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.

SNAFU

Same old rubbish

I only managed to catch a few snippets of the Barroso/Brown joint press conference, but it looks like Brown really is out of the game at the moment. This was a much safer environment for Brown, despite the subject matter, when compared to the full assault by the press core earlier in the week, or his Commons destruction, but still he seemed unsure, hesitant and distinctly not Prime Ministerial.

Daniel Hannan's blog post at the Telegraph may be taking it a little far, but it does seem as if the events of recent weeks have opened up a whole new range of psychological flaws in Brown.

Sadly the media kicking I was expecting looks unlikely to materialise, other than in the usual quarters, simply because in essence, bereft of anything useful to say, they fundamentally said nothing new at all. At least someone seems to have beaten it into Barroso's thick skull that the 'R' word is one best avoided entirely by people such as himself whose democratic legitimacy is so thin.

One thing that both failed to do in any sense whatsoever was to add even the slightest semblance of credibility to Brown's almost universally derided position.

What I heard was, frankly, incredibly dull even for someone interested in the subject, and I suspect that was the plan. For more interesting thought on matters Brown a propos the EU treaty, you'd be better off musing on Dizzy's interesting hypothetical.

It sounds quite plausible, but fundamentally it's hard to assess the likelihood of such a play, you'd need to know which Brown has in greater abundance, cowardice or a propensity to cynical opportunism and that's a damn tough call.

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.

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.

Yes Commissioner

Derk-Jan Eppink

Just short of £20 has just been dispatched in the direction of Amazon and I suspect it will be money well spent.

Derk-Jan Eppink, a Dutch former eurocrat, has penned an insider's account of the inner workings of the European Commission and its most powerful officials. According to EU Observer it does not portray the institution in an especially flattering light:

Deeming them "footsoldiers in the battle for integration", Mr Eppink portrays high-ranked eurocrats as being in constant battle between themselves for one upmanship and in battle with their commissioners to make sure they do not stray from the official message - also known as The Line to Take (LTT).

Source: EU Observer

None of the contents reported by EU Observer are anything particularly new, though it will be interesting to read them from an insider's perspective.

The running theme is one of unelected officials making fundamentally political decisions behind the backs of Commissioners who at least have a minute degree of democratic legitimacy, nominated as they are by democratic national governments. At the very least the Commissioners are those who face the public opprobrium when the policies turn out to be as appalling as ever, rather than skulking in the shadows working on the next phase of 'the project'.

Hopefully, in the face of Mr Eppink's pedigree, the book may at least help chip away at the facade of the Commission simply being a 'civil service' there to act at the behest of national governments on matters for their common good.

The complete europcrat training DVD series can also be ordered at Amazon here.

Backing Boris to Bash Ken

A Gaffe and Offence Prone Mayor?
Crikey - Plus Ça Change...!

There have been quite a lot of things happening over the past few weeks in the world of politics. We've had a change of Prime Minister, as sadly a not insignificant proportion of the country will unbelievably have failed to notice (I kid ye not - I know at least one intelligent person who was not aware of Mrs Thatcher's demise until well into John Major's second year). Probably the biggest issue for the two main opposition parties' leaderships today will be the two bye-elections in Ealing Southall and Sedgefield, where whoever actually comes the 'distant third', that each predicts for the other will probably come under a lot of pressure, especially if it's Ming. Across the channel Senor Barroso is showing all the signs of a Napoleon Complex. Not quite like any other Napoleon complex of course, after he is, in his own words, the president of the first non-imperial empire (????). There's nothing new in what he said of course, but he's the first Commission President to have been enough of a bumbling idiot to actually say it. Jean Monet must be turning in his grave to hear the imperial ambitions of the EU proclaimed, at least so publicly, regardless of the bizarre caveats Barroso attached.

My focus though, has been strangely drawn to matters more local this week, on an issue that I've rarely given that much thought to.

The deadline to enter the primary race to be the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London passed on Monday and the likely shortlist of candidates for the primary stage appears to be coming together. Lots of hats have already been thrown in the ring already and thanks to 18 Doughty Street and Iain Dale's series of interviews I've had chance to listen to most of their owners. I really hate say it, because every one of them showed a lot of enthusiasm for the job, nerve to be standing for the post in the first place and had at least a couple of unique policies I could back, but I couldn't see a serious rounded candidate among them. The closest was probably DJ Mike Read, who I'd have to admit did impress in his Doughty Street, but at the end of the day I can't help thinking that his undoubted brand-recognition factor would ultimately have turned out to be a sword two equally well-honed cutting edges.

The general consensus as the deadline approach seemed to be that, at the last minute, Steve Norris would step into the breach for another attempt to unseat the repellent terrorist, tin-pot dictator and newt fancier. There also seemed to be another tacit consensus, if the general reaction to this possibility was any measure, that the most likely outcome in such a match up will be Norris running the Vile One (no not the Poison Dwarf (q.v) - Even Ken isn't that bad) very close once again, but again not close enough. My gut instinct leads me to the same conclusion. I just couldn't see what would be different this time around; Norris has campaigned well on his previous outings and was generally well received, Ken has continued to embarrass and inconvenience London with his various escapades but no worse than in years before becoming Mayor, or during his first term, and has continued to dodge the opprobrium the little half-wit truly deserves. There was unlikely to be a Cameron effect in play with Norris already having played an effective 'inclusive' line, even managing to blend it successfully with a bit more of a streak of toughness than party has yet managed to do on a national level.

And then after months of rumours and counter-rumours about the little known, media-shy, MP for Henley, and his ambitions, or lack of them to be a candidate for London Mayor, came the final announcement that Boris Johnson would stand for the post. Already Read and Richard Barnes have withdrawn, backing Boris, and the remaining shortlist 4 (or 5) look to be facing an uphill struggle to see off BoJo in the primaries.

It was only as the speculation became more serious about a Boris bid, that I started to think that such a bid might actually be a pretty good thing.

It's pretty easy to bring Boris to mind for a series of public gaffes and causing gratuitous offence to various communities, as well as his slightly shambolic, vague public image. That though, is to ignore the perceptive nature of his more considered writings and frankly, that through it all people actually instinctively warm to him. Even Ken on Sunday's TV seemed unable to direct his normal venom for someone of different political persuasions in Boris' direction. As for his habit of causing offence now and again, when he speaks his mind, well I think Ken shows that Londoners will live with it.

Ken contemplates a day at the
office whith no tin-pot dictators
or religious bigots to meet

I find it hard to be kind to Ken, but I think it's a similar kind of straightforwardness that gives him his appeal beyond his natural political constituency. If it wasn't for the particular inanity of some of his policies and the uncommon vileness of some of the people he shares a stage with, I suppose I too could come to a similar view, and I can see a certain something in him that I prefer to the creepiness of his colleagues in national government.

What it should make for, most importantly though, is an interesting contest, and might well fire the public imagination even beyond London. It's something the country needs in an era where public participation in the political process is falling to dangerously low levels.

There have been a hundred and one suggestions on how to reverse this trend: changing to weekend voting, voting in supermarkets or on-line, increasing fraud prone postal voting or dropping the voting age to include an age band that is probably the most politically apathetic of all. Other than this last suggestion they all have one thing in common - the idea that somehow the act of voting is too difficult for we the electorate. I think that this principle is fundamentally flawed. Time after time, when there is something at stake that the electorate both care about, and feel that their vote will count for something, the people will overcome these imagined obstacles to their participation.

The real problem, as I see it, is that at a national level with the exception of John Major's victory over Lord "I'll never take a peerage" Kinnock there has not been one general election in the time when I've had the vote where the result has been in any serious doubt. At a local level, after 10 years of centralising of control, there are so many areas where local authorities can only act as the local implementation agency for central government policy, that there is little at stake even though dramatic results can and do occur. Probably the last time I felt my vote counted for something was at the last elections to the European Parliament, as I'm sure many others must have done, and the turnout increased massively. This was despite the fact that many of us knew it would only have symbolic significance as the EU, by design, would never make the slightest course change regardless of the message from the voters.

I'm sure the next general election will be better, but perhaps only marginally so, as, while the result is far less certain, it will in all probability the choice between two flavours of bland managerialism, with a PR blitz to create a facade of 'clear blue water' between the parties.

A contest for London Mayor between Ken and Boris would be an engaging affair, doubtlessly chaotic at times, and controversial at others. It would though, be for an office that carries significant powers, with little certainty to the outcome, and between two politicians that people genuinely engage with, and that can only be a good thing.

If the prospect of Boris as Mayor brings out thousands of newt fanciers to see off Boris then so be it. That's what democracy is all about. Meanwhile I'll be backing Boris.

Be Careful What You Wish For - Postscript

No voting por favor, we're EUropean

I forgot to mention in my previous post on the subject that there are even those within the nest of vipers, the Commission, that are some voices of reason. Even Margot Wallström, on her blog at certain times suggested an EU wide referendum on whatever settlement is reached. She seems vague on the details other than that it should take place on the same day across the EU, and I suspect she envisages a simple 50% plus one across the continent as representing approval, regardless of the probable strong negative numbers in some member states. Despite that it did seem that at least she had an appreciation that the absence of the informed consent of the people could only damage the EU in the long term.

Unfortunately, of late, her blog is mute on the issue. Commentary on the subject is now conspicuous by its absence, in the same way as after initial critical comments on the policy, it is now too on the CAP. In the case of CAP it was a guest blogging by the Agriculture Commissioner that reasserted the official bullshit line, and brought debate to an end. On the fate of democratic input to constitutional reform the message is being delivered by more conventional media by her boss, former Maoist turned President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso.

Today he is increasingly angrily demanding ratification by Parliament alone, on the BBC he takes a breather to try mixing a little soft soap with his contempt at the people:

"Sometimes I hear people saying that for Parliament to approve it would be by the back door.

"Britain is the country that exported Parliamentary democracy to the world. Do the British people consider Parliament the backdoor?

"Do the British people who killed their king to protect the rights of Parliament consider it the back door?

"Is that the respect some people show their Parliament , maybe the greatest Parliament in the world? I don't consider Parliament the back door."

Source: BBC News

It's the same old argument for representative democracy. It is true that this is the tradition in this country, but for it to function we need to know what our representatives represent. One of the main ways we try to ascertain this is the manifesto that they put forward when they seek election. Often the commitments made are fairly general and merely offer a framework within which a party pledges to represent our interests if it should come into government. There are some though that are highly specific and, regardless of what political theorists may think, I believe on these matters we do expect our MPs to act as our delegates rather than representatives. The EU referendum is one such commitment. If they had wanted the latter role they could have made a less specific pledge and taken the electoral risk. To renege on the commitment on the flimsiest of technical pretexts brings the whole process into disrepute.

Barroso, with all due lack of respect, you can take your type of democracy and vai chupar merda seu filho da puta.


On another issue, a couple of people who I know who read the previous postings in the series alleged I had a bit of a Maastricht obsession. This treaty featured heavily I suppose mainly because ultimately it was the turning point in my attitude to the EU. In their own ways Amsterdam and Nice were just as significant in the development of the EU, however on the face of it, with the UK opt-outs secured I also felt that there was nothing especially objectionable in them. Under my thesis I would have preferred referenda in these cases too, but had one been won on Maastricht I feel these later developments would have passed relatively. Goodwill towards the EU would be immeasurably higher, and, pruned of the material that the UK opted out of, they would have been much closer to the simple 'tidying up exercise' that we are being mislead to believe is being discussed today.

The campaign banner, courtesy of a Roger Helmer flyer goes up shortly.

THE END (For now)

Be Careful What You Wish For – Part II

ConstitutionalAmending Treaty
Name change, a chance missed?

Conveniently enough towards the end of drafting the first part of this miniseries the Prime Minister appeared before the commons liaison committee and outlined his so called 'red lines' in negotiating any replacement for the EU Constitutional Treaty. These days when it comes to Blair negotiating EU arrangements I don't have the slightest faith that these will be stuck to, but of course the purpose of this posting and the previous instalment was to try and remember the days when I was a moderately pro-EU individual to understand why I would, even with that mindset, have been very uncomfortable with the way things are going in terms with our relationship with Brussels. That being the case I guess I can suspend my disbelief a little further and widen the scope of my hypothetical naivety to encompass believing Blair will be able to secure each and every one of them.

The result of a successful agreement from the PM's perspective would still, when I look at my list of issues with the original Constitutional Treaty, been a deeply unsatisfactory document, that I would still, given the chance, vote against. At least he's had the sense to realise, as I'd hope anyone with the interests of the EU at heart would, that ending the criminal justice veto would be a recipe for disaster. Blair at least has heeded the warning from very recent history that the proposed Swastika ban contained, that we have the national state's national traditions in these matters remain far too varied to risk the folly of centralised diktat would represent, with the inevitable increased contempt towards the EU in many states.

As for the remainder of the issues, well, I guess I'd never have really imagined that they would have been addressed, so I'd have been disappointed with the outcome were such arrangements adopted, but probably still not yet in the anti-EU camp, still hoping for a more enlightened approach the next time around. I'd also very rightly fear the additional negative reaction from what would, and will, inevitably be a strengthened anti-EU movement.

Even the historical pro-EU me would have some sympathy with the antis. I may, in times past, have been prepared to stand up and defend much of the intent of what was being proposed even if I struggled to justify the detail and the mechanisms of the legal arrangements. I know for certain though, that I would have had complete sympathy, even from a pro-EU perspective with the means by which the political elites are attempting to bring the mechanisms into force. I can be so certain of this because I had the same misgivings over the same points with Maastricht, a treaty which though I was unhappy with some aspects of, I felt generally supportive of in its early days. In both cases, even when I was within the camp, the broader pro-EU movement has appeared at its very worst, and have wittingly or otherwise caused immense damage to the organisation they claim to champion.

There are a hundred and one flaws that could be pointed to dating right back to the farcical convention which drafted the original Constitutional Treaty, or rather the convention which was ignored by Giscard and the British civil servant whose name I forget as they drafted the constitution; even the most passionate UK Europhile must have drawn breath when both the Conservative and the Labour delegates to the convention effectively associated themselves with a minority opinion on the document.

These flaws continued all the way through the supercilious attitudes of the elites that played a part, I am sure at least in the case of the Netherlands, of electorates fed up of being taken for granted rejecting the demands of their elders and betters. Some of the arrogant reaction from the treaty's midwives I'm sure beggared the belief of today's moderate EU supporters, as much as it did me regardless of which mindset I choose to consider. Then there was the Margot Wallström inspired DDD, where Democracy, Dialogue and Debate were quickly replaced by Deceit, Demagoguery and Disdain. The same vested interests had been consulted on the original document were re-questioned with a view to finding a way round the objections of the electorate with no serious suggestion of actually addressing the objections themselves, meanwhile the provisions of the treaty began to be acted on without any legal basis. A few new faces, usually with existing deep attachment to the EU project to represent 'the people' in a facile attempt to understand the objections of those that disagreed with them. The real people had, by and large to settle for a web discussion forum that the Commission, who ran it, could safely ignore, overrun as it quickly became by the ranting of freaks at both extremes of view on the EU as well an anti-Semitic conspiracy and a number of militant Esperantists who were rightly loathed by both sides of the debate and the extremely tiny centre.

From a UK perspective much of this was pretty small beer though. I suspect the fears for the image of the EU when I supported its aims would simply have been a mirror of the increased distain for the organisation I actually did feel. The pro-EU me would probably still have arrived where we were a week or two ago still supporting the organisation. From the standpoint of the UK only one question really matters that of the referendum, or rather the two questions of the referendum. Should one have been offered in the first place, and should, the commitment having been made, should that it be honoured in light of the changed circumstances? Once again I don't think the pro-EU me of the nineties would have disagreed that strongly with the anti-EU me of this decade.

Let's take the latter question first. The sequence events is completely clear:

• Constitutional Treaty agreed


• Blair says there shall be Parliamentary approval only


• The outcry causes Blair to fear revolts both in Parliament, and at the forthcoming general election, and so agrees to a referendum


• France and the Netherlands reject the treaty, but Blair commits to the referendum in his manifesto to neutralise it as an electoral issue


• Blair is re-elected on this platform


• An attempt is made to resurrect the treaty in, so far as is possible, such away to bring into force the provisions of the original simply through different mechanisms


• Blair decides on criteria of his own choosing that the commitment to the referendum is not binding, and subject to a few negotiating points being agreed to, will not take place

Barroso: Back to Maoist Roots
"I care what you think less than this"

The time for debating the merits or otherwise of referenda vis-à-vis representative democracy, is in answer to the first question posed, but we are past that point and these arguments are utterly irrelevant. The decision to remove approval of the treaty from the scope of normal representative democracy and subject to it to direct approval by the people had already been taken, a mandate had been sought from and given by the people with this decision part of the package. In years gone by I would still have felt that the behaviour of the Prime Minster was utterly unforgivable in this, and moreover the enthusiastic support for the approach from the likes of Barroso would have sickened me to the stomach to see the attitude of the Commission to the will of the people expressed so clearly. I feel less rage now from an anti-EU standpoint, it's up there with the religious orientation of the Pope and defecatory behaviour of bears; actually it's a real godsend. Behind every EUrealist commentary on the matter I can sense a delight at the self-inflicted damage the nation's EU supporters are about to inflict on themselves once again because I feel it so well myself now, and I know I would have felt those cuts myself a decade ago.

But should have Blair have ever given into the demands for a plebiscite in the first case? This is where the pro-EU me would have come into conflict with the mainstream of EU supporting opinion, however I wouldn't have been completely alone.

I do understand some people's issues with referenda in general. It is true that there is a tradition of representative democracy in this country, that sometimes referenda become a popularity poll on the government of the day or a vehicle to express an opinion on something other than that which is on the ballot paper through lack of education. When my instincts were more favourable to the EU I still though wanted a referendum to be held on both the Maastricht treaty, and I know I would have also wanted one to be held over the Constitutional Treaty or whatever successor document emerges over the next few months.

As to the general arguments against referenda in principle, it has been fairly clear that there is a substantial body of opinion in this country strongly at odds with the range of options on the EU offered by parties with a cat in hell's chance of getting seats at Westminster so we are already in a situation where representative democracy is creating tensions and fault lines. If held on schedule the argument about the referendum becoming an opportunity to kick the government would have been null and void, as it would have been sufficiently proximate to a general election that would have acted as a lightning rod for those instincts. As for informing the people, what could have been a better opportunity to debate with the people on the merits, as I then saw them, of the EU.

More than that though I felt that over Maastricht, and would hypothetically felt over the Constitutional Treaty or successor document, that a referendum was one of the few ways to turn round the seemingly unstoppable tide of hostility to the EU project. It would be a risky strategy of course, but there would be such potential to kill at a stroke the feeling that the EU is something 'done to' this country, rather than something we were a willing part of.

I've always wondered about the differences in attitude between the UK and Eire to the EU. Even now I'm not cynical enough to believe that the healthy case flows into the Republic are the sole, or even the major factors in the differences in outlook. There seems little prospect of the Irish turning EUrealist the moment the tide of public cash ebbs the other way according to most poll evidence, and even now I actually don't find the amount of money we pay into Brussels all that big a factor in my hostility today.

I suspect a bigger factor is the instinct of a relatively small country to immerse itself within a larger organisation where it can, and does, punch above its weight on the international stage play a bigger part, especially if this arrangement dilutes the influence of a larger neighbour, with which it has had a fractious relationship.

I think there is another easily overlooked factor though. Due to provisions of the Irish Constitution the consent of the people has been sought at every stage, and the people always had the confidence that it would be. Sure they knocked Nice back, but after some pretty minor revisions that caused nobody any real plan they endorsed the treaty at the second attempt with little difficulty. If anything this probably in the longer term will prove to have strengthened support for the organisation.

An opportunity for the EU's diehard fans

Could it have been the same in the UK? I actually think it could. What would have happened in years past? I genuinely believe that if, going into the Maastricht negotiations, we had known up front there were going to be substantial implications in terms of Sovereignty, but that the benefits were going to be explained, and we would have a chance to have our say, the hostility would never have reached the same heights. When the final deal was presented to the people I think we would have, erm, rejected it. I think though, with a few clarifications and a little broadening and more concrete wording of some of the opt-outs and so forth, just like Eire after Nice, we would have felt a degree of ownership of the project and I think a second vote could well have been a 'Yes'. It would have become 'our' project too, not just one of the political elite. The Constitutional Treaty would in all probability have been a comparatively easy sell tackled in the same way.

Yes there would have been, and now would be political risk over this approach. Regardless of which side of the fence I try to look at it from though it’s a damn site better than the casual acceptance of the fact that our enthusiasm for, and trust in, the EU bumbles along the bottom of EU league tables. This fact doesn't seem to register with some of the more extreme proponents of 'the project', they believe it's an acceptable price for having the type of EU they want and that the situation can last for ever; these people are imbeciles who seem to have learned not a single lesson from history. They prefer to spout forth 'inevitability' rather than make their case and ask for the people to back them; if they are not careful their dream will go the same way of many other 'inevitabilities'.

There is, I am glad to say, some awakening to this fact among some EU supporters. I could be cynical and say they are only prepared to advance the argument now that a referendum looks unlikely, but I won't…their arguments are not that dissimilar to the pro-EU me, so I'd be arguing against myself.

A blog I found via Iain Dale, Norfolk Blogger advances a somewhat similar argument from a LibDem perspective, while on Dan Hannan's blog, Chris Sherwood, a well known EU attack dog, has a similar ethos his comments. I've seen Mr Sherwood comment in many forums and there is an unproven allegation that he authors some of the more intelligent pro-EU comments under a pseudonym on Margot Wallström's blog. He writes well, even if I disagree with him strongly these days, and nobody who reads him thoroughly should doubt the sincerity of his considered enthusiasm for the project. It is encouraging that some people like him do have thoughts on these lines.

My cynicism is not strong enough to see this as the possible emergence a positive line of thought amongst EU advocates as a bad thing. It's not universal, with usual suspects like LibDem MEPs still trying to dictate that the people must continue to be scorned, but it's a hopeful sign nonetheless.

To be honest, now for someone who has come to believe that, for some rather complex reasons that the EU is not good for this country, those with my outlook would be somewhat weakened by such a positive step by EU supporters. For all that though from the standpoint of openness, engagement, and the general health of politics in this country I would welcome the debate, even if there is a chance that I would be on the loosing side. EU supporters should realise that this chance diminishes with every new treaty; every power taken without consultation and every year nobody cares whether or not the people as a whole want this transformation.

The Berlin Wall
A monument to the impermenence of "inevitability"

It really should be they, not I who are demanding a referendum. Let them make their positive case for Europe, let the people choose. Until they do so the so-called supporters of the project will continue to be the greatest asset of the cause against the EU. At the moment too many seem blind to the damage they make to their own cause by their attitude to public opinion. The current situation cannot continue for ever; if they try I suspect the outcome can only be cataclysmic one day, from their perspective. Look to the fall of the Berlin Wall all EU acolytes, and not as some success that you have a very dubious claim to have a part in. I'm not making one of those facile comparisons between the EU and the former communist systems of Eastern Europe, because I don't believe in that crap. Look to it though in 1989, as an example of how a system can seem 'inevitable' one day despite public disapprobation and can be gone the next.

If it happens to the UK's relationship with the EU, don't blame UKIP, the print media, even The Sun 'wot won it'; it will be you 'wot lost it'.

Update 21/6: It appears I misunderstood the meaning of a reference to NorfolkBlogger's position on the EU, which I read elsewhere. Apologies to all.

Be Careful What You Wish For – Part I

ConstitutionalAmending Treaty
Name change, job done?

There's been predictable howl's of outrage in the Conservative blogosphere over Downing Street's announcement that there will indeed be no referendum over any EU treaty changes. There seemed until today to be no hard definition of what diminution of the scope of such changes is required to allow the Government to feel free to abandon their manifesto commitment to such a referendum. Now we know that the handful of 'red lines' that Blair (but possibly not Brown) will insist on, but we know from his Blair's track record on 'red lines' that these commitments are meaningless. We have to assume the simple deletion of the word 'Constitution' will, in the end, suffice for our discredited Prime Minister and that for all the more encouraging sounds from the Brown camp it hardly seems likely that he would want to activly jump back in to the same mire as his predecessor ended up to his neck in.

It wouldn't be very interesting simply to parrot the standard, and in my opinion very convincing arguments of other Eurorealists, so I thought I'd take a slightly different tack. I actually used to be relatively pro-EU, even beyond the immediate aftermath of the Maastricht treaty. It has only been the ensuing years that have changed my view as the Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice of this insidious organisation have bullied and blackmailed as they twist, misuse and over interpret their powers to allow ever more functions to be exercised with ever less competence and common sense. I can still remember my pro-EU instincts but something tells me that, even if I had slept through the last 15 or so years, I would be one of those increasingly common Europhiles who would have the very gravest of misgivings right now, both over the nature of the constitutional arrangements proposed and the way in which the whole process of trying to implement them has been conducted. I thought I'd cast my mind back in time, forget about the intervening years, even as a mind experiment to pretend to have positively federalist instincts, and examine why this is.

There are very many reasons behind the hostility of this 'hypothetical me' to what we may soon be asked to hostility so I'm going to tackle it in two posts. Here I'll look at the Constitution itself and later the discreditable process that continues today to implement its provisions. It is all, I will admit predicated on the assumption, which history tends to show to be a fairly valid one, that the analysis of what the meaning of the changes by Germany's Chancellor of the day tends to be more accurate and honest than that of the serving British Prime Minister. I don't mean to take a cheap shot in saying that; I understand the reasons why British governments feel the need to present things the way they do, even if I do deplore them. In other words I do tend to believe Ms Merkel when in her assertions that it will be the Constitution in all but name, and as such I will frequently refer to 'the Constitution' as shorthand for whatever convoluted mechanisms are employed to enact its original aims.

So firstly, to rehearse some of the objections a proponent the EU may legitimately have to the Constitution itself, or the relabelled version there of. There seem to be facing has a number of elements that I could never accept regardless of the institution, or institutions, to which it applied. These have all been argued aplenty in recent years but the following would have been my Pro-EU self's main objections.

US Constitution - Just 17 amendments in 215 years
How many each year for a EU equivalent?

Process of Amendment: Most constitutions set a very high bar for amendment of their provisions, usually little short of the process by which the original constitution is adopted, if at all. This gives people confidence in the rule book that their legislatures must work within. The proposed EU arrangements allow for the bar to be very substantially lowered, removing the need, for those nations with a requirement or a tradition of allowing their people a say in changes to the structures within which they are government, to consult their citizens.

It's easy to understand why such provisions would be so highly prized in Brussels but they are still profoundly wrong, the equivalent of Westminster's Regulatory Reform Bill, which it is interesting to note that the most Europhile segment of MPs were bitterly opposed to, despite one of its roles being to aid the transposition of EU law in to our statute books without the tedious process of parliamentary scrutiny. It's no good to say that there was already the 'passarelle' provision. That was more limited in scope and equally objectionable.

Permissive Drafting: I think one of the reasons Americans still respect their constitutions, above and beyond its simple and rather inspiring language is the frequent use of phrases akin to 'Congress shall not…' It inspires hope and belief that there are limits to their government's ability to interfere in their everyday lives, no matter what government they may one day elect and what that government may wish to do. It is a contract between the state and its citizens, the terms of which are to this day is frequently enforced by an arbiter which, though perhaps not being fully impartial, is far less politicised than the ECJ; all US administrations know that any attempt to vary the terms of the contract in it's favour are almost certainly doomed to failure.

EU treaties take an opposite approach, in explicitly suggesting lists of areas in which governments, both national and EU may wish to act and providing few if in any no-go areas for interference by the state. Even those that are implicit in the charter of human rights can be overridden 'In the general interests of the union', not just the times of national emergency that most other constitutions accept as a minimum for the suppression of basic rights. If the ethos of the Constitutional Treaty and all previous treaties is maintained in any new arrangements the suggested areas for EU action will clearly carry with them a sense of being 'just for starters'. EU citizens will continue, unlike their American counterparts, to feel no confidence that they are governed ultimately by their own consent.

Vagueness: This is really just a variation on the theme above in many ways. One of the things that actually had me leave the moderately pro-EU camp was the successive interpretations by Commission and ECJ alike to interpret each and every provision in the most self aggrandising way possible. There was a clear need to much more prescriptive instruction to these organisations, but the original Constitutional constitution opened existing loopholes even wider.

As an example, there was nothing too offensive to me, at the time, about the idea of an adjunct 'European Citizenship' as it was presented at the time of Maastricht. This changed as evidence rolled in that both these bodies saw that this should eventually become our primary identity. This was a concept not foreshadowed in the treaty which was mute on the matter and I don't think that our leaders, on this matter at least, deliberately misled us. Any new arrangements should have either provided more specific directions to EU institutions, or in the alternative contained a directive that all provisions should carry an interpretation that is the most limited in terms of transfer of authority to Brussels. If EU bodies feel they need more powers they should always have to ask specifically for them rather than seeking mechanisms by which the scrutiny that provokes can be sidestepped. In many cases it was not the goals sought by the EU that caused offence but the underhand means by which it sought to achieve them. Even as a Europhile I was able to understand that, but it’s a concept that seems incomprehensible to more avid supporters of the project.

Competencies: To be honest I wasn't entirely happy with any of the proposed extensions of EU competencies, be they new areas of EU action entirely, or the migration of existing ones controlled under unanimity to QMV. Even with a generally positive outlook on the EU I felt most were a step too far that even if I felt I could live with, were doomed to cause nothing but discontent with, and disdain for, the EU.

The two headline areas that always crop up are foreign policy, and criminal justice. At a pinch I felt that subject to getting rid of the hopeless Javier Solana, a man who has made the wrong call on nearly every major decision throughout his life, and no change of UN Security Council representation, I could just about live with the former. Criminal Justice was, and is, a big no-no. It's unnecessary, as the disparate legal systems between England and Scotland for centuries of much closer union proves beyond doubt. The reasons quoted for it have also always been thoroughly dishonest. Who is vetoing vital anti-Terrorism measures other than for good reasons perhaps of civil liberties anyway? Too often the veil slipped and it was clear from day one it was more about smoothing the passage of more controversial measures such as a nebulous concept of xenophobia (the EU version, which excludes the US from nations you are not allowed to hate), a peculiar Italian view of counterfeiting (which targets the perhaps unwitting buyer of fake goods rather than the manufacturer) and foolishness like the swastika ban where individual nation states clearly have different issues to confront and different ways of tacking them.

Did anyone even pause to wonder what would happen when a case came before an English jury with, if statistics are to be believed, at least three people hostile to the EU project, and they heard that the law the defendant was being prosecuted under was not desired by Westminster but was an outcome of EU fiat? It's not impermissible to argue a jury nullification line in the English courts as I understand it. It is not usually a good strategy as most people are driven by a respect of the law, but when you force people to live under a system of law they may not accept the moral legitimacy of this would change.

I don't care now if the EU wants to make an arse of itself. I did then. Even NuLab have pushed this too far themselves, and look what happens – you end up with Nick Griffin celebrating his acquittal outside the courtroom. I always felt this would be the fate of most EU inspired prosecutions.

A sight to strike fear into any commissioner

Malapportionment in the Parliament: The Constitution did try to tidy the old formula for the size of each countries delegation, which was largely decided through horse trading, but the overrepresentation of smaller countries is still excessive. Ok, I can understand why Luxembourg deserves one whole MEP to itself which its size does not warrant, maybe two for reasons of practicality, as is the case for US congressional representation, but six?

I don't hear Wyoming demanding the type of overrepresentation that Luxembourg would continue to have in the reformed parliament, with each of their voters carrying the weight of roughly twelve German ones. One man one vote and, with all the great respect I have for Poland, square roots of people have no place in democracy either for all their mathematical uses.

Immunities: The Constitutional Treaty retained and extended the scope of immunity from prosecution for all manner of people working for EU institutions. If there's one thing I thing the EU could learn from Westminster's model of governance is the very limited scope of such immunities as Parliamentary Privilege. Equal treatment is an essential component of any good system of law; the fact that our representatives can and do fall foul of the laws they create and end up in court is, in the longer term a strength and not a weakness of the system.

Language: Let's be honest, and I think nearly all sides of the debate agree, the whole thing is a turgid dog's breakfast of a document. Even the attempts at sounding inspirational, confined mainly to the preamble, sounded hackneyed and unconvincing. This was even before the opening references to 'We the people of Europe…' became ludicrous as the evidence rolled in that this was anything but a project of the people of Europe.

I've actually read the whole damn original Constitutional treaty, and there were many other things I disliked, but on the other hand I could either live with, or in the alternative see not surviving the passage of time as national interests, common sense and practicality all intervened. These other issues, I counted roughly forty of the splodges of pink highlighter pen I used mark them with on my hard copy, would not have stopped me voting for such a Constitution in my Eurofanatic youth. I cannot though, imagine, no matter how I try, how much more pro-EU I would have to be to accept any settlement with the issues above, other than perhaps the last, still standing.

So that's why I don't like what was on the table, and what may be being reheated right now, but since I'm doing thought experiments, in the next instalment I will pretend these objections don't exist and that the whole document was entirely to my liking. Part II will look the folly of anyone who claims to have interests of Europe, or even the EU, at heart in accepting the way things have progressed since the French and Dutch rejections of the original Constitutional Treaty even leaving aside any question of it's democratic legitimacy.

Compare and Contrast

The Lords: The People's House?

There are two principle bodies that are generally acknowledged as having a significant amount of control over the legislation by which we are governed but lack any real democratic legitimacy. One is wholly appointed, rather than elected, the other, for the time being, largely so. I refer, of course, to that venerable constitutional anomaly, the House of Lords, and around two hundred miles away, our lords and masters in the European Commission. I would argue that the Skoda minds of the British Civil Service, especially in cases of secondary legislation can have an unhealthy influence beyond their remit, but for now I will stick to the two more conventional pantomime villains. Both have made the news today, in the case of the former for very sensibly doing nothing, and in the latter for getting slapped down when it tried to do something it shouldn't.

First the good news. As trailed by Ian Dale on Tuesday,
David Maclean's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill seems to have run into the buffers yesterday. It has fallen foul of a twelve day time limit for finding a peer to sponsor it through the Lords, and now seems unlikely, for timetable reasons to make further progress. Confirmation finally came via the BBC, who I suppose can't be blamed for taking so long to report what is, in effect, a story of nothing happening. Tom McNally, leader of the Lib Dem Lords is quoted as saying:

"It seems very likely that this squalid little bill will no longer become law. We are happy that this bill will not become law.

"It speaks volumes that no member of the House of Lords was prepared to support this legislation.

"It could be revived any time during this session but there is simply no parliamentary time.

"The government would have to extend its already extraordinary generosity to this bill to the point where it would become a government bill."

Source: BBC News

Government sources suggest that even they are now sensitive to this fact and, as much as they may still at heart want the bill, have signalled that no such generosity will be forthcoming.

I've got nasty images of some trumped up FOI disclosure hitting the headlines to apply CPR to this one, but, for now, I'll settle for keeping the hundred plus MPs who were prepared to vote in favour of this bill, bringing the institution they represent into disrepute, on my watch list. It's rare any Parliamentary chamber can claim to have entirely clean hands over the fate of a piece of legislation, but to a Lord and Lady the upper chamber can on this occasion. For all their anachronistic nature, they've once again put the people first. I'm going to put this one on the back burner now, but the campaign banner stays for now. After all, the EU Constitution has been stabbed with more steely knives than this bill as we know the beast is far from killed.

Which neatly takes over the water to Brussels and, erm, more good news, but only because the European Court of Justice has stepped in to stop the European Commission making 24 carat gold plated prats of themselves. The European Commission were very upset that under British Health and Safety law:

...every employer must ensure, "so far as is reasonably practicable", the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

Source: EU Observer

This was obviously an anathema to a body for whom reason and practicality are unwelcome, alien concepts like referenda and democracy, so naturally they hauled the British Government in front of the ECJ.

The ECJ, probably being intelligent enough to realise how ridiculous this would, once again, make the EU look, threw out the case, regardless of how much they may sympathised with the desire for more opportunities for nit picking micromanagement, thereby saving the Commission from heaping more contempt upon themselves.

The commission apparently:

...saw the British phrase as "opening doors for employers to escape their responsibilities" if they could prove that extra safety measures would have been disproportionate in terms of costs, time or trouble when balanced against relevant risk.

Source: EU Observer

You could almost cry. There must be somewhere, buried in a dark recess of the Berlaymont, someone in the Commission with enough residual brain function to understand the connection between statements like this and the prevalence of what they like to write off as 'Euromyths' (Usually proposals that were so stupid, that though considered, couldn't quite garner enough support to try and push through the legislation, so where quietly shelved for another day).

The Berlaymont: Heart of the Beast

The Commission, as well as much of the rest of the European infrastructure, seems to feel that they operate under a different system of reality from the rest of us mere mortals. As with so many slightly reasonable sounding statements from the Commission, all you have to do is consider the underlying logic to realise what kind of cloud cuckoo land these people live in.

To rephrase, without changing the meaning of the Commission statement above, what it is saying is that there is "no safety measure which can be considered disproportionate in terms of time, cost or trouble, if there is any risk whatsoever". It says exactly the same thing, but doesn't sound so reasonable anymore does it? But that's exactly how the Commission appear to see things.

It doesn't even begin to sound reasonable. Every day, for example we weigh up risk versus time and trouble every time we cross a road; when we opt for many kinds of investment we weigh risks against the financial rewards. To expect companies not to do some of the same calculations is preposterous. To do so is to ask them either to reduce risk to zero, which is not remotely possible, or in the alternative to spend an infinite amount of time, trouble or money to mitigate the ever diminishing but never disappearing risk. The weak position of the Commission is that they accept some risk is "unforeseeable". This does not help at all; not all potential risk that it is unreasonable to guard against is unforeseeable, it is just infinitely improbable.

This latest battle in the Commission's endless war on common sense is far from over, as they are going back to discuss the matter with the "social partners". Even the "social partner-in-chief" in the UK, the TUC, don't seem to want to associate themselves with this nonsense, and according to EU Observer, "British trade unions have poured scorn on the EU executive's general approach".

REACH: More Moronism

Another example of this lack of rational thought came back to haunt the land of common sense a few days ago, with the coming into force of the REACH chemicals directorate. Many will remember the Communications VP, Margot Wallström's blog contribution a few months ago, praising the then proposed directive, where she proudly announced:

"What does it change? REACH will reverse the burden of proof. Instead of the public authorities trying to prove that a chemical is dangerous, the producer will have to prove that it is not dangerous or that we can manage the risks"

Margot Wallström, EU Vice President
Source: Margot's Blog

Ok, not all negatives are impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but this one effectively is. There is simply no way to 'prove that it is not dangerous', absence of evidence of danger is not evidence of absence, no matter how many tests fail to show such danger. What was the issue anyway? There was a day when the companies producing did behave recklessly but that was yesterday. The risks of litigation under existing law, along with the potential damage to the companies' image is more than enough to ensure a responsible attitude to safety. When exactly was the last case of the reckless use of a chemical known to be harmful anyway, that directives like REACH would have prevented? My guess that you'd be looking back to the Seventies, which I suppose is pretty much where the EU is still rooted.

I guess that the truth behind REACH lies in the combination of a lack of centralised, well paid job opportunities for the scions of the European elite to mismanage the process, the EU's aversion to efficient operational systems that demonstrate the failures of the ones it sponsors, and its unbreakable, but very damaging addiction to the precautionary principle.

The interesting consequence is for those, and I suspect there are many, who are members of both general environmental organisations like Greenpeace, who support REACH, and any of one of the varied hues of animal rights bodies, who are presumably against the increase in animal testing REACH will inevitably entail. It's really no longer intellectually consistent to be a member of both, but judging by the general coherence of the arguments by both types of body I suspect I won't hear too many membership cards being torn up. At heart, it's bashing business that's the real goal of these refugees many from the discredited hard left.