knows what he is doing is wrong and where he is leading his nation but these issues are small beer to him in comparison to his desire for unfettered power and wealth for his friends and himself.

3 - Lord "I'll never accept a peerage" Kinnock
Kinnock becomes the peer for the pyre on many counts. At least seeing the Kinnock effigy burn would be a more upbeat experience than some of the others where the frustration that in a civilised society we cannot really burn the person depicted would be a bit of dampener. Just as traditional bonfire festivities celebrate, to an extent, an event that never came to pass, so too would the roasting of this trough pig's effigy be a celebration that he never actually became Prime Minister.

2 - Sir Ian Blair
Had this particular Blair done a job that had inspired confidence in anybody outside left wing political circles then I would have been defending him to the hilt over the recent ridiculous Health and Safety conviction for the Met. In truth though he has being doing an important job badly for several years now with an astonishing disregard to the damage he is doing to the image of his forceservice.

1 - Gordon Brown
Well, it had to be, didn't it? If I'm only going to burn one member of the cabinet in effigy it has to be the top man. I understand he has another in his series of books on courage about to hit the shelves. It's the only way he will ever see his name on the cover of a book on that subject. Utterly worthless.

I know there are so many other worthy candidates but it's a start and we do have to consider our carbon footprint.

The Call of Duty

Battle Joined

Hung over is not as term I would use to describe how I felt this morning; being at death's door comes close but not quite close enough after a visit to the Wine (and port, and cognac, and a few glasses of Fino) show at the Business Design Centre last night.

I'm feeling a lot better now having somehow risen, Lazarus-like, to make it to the Pro-Referendum rally outside parliament today. Greater love hath no man, and all that.

The numbers were not enormous, but the crowd was in good voice and good order too - even one gentleman with the misfortune to have an uncanny resemblance to David Miliband was left unmolested. Fortunately for someone who does not hanker after full withdrawal from the EU the speakers, a who's who of thinking Euroscepticism, targeted the bulk of their fire power on the manifest injustice of Labour's lie over the referendum rather than the EU itself.

I suspect that I would have been very much in the minority in my own views. Outside the established political parties I could identify five different campaigning organisations represented, all of which, as far as I'm aware, advocate full withdrawal. Actually there were six, but as this blog is not in receipt of any public funding I feel no obligation to mention the last one's badly shaven baboons.

There are many views on how our relationship with the EU should evolve and it is important that even those who may even advocate more power for Brussels, but understand the desperate need for the public to have their say in the fundamental ways our country is governed, must be able to feel part of the campaign for a referendum. Much of the more positive media coverage of the referendum has come when some of those not fundamentally opposed to the reform treaty have come out in favour of a referendum as a matter of principle and it's important that these people are not alienated from the cause.

Much credit though to the organisers and the speakers. Farage was on good form, was he not, after what I have heard wasn't the greatest of keynote conference speeches, before retiring to the nearest pub for ale and nicotine, while Steve Radford of the Liberal Party injected a bit of fire. Dan Hannan confused the baboons, invoking not only Shakespeare but Plato too for good measure and contrasted nicely with the plain speaking Neil Herron. Jens-Peter Bonde brought a European flavour to proceedings, as well as potentially good tidings from polling in Denmark. I think that, for me, the best effort was by MEP and Freedom Association Chairman Roger Helmer, who claimed to be a newcomer to politics by megaphone, which if true makes it an even more impressive effort.

Also in evidence was a good cross section of the population in the crowd. Certainly those of a certain age were slightly over represented, but hardly overwhelmingly so. As with any such event there were the usual Bildeberg conspiracy theory loons and their ilk as well as the lower primate life forms, but they were the few and most seemed just like normal people who want their say.

Anyway, it's time for some hair of the dog.

Something for the Weekend

I'm not particularly good at making plans for the weekend more than an hour in advance, but I've got a good idea where I will be the coming Saturday. I'm not sure how much momentum has really built up behind the weekend's proceedings, but it's the closest I might get to having a say in how the country is governed, so somehow I will force myself out of bed, possibly even in time for pre-rally boozing.

Hopefully there won't be the tube problems I suffered on my only other visit to a political rally where at an anti-ID card protest I missed the burning of the Blunkett effigy.

More details here.

So Close, Yet Miles Apart

Bertie...up to the challenge

It was hardly worth tuning in to listen to Brown's pathetic attempts to justify the unjustifiable in his statement today on the Lisbon summit. It was all so predictable, especially the endless gibberish on red lines. What Brown seems to have conveniently forgotten that the in the manifesto commitment to a referendum, it was assumed that exactly the same red lines would be in place in any EU Constitution text that was put to the people.

All it leaves the Prime Minister with, in defending the line that the document is fundamentally different, are the fact that the document has been rewritten to maximise incomprehensibility whilst preserving the intent of its predecessor, and that references to flags, anthems and mottos were dropped. The former speaks volumes on how much our politicians want us to understand their project, the latter I never gave that much of a toss about one way other, given that these symbols will continue de facto to be used in the same way they always have been.

One little self justificatory line he did try to use was that nobody else was having a referendum, apart from the Irish, who, he tried to imply, were only having one reluctantly as a matter of constitutional necessity. Leaving aside what everyone is told as a child about 'everyone else is(n't) doing it' excuse, his line on the Irish position was comprehensively being crushed even as he was speaking.

According to EU Observer:

As the only country so far to definitely have a referendum on the newly-formed EU treaty, Ireland has said other member states should not be "afraid" of taking the same path.

"I think it's a bit upsetting ... to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity," Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday (21 October), according to the Irish Independent.

"If you believe in something ... why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn't be so much afraid of it," he added.

Source: EU Observer

I don't think there can be too much doubt about which particular member state, with a leader whose cowardice is now legendary, he is accusing of being "afraid".

It was truly appalling to see the usual supposed supporters of the EU lining up to demand that the people should not speak and thereby ensure that public hostility to the organisation can only grow. Most worthless of all in recent days have been the Lib Dem leadership contenders who have also shown the same yellow streak as their departed leader on the issue; a bad dose of MRSA on both your houses.

It looks likely that the status quo will be maintained. In the UK the EU will remain a distrusted plaything of the political classes while just over the Irish sea it will be a project the people are part of. I suspect that if I had grown up in Eire, and that if suitable provision was made in Irish law to ensure that the self-amending elements of the treaty did not make the vote next year the referendum to end all referenda, that I would probably be inclined to vote in favour of what is on the table.

Bertie Ahern has more than his fair share of scandal and sleaze clinging to him, but on this matter, in terms of integrity and principle he outclasses our vile troll. The sensible side of the pro-EU debate must realise that those that engage with their people positively and willingly are their real allies, while those like Brown are the worst of false friends.

Same S***, Different Treaty

Stitch-up Done

To call the documents that have emerged from the process that culminated with last week's Lisbon summit opaque is, to say the least, an understatement. Considering the fact that when Parliament debates the reform treaty in the New Year even they will not have a consolidated version of the treaties, as revised, to consider, this well-planned incomprehensibility comes as not the greatest of surprises.

Whatever one's views on the policies of the various components of the Independence and Democracy grouping in the European Parliament, they at least seem committed to informing the public debate in a way that more Eurofanatic organisations either only pay lip service to or actively despise.

This report from their EUWatch, on the impact of the treaty changes, is typical. True, in some of he commentary and choice of quotations they make clear their stance on the wretched project, but the heart of the document is a level headed analysis of what really is in the documents that the EU, and member states' governments so badly want us not to understand.

The simple statistical analysis is damning for Brown:



Even with four 'red lines', even if we are to take hope over experience and believe they will prove effective, it is abundantly clear that there is still a hell of a lot of substance to he proposed changes. To return to the ludicrous 'tidying-up exercise' argument is simply insulting to anyone other than the most rabid Eurofanatics or those without the wit to care.

Once more an organisation might have had promise and genuine worth to the people of Europe, has proved to be nothing more than a politician's plaything. Once more its latest incarnation is born in a climate of deceit and contempt for those that it claims to serve.

Disgrace Under Pressure

Experiment over

Back in the days when some were foolish enough to give Brown some latitude, I had little good to say about his first cabinet with the possible exception of David Miliband.

I felt it was a bit of an experiment, true, but he was one of the few in the team I felt could pleasantly surprise us all. In some ways it was a chancy experiment, being so different from the usual type of figure to fill the foreign office berth, but in a role that is often less pointedly political in domestic terms it was still an appointment I had an open mind about.

There is though a risk with any step into the unknown, and with hindsight the presence of that volatile element, the EU, in the foreign office brief should have set off alarm bells even before his non-performance on trans-Atlantic affairs in the early days of his tenure.

Judging by the only news feed I've read on the matter, from that bastion of right-wing Euroscepticism, the Guardian it sounds as if now the Batshit (as some like to call Miliband) has really hit the fan:

The normally calm foreign secretary David Miliband demanded an apology when a Labour committee chairman accused him of succumbing to EU bullying just as Neville Chamberlain had appeased Adolf Hitler.

The row came in an evidence session in which Mr Miliband failed to convince the European scrutiny committee of MPs that Britain had successfully defended its so-called red lines ahead of the EU summit on the new treaty in Lisbon this week.

Source: The Guardian

Note the key phrase, "Mr Miliband failed to convince". He failed to convince a committee chaired by, and with a majority from his own domestic political party on a matter that is vital to the government of which he is part. The ever irrelevant Independent may give him an easier time tomorrow, but nobody else will.

What is worse, not only did he get beaten like a ginger step-child (I'm partially licenced to use that term), but he lost his temper in the face of what will hardly be the toughest audience he will ever face. What may happen to Miliband in the face of more difficult meetings with genuinely hostile opposition, opposed not only to his role in domestic politics, but potentially with a deep antipathy to everything this country stands for, is anybody's guess.

It's too big a risk to take. It's astonishing that a few months ago some were touting Miliband as Prime Ministerial material, but then I suppose that just days ago some were saying the same of Brown.

Bad Timing

Prats from the same pod

McStalin desperately needs something that will allow him at least the semblance of a fight back against Cameron's resurgent team. Some kind of big name visiting Number 10 would help. Mandela, Sarko, Merkel, Putin, even George W. would probably help restore some force to the great clunking fist and give Gordon a break from his now daily diet of domestic humiliation and allow him to play statesman for a day. Unfortunately for the dour one, the Prime Minister's next big public engagement is with Manuel Barroso, the ever unpopular president of the largely despised European Commission.

If you want to restore trust in your premiership, who worse could you go into conclave with than one of the few people more generally distrusted than yourself?

As someone who does not especially like, to put it mildly, Gordon Brown, the knowledge that he goes to bed knowing that there is no remotely likely positive outcome from this meeting that will leave him anything other than more damaged than his is already suits me just fine.

The meeting will, as we all know, be focussed on how to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of this country, rather than looking for positive outcomes for the UK, or for that case the EU. They could show true grit by coming to the decision that the only way to get the British people to support their decisions is to involve them, in the form of a referendum. That though would require courage and vision, qualities that it is becoming increasingly obvious that both are pretty much completely devoid of.

They will stand outside Number 10 and praise each other. Barroso will tell us all that Gordon has skilfully negotiated some fantastic red lines, Gordon will tell us how different the reform treaty is from the proposed constitution. They will join in unison on the key point, that the British people must never, ever be allowed to let their opinion on the veracity of their statements be properly heard.

They will beam, and smile and indulge in mutual congratulation. There is though, one little fly in the ointment. The majority of people in this country don't believe a single word they say.

I suspect that even Brown's closest friends wish it was anyone but Barroso lined up for Thursday. His now open hatred for anyone but the elites having a say in how we shall be governed will be a huge problem for a media team looking for the slightest glimmer of a good headline, when even members of the grim one's own party are openly questioning the truth of their leader's own vacuous assertions on the reform treaty.

This time tomorrow I'm pretty sure Brown will be back on the floor receiving the kicking he deserves, or at the very least skulking in private ignominy behind closed doors as wee Millibore takes it on behalf of his weak boss.

Brown will be back in his corner now, the blood washed away from his multiple knock-downs in the last few rounds, but it's far from over. Things can only get worse Brown.

Not as Red as People Think?

ECJ - Old Tricks?

One of Gordon's red lines that is.

I've been mulling over this piece from the EU Observer on and off all day.

Fundamentally it pertains to Brown's supposed red-line over judicial cooperation in criminal matters:

Britain won a concession in that the European Court of Justice will not have jurisdiction over EU legislation in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters for five years - but only for EU legislation agreed before the treaty comes into force, something expected in 2009.

...

However, the protocol also suggests that if the UK wants to extend the exclusion of the court for longer than the five years then it will be excluded from the legislation in this area that was in place before 2009.

Source: EU Observer

Now I don't claim for a minute to fully understand the implications of this, which is hardly surprising as this the whole point of the revamped constitution, but I don't like the sound of it.

I don't like it, not as a kneejerk reaction to all things EU, but surely if the mechanisms by which we will be governed that we might well have dumped upon us by Brown is right in 2009, it should also be right in 2019; five year windows seem just like a nice excuse for the old "we told you this when we signed the treaty, it was always going to be like this, no point complaining now" strategy.

Sunset clauses are fine, even a good idea, for normal legislation, but constitutional arrangements permanence and enduring principals are essential.

I suspect what the issue here is the worry that the ECJ will use its increasingly bizarre leaps of logic to bypass the opt-outs that have been secured, often simply by declaring that it is illogical to deny powers to the EU in area 'X' where they already have control of seemingly unrelated area 'Y'.

Brown would obviously take an enormous kicking if the ECJ showed one of his red lines proved to be worthless almost before the ink was dry on the treaty. Five years down the line with the provision not renewed? The electorate forget easily and it's just another issue where, shock horror, the government were conned by Brussels; shrug of the shoulders, "well if it could happen to Thatcher it could happen to anyone".

It is either right that that the ECJ has jurisdiction in these areas, or it is not right. The passing of five years, conveniently the maximum lifespan of a UK Parliament, should change nothing.

The article goes on to conclude that "In general, the provisional rules would make it harder to opt out of the laws in the first place", and this, in of itself cannot be good news, when you look at how hard it was to neutralise the ridiculous 'Swastika Ban' legislation.

I've never understood the mad rush to harmonise judicial procedures or criminal law anyway. We've lived quite happily in a union of states with different criminal law and different judicial systems since at least 1707. Scotland has differences from England's criminal law up to and including the treatment of various types of homicide; it's juries are different sizes and can return different verdicts. How many terrorists have gone unpunished because of this? When ever have the public clamoured for the simplicity of uniformity?

That said, the image of a British jury acquitting a defendant, simply because counsel for the defence revealed that the offence of which they were charged was not wanted by Westminster and was forced upon us by a cock-up in a morally illegitimate, unwanted treaty is quite appealing. The impotence of the EU machinery in face of a long-ignored people would we wonderful to behold.

Europhiles should be careful what they wish for.

Nolo Condere

Shh...no debate please

Dizzy has an interesting bit of gossip about Jon Worth allegedly refusing to take part in a radio debate with the Devil on the subject of the EU Reform Treaty.

If there is any truth to the story it could be simply a case of personal animus, in view of the Devil's memorable reference to Jon Worth on 18DS as "the screechy, whiny one", however, while it isn't a huge story even if true, it would also fit a general pattern of behaviour of extreme Europhiles when it comes to engaging with UKIP supporters.

When those speaking for UKIP were old fashioned, and dare I say it, slightly elderly gentlemen, relying on fairly bumptious appeals to patriotism and distrust of foreign influences the more avid pro-Europeans always seemed happy enough to engage in debate with them. Now they have figures like Farage, who regardless what you may think of him personally is very sharp, and can make a solid, reasoned case for his proposition, and the same people seem much less keen to engage in any form of discussion, preferring to squeal from the sidelines.

As it happens I have voted for UKIP once, in elections to the European parliament when the electoral maths seemed to suggest that the number of Conservatives to be returned from their list was pretty much a given, but a small swing to UKIP could help them win another seat at the expense of Labour or the Lib Dems. I am not though, in a UKIP supporter - I don't want full withdrawal, but I know that the current integrationist agenda tacitly supported by Labour and the Lib Dems is profoundly wrong too.

Just because I don't agree with the UKIP position though doesn't mean that it isn't useful to hear their position clearly explained and argued.

There are voices, like the Devil, who represent an articulate, reasoned Eurosceptic line, and to be fair to Worth, especially when on topics other than the EU, as much as I disagree with most of his positions, he can make a good reasoned argument for them too.

If there is any truth to Dizzy's rumour, it would be a shame. Those that believe in 'the project' should stand up and argue their case, even if it is against more challenging opposition than they have been used to in the past, rather than hoping that by avoiding debate their position will continue to prevail by default. They are losing the argument simply because they are not making their side of it.

Preaching, as so many do, the line of 'inevitability' and 'enormous' (but unquantified) benefits to audiences of the converted will not turn round public hostility to the EU, primarily because it comes over as just that, preaching.

As a postscript I should say that I know the person who e-mailed me in response to my Fantasy Blogging Rugby XV suggesting a fullback berth for Mr Worth, purely in the hope of seeing him creamed in a vicious tackle going for a high ball, and they are in no way connected to any known blogger.

Something or Nothing?

Gordon Brown, hmmm...

Having found myself a little out of step with the consensus on other party conference speeches I was a little reluctant to comment on Gordon Brown's offering to party and nation yesterday, but that would be a bit lily-livered.

With Gordon I seem to be more in the mainstream of not knowing exactly what to make of it. Despite a valiant attempt by the Today programme to portray it as a triumph, appealing to Guardian and Telegraph readers alike, even reading these particular publications themselves reveals a much more equivocal response to the speech from their particular political standpoints.

On a personal level, despite my personal disagreement with Brown's self image of honesty and probity, I was reasonably moved by the more personal aspects of the speech, which did give some sense of the foundations of his personal political philosophy. The relatively low key, and occasionally faltering delivery if anything enhanced these aspects of the speech in a way that a totally stage managed, barnstorming effort might not have done.

The goals Brown committed to himself were, I am sure in the eyes of any reasonable person regardless of their politics, perfectly laudable. This was obviously the key message Brown wanted to be taken away from the speech, but naturally as a Conservative leaning voter the scream of "but you've had ten years, not two months Gordon" went up in my head.

The occasional foray into more concrete policy was more disappointing, and probably explains the general apathy in the media, other than the Independent, about it. Most of the claims that it was simply reheated existing Labour policy mixed in with a little microwaved ex-Conservative manifesto fare seem pretty well founded.

What it did not come over as is as an election rallying cry, and my personal gut instinct on an October poll shifted quite a lot towards the 'no' side.

Despite the many good reasons for Brown to go to the country as soon as possible I just can't get past two main obstacles as I see them.

Firstly there is the innate caution of the man and the underlying fear there must be of the possibility, however remote, of something beyond his control derailing his bandwagon. The way expectations are currently set, anything other than a very substantial majority would probably be painted as a failure, and after such a short time in office after so long a wait, I doubt this is a possibility that Brown's ego would risk opening up.

I think a second factor though is much more significant and much more concrete. The fly in the ointment for Gordon, as for so many other UK Prime Ministers surveying their election prospects, is the EU, this time in the form of the reform treaty.

It's so often tempting to draw parallels between Gordon Brown and John Major in their respective positions in following a more charismatic but more divisive leader. Some of these are pretty superficial, but in this case their problem is similar and I suspect the experience of Major will way heavily on the current Prime Minister.

Both had a document on the table, the Maastricht treaty in Major's case, that for better or worse they felt and feel to be the best deal they could get. As is the case with Brown today, Major was desperate to get the document signed off, and off the political agenda, but faced considerable voices, including from a significant section of his own party and the country as a whole, either wholly against the treaty, or at least saying that it should be put to the country to decide on.

The lesson from history that I suspect will weigh on Brown's mind is that John Major did sign the unpopular treaty, two months before going to the country in an election which he ultimately managed to win, without making fundamental concessions over the ratification process for the treaty during the election. It is true that that in the subsequent parliament the ratification process was damaging to the Conservative party, but in Major's mind was probably the least bad option open too him. As far as Europe was an issue in 1997 it was more the perception that the party was split on the issue that was damaging, rather than that a bad treaty had been passed into law, and in any case other issues were more dominant.

My suspicion is that Brown will see a similar pattern as being the 'least bad' option for him too, and will wager, probably correctly, that any splits in the Labour party will be far more superficial as the numbers against the treaty in principle are relatively small.

In essence, there are two scenarios. If Gordon fights an election in October the EU will be a very hot issue, especially with an IGC scheduled to address the treaty just before a likely polling day. The Conservatives are much more in tune with the country as a whole on this issue and could probably land some very heavy blows, with a huge risk in Brown's eyes that people may 'lend' Cameron votes on the issue, regardless of headline opinion poll numbers. It is questionable whether Brown could now neutralise the issue by offering a referendum, as it would cause too many shock waves with the EU as a whole, would seem terribly opportunistic, and it is doubtful whether trust levels over such a promise would be sufficient to see the issue killed stone dead.

The alternative is to wait, sign the treaty if and when it is ready, then face the flak of going through a parliamentary ratification process. Yes there would be political damage, but how much? As much as many dislike the current proposals, the cry of "look what he is going to do" is in many ways stronger than "look what he did". Conservative claims to be able to turn the clock back at a subsequent election would be, probably rightly, ridiculed and, being the pragmatic type of people we are, many would probably take a "what's done is done" attitude and move on to other issues.

I don't like it, in any way, shape or form, but this seems to me to be the least risky strategy for a long tenure in Number 10 for Brown, and being the kind of person he is I'm sure it's a line he is considering.

So there it is, colours nailed firmly to the mast, no October election. On my current form though, I'd suggest you circle October the 25th in your diaries!

Return of the White Elephant

The Croydonian has found an interesting video from the EU sponsored area of YouTube in which appears to promote the idea that yet another core European value has been decided for us by our elders and betters.

I actually preferred one that popped up in the related clips section:



How apt that a film, doubtlessly produced with a nice chunk of taxpayer's cash, to celebrate the EU's 50th birthday should feature quite prominently the proposed Galileo satellite navigation system.

I should praise EU honesty in admitting the organisation's involvement in the project, now that it has been confirmed that commercial interest has ebbed away and the whole thing is set to become a millstone round European taxpayer's necks. Unfortunately, the indignation of being part of paying for this monument to politician's vanity is too strong for any form of kind words.

Spreading the Bad Word

True pan-European
Prat, Andrew Duff MEP

As many will know, the situation in the Netherlands apropos the method of ratification of the proposed European Reform Treaty (constitution) is somewhat up in the air at the moment. The position, or rather lack of one, on whether the proposed European Reform Treaty should be the subject of a popular vote, is one where confusion reigns to a degree that even the Lib Dems would find embarrassing.

Unlike President Sarkozy in France, who sought, and was given a clear mandate to approve the treaty in parliament, nobody it would seem, has a strong enough mandate to do anything. It seems even as though the Dutch parliament could split on the issue, where conventional wisdom forecasts a strong possibility of a pro-referendum vote in the lower house, being blocked by the differently composed upper house. At the executive level the lack of anything approaching a decision points to splits within the Dutch cabinet.

What is needed is a strong voice and leadership, and today it would seem they have got the first of these. Loud, persistent and annoying may be more apposite adjectives though as the voice in question is that of none other than that tireless campaigner to keep the people out of any decision involving the European Union, British Lib Dem democracy hating MEP Andrew Duff.

The EU Observer reports today on Duffs's ill-judged and inappropriate intervention into the internal affairs of another sovereign nation:

UK liberal MEP Andrew Duff last week released a statement on the Dutch Council of State report saying "The Treaty certainly deserves careful and informed scrutiny by the Dutch parliament, but I hope that the Dutch government and parliament now confirms that there will be no referendum in the Netherlands.

"This is not the first time in their history that the Dutch have taught the British a good constitutional lesson."

Source: EU Observer

I suppose I should really welcome his input. Most interventions by overseas politicians in purely domestic matters of another nation do have a bit of a habit of being spectacularly counter-productive.

I hope that those few Dutch voters who hear and give a damn about what Duff and his cronies like the equally unpleasant Mr Watson think about how they should run their affairs give him a swift language lesson in the meaning of 'Ga kots drinken ranzige smegmakegel'.

I suppose that it is largely the pompous arrogance and self-importance of Lib Dem MEPs that irks me so much, being just moderately large fish in the relativly small and very stagnant pond that is the ALDE group in the European parliament. These are not terms I would apply to the majority of Lib Dem supporters and MPs that I have seen, who I have generally found to be very pleasant people who simply hold different political views to myself, but their Brussels contingent really do show the institution they support at its very worst.

Mr Duff should really consider the strength of his own democratic mandate before lecturing others on how they should tread their own democratic path. Considering the general antipathy of the people of many of the people who he represents to the EU, does he really think that under any other electoral system than the appalling party-lists, that he would have even the chance of a very small snow ball in an especially fiery hell of ever holding elected office again were his personal positions to come under public scrutiny?

I've tried to lay off the EU, but with tossers like Duff around campaigning for ever less involvement of people across the continent in how they are governed it's just to big an ask.

A Mixed Bag of Results

Winners?

No, not a Rugby World Cup reference, where the gulf of relative performances between England and those of key opponents have brought ever more gloom to those who ride the roller coaster of supporting the men in white, as has every medical bulletin. Rather, I refer to the contrasting pronouncements of the TUC and leader of the ironically named Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, on the subject of the upcoming EU treaty.

Today the TUC did indeed vote to demand a vote on the EU treaty today. I will also say, in their favour that the initial coverage did contain a significant amount of comment from union leaders on the fundamental dishonesty of the government's volte face on the issue.

Over the last few hours however most of the comment I've read makes it sound, much as I had feared, that it may be merely a bargaining position, and that the opposition would evaporate were Broon to give way on his 'Red Line' on the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and through that back door, bring in the increased union powers that the Labour movement know they cannot sell to the British electorate.

BBC News quotes the GMB general secretary, Paul Kenny:

"If we get a referendum and the terms haven't change, it's going to be very difficult to persuade workers to vote for it [the treaty]."

Source: BBC News

Most of the union comment I have read has come from traditionally left of centre sources like the Guardian and the BBC, who probably have similar misguided sympathy for the the Charter, so it's hard to guess what motivates the majority in the union movement. That being the case, I personally give the TUC the benefit of the doubt and welcome their position, and just have to trust that the Prime Minister has the wit to know that to give way on one of his increasingly thin red lines would reduce his credibility from virtually to absolute zero.

Definite Loser

In any case, I suppose that to do the right thing, even for the wrong reason is better to than to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Once again this seems to be what the hapless Sir Menzies Campbell has done.

Having supported a referendum on the proposed Constitution at the last election, and suggested that he may be amenable to one on the reform treaty, he has caved in completely and declared it unnecessary. Nor, this time, was it a return to what may be a relatively principled position on the role of referenda in a representative democracy, the line that the Lib Dems have usually have adopted to ensure that the EU continues to get its way in the face of public disapproval.

As Shane Greer, currently persona pro Iain Dale, and Thunder Dragon have both spotted, Menzies has instead decided to stick rigidly to the party line; that is to say the Labour party line.

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat leader, on Tuesday took the heat off Gordon Brown over the revised European Union constitution, arguing that a referendum on the new treaty was “not necessary”.

...

[Sir Menzies] told the Financial Times the new EU reform treaty was “sufficiently different” from the original constitution to avoid the need for a plebiscite. He said the only case for a public vote would be on a much broader “in or out” question about Britain’s membership of the EU, to prompt a serious national debate on Europe.

Source: The Financial Times

Fortunately it seems to be younger more forward looking Lib Dems who seem to be backing a referendum, as opposed to Campbell, once again pretty much marginalised in the broader debate, who once again has felt the need to follow the old failed approaches to resolving the agonies this country puts itself through over its relations with the EU.

The real beneficiary of Campbell's intervention I suspect may be David Cameron, not Broon, by leaving the Conservatives as the only mainstream party whose leadership backs a public say on the referendum. When you consider how closely he has parroted the Prime Minister's line, after a prolonged period of dithering, it's likely that many will draw their own conclusions over the Lib Dem position, should they ever get the chance to hold the balance in power in Parliament.

As for being the 'real party of opposition'...Sorry Menzies, that has probably just taken a fatal beating.

I've done far too many EU posts of late, so I'm going to place a short ban on the subject here for a while, unless someone suggests something really stupid and insensitive like putting the ring of stars on British passports.

A Sense of Balance

Traditional Measures 'Saved' ?

I can't really say that I have a strong opinion on the subject of Imperial vs metric units. As I posted in the early days of this blog, I have a scientific background so naturally I'm somewhat more fluent in the metric system, but then I am still so many feet high, weight too many stones and pounds and drink a few pints after a half mile walk to a local pub.

Is it idiosyncratic? Yes of course it is. Does it really matter? Is it worth forcing change on a reluctant public? Of course not. It is true that the UK Metric Association manage to point to a few cases of engineering cock-ups due to different measurement systems and contradictory bits of law, but in the former case these would continue anyway, given that most involved the US which is unlikely to convert any time soon, and in the latter could just as easily be resolved in the favour of the traditional alternative.

Put simply, in those cases where the use of traditional units remains prevalent there is rarely, if ever, any need for conversion between systems as we view these quantities simply in terms of multiples of themselves. If I drink four pints, I drink four pints. The fact that equates to a rather cumbersome 2.272 litres is utterly irrelevant. I had a friend who owned a horse which I think stood at sixteen hands. Asking her whether a 'hand' was four or five inches, she wasn't actually sure, but it didn't matter - she knew that a horse of about sixteen hands was right for someone of her height, regardless of whether it was measured in meters or feet and inches; to me it was just 'big'.

What has irritated me is the politics of it all, and let nobody doubt it is all about politics. Was Lord "I'll never accept a peerage" Kinnock was a young man, I very much doubt that he was offended by the fact that he was served a pint rather than half a litre. Post his EU epiphany he has become a metric warrior, desperate to impose another symbol of European authority on the British people.

Of course though, it was never a European project, or so the likes of the UKMA were always eager to portray it not to be so. The impression that was always sought that it was a choice we had made for ourselves, that it was only our own national law that was responsible for the changes. Eurocrats scanned every pro-imperial statement for anything where a line had been marginally passed that could allow them to present the pronouncement as a 'Euromyth'.

Given the way metric enthusiasts promoted their system, they might find today's announcement by Gunther Verheugen, EU Commissioner for the Single Market, somewhat baffling. According to the Daily Telegraph:

Europe's Industry Commissioner Gunter Verheugen said it was time to end a "pointless battle" after decades of wrangling between London and Brussels over pressure to switch to the metric system.

Imperial weights and measures now face no further threat from Brussels: "It is entirely up to the British Government whether to keep pints and feet and inches, and the whole miles system, but as far as the Commission is concerned there is not now and never will be any requirement to drop imperial measurements," said the Commissioner.

Source: Daily Telegraph

He went on to try to secure further political advantage from his announcement:

Insisting that Britain’s traditional ways had never been targeted, he said: "Let’s get one thing straight from the off.

"Neither the European Commission nor any faceless "Eurocrat" has or will ever be responsible for banning the great British pint, the mile and weight measures in pounds and the ounces.

"These imperial measures form the part of the traditions that are the very essence of the Britishness that all Europeans know and love."

Source: Daily Telegraph

Mmm, well it is just about a truthful statement, but to pretend that faceless "Eurocrats" had no intention of doing so in the future is a bit disingenuous. Sorry Mr Verheugen, I don't think you deserve too much credit for this decision. That you may have decided to stop beating a dog is doubtlessly a worthy act, but the memories of the past beatings remain.

As for the warriors for the metric cause, their hysterical reaction to Mr Verheugen's announcement has put the lie to their claim that their objectives were only those of practicality and nothing to do with furthering European Integration.

For them these imperial measures form the part of the traditions that are the very essence of the Britishness that they dislike and abhor.

Riding Two Horses

One of the leading causes of Euroscepticism

Peter Mandelson, who other than being one of the more free-trade minded commissioners, I still consider to be one of the most odious of individuals to emerge from the fetid swamp of NuLab politics, is at it again.

He has followed his boss, the buffoon Barosso, and several other commissioners, in a wholly inappropriate intervention into the internal affairs of a member state. The fact that he is the UK nominee to the commission makes it no more acceptable than any other commissioner's intervention.

According to the BBC:

EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson has warned pro-European MPs not to get drawn into an anti-Europe campaign by supporting an EU Treaty referendum.

...

"Britain is not a country governed by the use of referenda. And those who argue for one in reality all too often want Britain to withdraw.

"I am afraid those pro-Europeans arguing for a referendum risk being drawn into supporting this agenda."

Source: BBC News

Curiously enough though he prefixed his comments with:

"It is not for me to express a view on the UK's domestic decision about a referendum"

Source: BBC News

In this, and in this alone he is right. But of course then went on to do exactly what he clearly knew it was inappropriate for him to do. When the ever ethically challenged Mr Mandelson went to Brussels, the commitments he made to the commission were in direct conflict with the oaths of office he had made as a government minister. Now, here again he willfully has violated the rules that govern his new role out of simple self-interest.

If Mr Mandelson wants to influence the decision on whether the UK should, or should not have a referendum, the path is clear. He must resign his role in Brussels and return to national politics where his voice may be legitimately be heard. Nothing would please me less than to see more of the deeply unlikable Mandelson in our domestic politics, but his intervention would be nonetheless legitimate; what he cannot do is continue to ride two horses, reentering national politics as and when it is in the interests of the Commission for him to do so.

As to the substance of his remarks, they are at heart pathetic. The idea that the likes of Keith Vaz and Gisela Stuart are some kind of unwitting puppet of the Eurosceptics is ludicrous. Their position is one of confidence and principle, where his is one of weakness and cowardly self-interest.

It is not these life-long supporters of the concept of European Union who cause the nation's distrust of the institution, nor is it the Eurosceptics. It is people like Mandelson and his vile colleagues, who insist that Europe continues to be something 'done to us', without, at any cost, letting the people ever have a say in the matter and letting it, perhaps, become their project too. It is the like of Mandelson who show 'the project' in a bad light, as they continue to shamelessly show utter contempt for the views of the people of Europe and campaign ceaselessly for their voice to be silenced.

Time to Stand Up

Iain Dale has highlighted the launch of the new website for the cross-party www.iwantareferendum.com campaign to raise the pressure on Brown to call a referendum on the upcoming EU treaty.

You can sign up to show your support quickly and easily on the site, as a few thousand already have.

Back already?

It's certainly a professionally put together offering with a fresh simple look and a direct message. We were promised something and now we want it. Their YouTube campaign video takes a similar approach:



If I was to question one aspect of the case made on the site, it would be the occasional forays in to the actual implications of the treaty itself, focusing on some sensitive issues like immigration and EU control of foreign policy. While I may have some sympathy with the arguments they make, especially in the latter example, I can't help feeling that this may diminish the potential for true cross-party support.

As I have posted previously, one of the most encouraging things about the current situation is the number of public figures who are highly supportive of the EU who have come to the conclusion that a referendum is needed, both from the standpoint that it is a promise that should be honoured, and also that it is a debate that should take place.

I'm not sure that with the tone the campaign has currently set, that some key players will feel that a broad enough church has been pitched for them to enter it. I couldn't imagine, for example, too many more senior Lib Dems, who currently seem to be in two minds on their position on a referendum feeling entirely comfortable with the current message.

It would probably have been better to have a clear position that it was a campaign simply for the promised referendum, not a campaign for a referendum and a subsequent 'no' vote. It should simply be based on the fact that such a vote was promised, is patently necessary if the British people are ever, as a whole, to feel comfortable with our relationship with the EU, and that it is long overdue.

That said, fundamentally it is an initiative I wholeheartedly support, and I hope it may act as a rallying point for the very many initiatives along the same lines that many have been working on.

The pressure must continue to mount on Brown. I can't believe, given his upbringing, that he can be entirely comfortable knowing that with one signature any reputation he may have had for integrity and honesty will be gone at a stroke. Add in the amount of political pressure he is under from several angles, and he might just decide that upsetting the Commission is very much the least of several evils.