Small victories

I would just like to congratulate Wiel Maessen. Its amazing what one man, bags of effort, energy, imagination and a funny houseboat can do.

Owners of small pubs in the Netherlands have welcomed the lifting of a smoking ban imposed on the hospitality industry in 2008. The partial scrapping of the measure was announced on Tuesday.
The incoming rightwing government is responding to persistent complaints from one-man businesses who argued that the smoking ban was meant to guarantee staff a smoke-free working environment. Since they had no employees, their small pubs didn't need the smoking ban, the owners claimed.
The ban will remain in force, however, for pubs, restaurants and the like which are run with personnel.
Secretary Wiel Maessen of the 1250 small pubs' umbrella group KHO said "I lit an extra cigarette when I heard the news." He added that despite his satisfaction on behalf of his members, the fight would not be over until the ban was lifted for the entire sector.

God speed to you Sir.

HT EurAlmanac

Good for Everyone: Good for Nothing

So says the Co-op in its sloganising. But not apparently if you are a two year old in Norwich wrapped up against the weather.

A Norwich two-year-old was asked to take down the hood of his anorak when entering a city convenience store - for security reasons.

The retailers of Norwich are a fearful lot it seems,

“We were just near the door when the manager said ‘Do you mind pulling his hood down? It’s just that eight-year-olds will moan that he’s allowed his hood up but they are not.’

Hold on a moment. The manager of this Norwich Co-op demands a two year take down their hood, because he is frightened of the reactions of eight year olds... Dear God. This is the same Co-op that tells us it is,

inspiring young people to change their world

They really care about young people,

Shackled with the legacy of national debt, an increasingly rickety property ladder and an uncertain future shaped by climate change, it’s a challenging time to be a young person in Britain. 95% of the members who took part in a survey to help shape The Co-operative’s Community Plan agreed that young people deserve our support.

Bloody challenging young people if you ask me. That toddle has a pretty dubious look about him don't you think - signed up to Al Quaeda has he? Well you can never be too careful.
Later the grandfather phoned the shop,

We have 90-year-olds who come in and we have to tell them the same thing. This is a bad area and we have a lot of stealing.’ Corey is quite a skinny little chap and feels the cold. He’s two years old, and he’s hardly going to rob the store. We go in all the local shops and that’s the first time this has ever happened. The manager should have used some common sense.

Cripes. Norwich or the Bronx?

HT @EveningNews

Turkey gets it, so why doesn't the Tory Party?

Vienna's Die Presse has an article about Turkey's attitude to the EU that should be compulsory reading at the FO. Translated by those helpful folk over at Presseurop.eu it starts pretty baldly,

One day Turkey will run the EU

OK, got your attention?

"When Turkey becomes a member of the EU, it is not going to be in a secondary position, that's one of the reasons why countries like Germany and France are quite nervous about our membership," Turkish vice-premier Ali Babacan declared at a World Leadership Forum in New York during the recent UN plenary session.

The thing is you see he is right. And the article goes on to explain why. Demographically, economically, geographically and so on.

At present, Turkey is the 17th biggest economy in the world. Experts predict that in 20 years it will make the top ten, outstripping countries like Spain and Italy. According to forecasts by the IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) and the Vienna Institute of Demography, the Turkish population will be around 85.5 million by then – surpassing Germany, now the most populous nation in the EU.

If Turkey were to be admitted into the EU despite resistance from countries like Austria, Germany and France, it would dominate policy in the EU institutions. Even as things are today, Turkey would be the second biggest political force in the European Parliament and on an equal footing with the heavyweights on the EU Council.

Although the EU power structure will have to be gradually adjusted under the rules of the Lisbon Treaty, not much would change for Turkey. By dint of its rapid demographic growth, Ankara’s influence would actually increase, since the number of seats in Parliament and the new representation ratios in the Council will essentially be based on population size

So just get this straight, the Government tells us that it is uncomfortable with greater and greater EU power. It says that it wants to protect and even increase UK power in the EU. But it fully supports Turkey's accession to the EU, which would be dint of the basic rules governing the club reduce our power at the table.

Go figure.

Now they might say that Turkey is likely to be more pro US, more pro free trade than many of the countries of old Europe. But can they really be so confident? The growth of political Islam in that country and recent noises by the Erdogan government (the constitutonal referendum for one) suggests to me that the current position that Turkey holds on these matters are friable.

The article also points to Gerhard Schroeder in die Welt,

“Without Turkey the EU will sink into mediocrity,” writes the Social Democrat ex-chancellor, pointing to the rapid pace of growth there: this year alone the Turkish economy will grow four times as much as the French and twice as much as the German economy. Schröder expects Turkey to be the fourth or fifth biggest European economy in 20 years. Then there will be no ignoring it.

It will if our Government have anything to say the Turkey, not the Elephant in the room.

Stuff you pay for

The Parliament is currently passing the Budget of the European Union and one budget line in the Parliament section caught my eye, (page 22, of this document line 1632)

Social contacts between members of staff and other social measures

And what is this budget line for? A budget line which amounts to 310,000 Euros? It is an

"appropriation 'to encourage and provide financial backing for schemes to promote social contact between staff of different nationalities, ... subsidies to staff clubs, sports associations, cultural societies ...'"

Fortunately somebody on the Budget Committee spotted it and put in an amendment to cancel it saying,

Is Parliament a playground or a place of work?

Of course given that that somebody was a chap called Lucas Hartong and he is a Dutch MEP from Gert Wilders' PVV his amendment was rejected. The net result is that you are paying 310,000 Euros for EP staff members to indeed have a rather wonderful, multi-linguistic and social time of it.

Money well spent you must agree.

Update,
Just had an email from Mr Hartong,

Every day that I am voting I think: I´m in the twilight zone..... Only supported by 2 or 3 colleagues who haven´t given up the fight either.

"The Reverse Majority Rule": The end of QMV?

Bimbling, as I do through the undergrowth of EU stuff, I came across a phrase that I hadn't seen before. It stuck out like a truffle on a Commissioner's salad.

The Reverse Majority Rule

Eh? Wassat?

A little more research shows it cropping up in a Rueters report from 5pm on Monday, which carried the text of Herman Van Rompuy's speech on the Task force on Economic Governance.

Whenever possible, decision-making rules on sanctions should be more automatic and based on a reverse majority rule. (my italics)

OK, so it is quite important as major economic decisions, economic sanctions against nation states, are to be made by this rule. But at this point we have no idea what this mysterious new rule is.

The next day the formal text of Mr van Rompuys's statement is released and can be found here, we get some clarification.

Whenever possible, decision-making rules on sanctions should be more automatic and based on a reverse majority rule, implying a Commission proposal is adopted unless rejected by the Council.

The BBC picked it up yesterday, and flesh the idea out a little,

They would be based on a "reverse majority rule, implying a Commission proposal is adopted unless rejected by the Council".

Under the current rules, sanctions can only be imposed if a qualified majority of member states agree to do so. The change would mean sanctions could only be blocked if a majority voted to block them.

So I had a look at the TEU (Lisbon Treaty) and could I find this innovation hidden there in the thickets of articles and so on?

Well, there are no references to "reverse majority". OK how about "Simple majority". A couple of references in Article 48 about the revision procedure on amending the Treaties, and to do so is quite a big deal as you can see, involving conventions and conferences and all that carry on,

3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the
proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a
Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads
of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of
institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a
conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

Another simple majority in the Council is proposed in Article 150, but again irrelevant here,

The Council, acting by a simple majority after consulting the European Parliament, shall establish an Employment Committee with advisory status to promote coordination between Member States on employment and labour market policies.

Similarly we have Article 160

The Council, acting by a simple majority after consulting the European Parliament, shall establish a Social Protection Committee with advisory status to promote cooperation on social protection policies between Member States and with the Commission.

Another Simple majority comes up in article 235, this also occurs at 31, 5,

3. The European Council shall act by a simple majority for procedural questions
and for the adoption of its Rules of Procedure.

That cannot be it. This is hardly a question of procedure now is it?

In article 240 we have another Council simple Majority, but I would contend not helpful here,

The Council shall decide on the organisation of the General Secretariat by a simple majority.

The same article repeats the procedural point. 241 talks about a simple majority needed to ask the Parliament to set up a study and 242 about the same when it comes to creating Committees. 245 states that a simple majority ofthe Council is required to sack an errant Commissioner as does 247. 337 allows the Council to grant permission to the Commission to Commission studies in the furtherance of its work.

There are of course dozens of references to "Qualified Majority", after all half the institutional battles of the past 40 years have been about a shift from unanimity to qualified majority, the slow removal of the veto and national soveriegnty. But still nothing that could qualify as a precursor to this innovation.

The workings of this intractable and arcane system can be found, for those who wish to read them at Protocol 36, Title III, Article 3 on Transitional provisions.

But the Treaty is pretty clear about the meaning of the QMV system,

Acts shall be adopted if there are at least 255 votes in favour representing a majority of the members where, under the Treaties, they must be adopted on a proposal from the Commission. In other cases decisions shall be adopted if there are at least 255 votes in favour representing at least two thirds of the members.
A member of the European Council or the Council may request that, where an act is adopted by the European Council or the Council by a qualified majority, a check is made to ensure that the Member States comprising the qualified majority represent at least 62 % of the total population of the Union. If that proves not to be the case, the act shall not be adopted. (my italics)

You get the point. Nowhere but nowhere in the Lisbon Treaty is there anything even approximating the 'Reverse Majority rule". It is a consitutional neologism. From what I can work out from the explanations given it means that the nation states need to get 51% of the votes to block a proposal from the Commission rather than the Commission requiring a majority of 62% to get something passed. If so this is of enormous importance to the balance of power in the European Union and indeed would, under Mr Cameron's Referendum lock precipitate a referendum, as it is a clear transfer of powers to the EU away from the nation states. It looks like Mr van Rompuy is in "Quiet assasin" mode this week.

Now I am no constitutional lawyer, but there are a couple who deign to read this blog who are. Can you help?

Is there a legal base for this new rule? Where the devil does it come from, is it not errr... illegal under the Treaties?

EP Greenwash

Oh the sound of self congratulation.

European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek and Secretary General Klaus Welle today renewed the institution's commitments to reduce its carbon dioxide
emissions and make better use of energy, water and paper.

Those commitments are pretty impressive. Look what they have achieved already

Parliament's key achievements
100% of Parliament's electricity already comes from renewable sources
A 17.4% reduction in carbon emissions per person was achieved between 2006 and 2009. The overall goal is to reduce these emissions by 30% by 2020 (compared to 2006)
More than 55% of waste is recycled or reused
A 17% reduction in paper consumption per person was achieved between 2006 and 2008
Bikes are available to staff in all three places of work
Hybrid and electric vehicles now included in the fleet

1 - How can they tell? The Parliament has three bases in three countries. Its power arrives down a cable from the local energy supplier. In France and Belgium it is true that much comes from Nuclear power. But there is no way that they can tell. Watts don't wander along cables with little flags waving saying 'I come from a wind farm'.
2 - This shouldn't be hard, given that there are bno new building projects going on at present. Buolding being one of the greatest producers of carbon emissions.
3 - Waste is a remarkably nebulous concept. Waste what?
4 - Yes, it is called the internet.
5 - Bikes, oh don't get me started. Up until then people who wanted to ride bikes bought their own. It was a normal thing to do, what with the high wages and all. Now we get subsidised (read taxpayer bought) bicycles. No news about how many have been nicked.
6 - Cars. Oh yes the fleet of cars. For the use of all MEPs. Plus the chauffeur driven cars designated for the heads of groups. Some are hybrids now are they? Oh the moral high ground.

Look, if you ever want to be taken seriously turn off the glaring lights when you are not using them. The place looks light Blackpool pleasure beach on a late summer Friday night.

Oh, and the biggest saving at all. Stop going to Strasbourg.

Euro delusion

Dow Jones has quite a headline up,

Euro Area Has Entered Self Sustaining Recovery

Welll that is according to Yves Mersch, who represents Luxembourg on the ECB.

"I am confident that the positive underlying momentum is increasingly broader based and signals a self-sustaining recovery in the Euro area," Mersch said in a speech in China, according to prepared notes.

Against this backdrop, the "gradual pace of adjustment of the monetary policy stance, of the overall provision of liquidity and of its allotment modes can continue,"

I love that reference to 'according to prepared notes'. I guess his media handlers didn't trust him not to speak honestly.

Euro coppers busted

The European Voice is reporting that the European Police College based in Bramshill Hampshire is getting busted for misuse of funds, or at the very least having its accounts in disorder.

This is not the first time it has been in similar trouble, a year or so ago the Telegraph reported that it had failed its accounts.

How can it be that the Institution charged with training the new European Police elite is constitutionally unable to provide a decent set of accounts?

The slow growth of EU military capacity

Reported on Agence Europe (stuck behind a firewall) is the following interview with General Håkan Syrén. Published in the review Europe Diplomacy & Defense Syrén is a former Chief of the Swedish armed forces and is now the Chairman of the European Union Military Committee, no small fry he. In the interview, he states that he

"will give priority to permanent structured cooperation. It is not a science. This can be very pragmatic. We cannot continue to do business the way we have done so far with the new economies in Europe". Nonetheless, he acknowledges that, as far as PSC is concerned, seeking to include all member states at all cost and "find a common denominator that all the 27 can agree on. I mean that's almost theory. So we must find, I would say, clusters, groups of countries, stimulate them to work together and that is a good start. We must be very pragmatic and take examples in the battlegroup concept", he adds.
General Syrén also underlines that the crisis makes restructuring and consolidation of the defence industry necessary in Europe. "While the armed forces are shrinking, I think, concerning armaments, that there will be a necessity for fusion. There is no room for all the facilitators of personnel vehicles or the naval shipyards. The armed forces are so small now in Europe that it will be difficult to maintain all these structures", Syrén said, going on to assert by way of conclusion: "So, concerning armaments, I foresee a need for rationality and a lot of pain".

Now, I may be wrong here, but doesn't this sound all rather in line with what the government have been floating about sharing Aircraft Carriers with the French, or cutting the TA by a third? He is thinking of all the armed forces of the EU member states as a single entity, and thus sees for example no need for independent construction capacity. Ships can be made cheaper in Poland, who needs dockyards in Britain for example?

Just asking

Don't eat too much and be nice to strangers

I am a great believer in teh Foriegn Office, I bemoan the fact that we are to flog off consultaes to make short term savings, and that we are considering closing down the World Service (The only decent bit ofthe BC) and handing over our diplomatic presence in much of the world to the EU's new diplomatic corps the EEAS.

But then I read things like this and I begin to wonder. From our Ambassador in Guatamala,

Be vigilant and stay safe

Yes, that is the condensed wisdom of our finest brains.

We encourage everyone to take precautions no matter where they may be but especially if travelling alone, on foot, or after dark (ideally, try to avoid doing any of these things!)

Look, if you are going to go to Guatamala city you might just have to take care. Therer again I would say the same to a foriegner who rocked up in Kennington. But really is that what they are for these Rolls Royce brains. Handing out frankly superfluous travel advice.

Don't forget to pack a hankie, and ensure you are wrapped up well, it can get surprisingly chilly at this time of year.

EUTUC: Yes to imminent disastor

John Monks, the Head of the European Trade Union Congress (see, its not just politicians who reinvent themselves in that graveyard of careers Brussels) is hoping to lead 100,000 unionists in a march in Brussels tomorrow headlined, "Fight Austerity".

He tells us,

"We're a rich part of the world,"

Which of course we won't be for very much longer if economic illiterates like him have anything to do with it. He and his cohorts are still wedded to the idea that the public sector is the only proper driver of the economy, and the private sector is there only to provide the millions of public sector workers with a living. He claims he wants jobs and growth. And where the hell does he think that these jobs are going to come from?

What he doesn't seem to get, is that if we do not make the cuts, then there will be no economy to support any public sector, thus no jobs, no growth and so on.

Idiot.

Myopia and the Final Frontier

Britain's activity in space is hamstrung by a purely ESA/European focus is the conclusion of an important new study produced by the Economic Policy Centre. And it doesn't have to be this way.

Jim Bennett, who has previously popularised the concept of the Anglosphere is a long time expert on Space policy and private sector involvement in the same.

His paper essentially bemoans the way in which Britain's acknowledged expertiese in space technology underperforms by its almost complete depedence on the Euroepan Space Agency, and how with greater imagination our space industries would do so much better if we bothered to look to the US and more specifically the emerging space competitors of India, Australia nad the Commonwealth.

As he points out in his hiostorical overview Briatin left the Space race, hurt in the late 60s early 70s when Space was dominated by governmental projects, but has since developed a commercial space industry,

By cleverly exploiting its substantial resources in scientific research, finance, and technology, and by taking advantage of bilateral and multilateral cooperation, Britain has managed to create a substantial space sector without a large, highly visible space agency or a marquee space project.
Today, according to the latest figures from Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the UK space industry has an annual turnover of nearly £6 billion, employs 20,000 and is growing at around 9% per year. Much of this, some £5 billion is in the downstream sector which includes the operation of satellites and providers of space-enabled products and services which might for example involve the provision of emergency, defence or scientific information.

All this is good news, but could be much better if we in the UK took the initaitive and looked beyond the comfortable straightjacket of the ESA.

ESA is still the principal vector of cooperation for Britain, absorbing a little over 75% of Britain’s state space expenditures. Although it is reasonable to expect substantial UK participation in ESA in the future, the nature of New Space activity suggests that Britain should broaden its cooperative perspective.

It is transparent that Britain is involved with the ESA, and will continue to be so, but Bennett is clear that big national projects are not the way forward, which in these times of shrinking budgets is a good thing, but more in fields where we are already strong. His recomendations make a great deal of sense.

1. The UK should broaden its cooperative perspective beyond Europe - 75% of funds are currently allocated to the European Space Agency.
2. The new UKSA must seek to take advantage of NASA’s international cooperative programmes which the UK has failed to do in the past
3. The Commonwealth States – Australia, Canada and India – all have areas of space expertise which the UK could successfully cooperate on,
4. Therefore the UK should aim to cooperate with Canada which has expertise in
radar imaging satellites
5. And with Australia which has extensive launch ranges
6. As well as with India which has across the board capabilities including launch
vehicles, satellites and now interplanetary probes
7. The UKSA should send key personnel to Ottawa for an extended stay at the
Canadian Space Agency to study what a small-to-medium scale agency can
accomplish
8. The UK should explore collaboration with Canada and Australia on dual-use (civil and military) space technologies and systems like communications and earth observations satellites to leverage UK defence investments in space and the high level of trust of the USA on technology-export issues
9. The UK should seek to learn and copy from the Isle of Man’s favourable
operating environment for space commerce
10. The UK should seek to develop a civil regulatory framework for spaceflight and
space activity that attracts capital from all round the world
11. The UK should seek to actively earn from the USA’s deep experience of licensing launch sites and spaceports with a view to the future licensing of sites like Lossiemouth in Scotland

What the Commissioner did in his holidays

Kosmopolit shows us a couple of things in his latest post. Firstly that he is an uber EU geek (who would be wandering round Commisioner's websites for last month?) and secondly he has an eye for a splendid absurdity.
His post,

“You should not slap your neighbours without asking their permission first”

highlights a rather fine piece of whimsy on Ollie Rehn's website, all about his abiding love for saunas. Oddly Mr Rehn makes a great play about the segregated nature of the traditional Finnish sauna, a segregation that despite rules changes back home he maintains whilst whisking himself and ameanable neigbours in the Berlyamont's de luxe sauna operation.

The manifesto of the centre liberal party in 1989 demanded that chauvinistic structures like the Finnish tradition of negotiating in a sauna be torn down. I'm all for equality of the sexes but this was just pushing it too far. Preparing the manifesto was my responsibility, but when I lost the sauna debate I left the meeting, slamming the door behind me. This way I also had time to watch the opening match of the Finnish football season. A few of the ladies who opposed me at the time are ministers today, and I promise not to invite them to the Commission sauna.

Of course this isn't the only form of segregation in the Commission saunas. far from it. Not only does the Finnish Commissioner baulk at the idea of women in his sauna, he doesn't have to deal with underlings there.

In Finland the tradition of the sauna is one of that countries great egalitarian tradition. Just as we are all equal in a pub, and just as the village cricket is said to have played its part in stopping a revolution in late 18th century England as all classes mixed at the game, so the sauna has no class division.

But not in the EU institutions.

Officials of the commissioner, heads of cabinet and directors-general will have access to Sauna No 1, others can only rest on the benches of Sauna No 2. Commission officials who do not work in the Berlaymont will have to ask for permission first.

So if women don't use it, and only high grade officials can use it, how many people actually use the Commission's gilded Sauna No.1?

(The picture is a mock up of serious negotiations regarding the Baltic Sea Strategy)

Landscapes of despair: Salvator Rosa

Had the good fortune to go to the Dulwich Picture Gallery and the latest exhibition there, Bandits, Wilderness and Magic.

It is a major exhibition of the work of Salvatore Rosa (1615 -1673), the Neopolitan master. There are some witches and a lot of wilderness, but not many bandits. Indeed far far more philosphers, rooms of them.

But is not for his semi portrature that he was best known. Much more what we see are what Horace Walpole described as

"Precipices, mountains, torrents, wolves, rumblings -- Salvator Rosa."

And they are all here, mountains and dark places, the opening of the romantic mind a hundred years before the same mind reached the literary world.

It in these generally smaller pieces (though not only the smaller pieces that he is at his best, cramped and full of dark meanings,figures crawl out of the dark often in tortured poses or in fearful moments.

It is not a big exhibition, but to my mind it could do without at least a room of large, confusingly constructed allegories. Confusing not because of my ignorance of the symbolism, but just the way in which each symbol seems plonked rather than part of a greater whole.

None the less an exhibition well overdue and a reintroduction to an artist of immense power.

Kenya's Farmers reject EU deal

The Nairobi Standard is reporting that demos are taking place against the imposition of the EU's regional partnership deal as they fear it will drive them out of business.

Hellen Yego, who was among the protesting farmers, said if the agreement is signed, European States would have undue advantages over local farmers.

She said the pact would attract more imports than exports since farmers in EU have better incentives and their products would be cheaper than those from the Eastern African States.

We will be disadvantaged

"Farmers in European countries are offered subsidies by their governments. It is not the same for us. We will be disadvantaged," she said, adding the move would kill small-scale industries and loss of jobs.

The farmers are being back by the Kenya National Human Rights Commission who claim that,

the Government should not bow into signing the agreement as an inducement to gain more funding from the EU

And the old saw about money from the poor in rich counries going to the rich in poor countries seems to continue to be true.

EU to punish succesful economies

Now I know that Timmy has a view that imports are the basis of economic success while exports bleed tyou dry - or something like that - but still I find the idea that a country that exports too much is set to be penalised by the EU under new rules rather weird, reported in the Speigel that seems to be the case.

According to draft regulations drawn up by Rehn's agency, countries with chronic current account surpluses or deficits (in other words, countries that export far more than they import, or vice versa) are to pay an annual fine amounting to 0.1 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP), because they threaten the stability of the euro zone.

Eh? Run that past me again.

Better still is that these rules apply of course to all the EU, not just those in the Euro zone. And yes, I know that it is unlikely that the UK would get into the situation that it would have a 'Chronic current account surplus' but you never know.

According to Rehn's plans, all EU countries will have to introduce binding medium-term financial planning along with financial policy rules that are modeled after Germany's so-called debt brake (an amendment to Germany's constitution that requires the government to virtually eliminate the structural deficit by 2016). Rehn says that the objectives of the Stability and Growth Pact now have to be "adopted as national legislation."

What's that? The British Government is going to veto these plans. Really, show me how.

Runners and Riders in the UKIP leadership campaign announced.

The Candidates (Alphabetical)

David Campbell Bannerman MEP
Former Chairman and Deputy Leader of the Party, David Campbell Bannerman is an MEP for the Eastern Counties of England and was the lead author of the UKIP Election Manifesto.
David's Campaign Website can be found here

Prof. Tim Congdon CBE.
Tim Congdon is an internationally respected economist and businessman and former Member of the Bank of England's advisory committee. He stood in the Forest of Dean at the last General Election for UKIP.
Tim's Campaign Website can be found here

Nigel Farage MEP
Former leader of UKIP, and currently leader of the UKIP delegation of MEPs
Nigel's Campaign Website can be found here

Winston McKenzie
Former boxer and entrepreneur he stood for UKIP in the 2009 election in Tottenham.
Winston's website can be found here

The Hustings

South West region: Best Western Tiverton Hotel, Tiverton, EX16 4DB.
Tuesday 28th September, 7pm for 7.30pm start.

London region: Holiday Inn, Coram Street, Bloomsbury, London WC1N 1HT.
Saturday 2th October, 12.30pm for 1pm start.

South East region: Shoreham Centre, Pond Road, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5WU.

Sunday 3rd October, 12.30pm for 1pm start. Car park opposite the venue. Contact number 01273 454 686.

Eastern Region: Best Western Hotel, Orton Hall Hotel, The Village, Orton Longueville, Peterborough, PE2 7AM.

Sunday 10th October, 12.30pm for 1pm start.

Yorkshire region: Carlton Park Hotel, Rotherham, S60 2BG.
Tuesday 12th October, 7pm for 7.30pm start.

West Midlands region: Great Barr Hotel, Birmingham.
Wednesday 13th October, 7pm for 7.30pm start.

North West region: Tower College, Rainhill, Merseyside.
Friday 15th October, 7pm for 7.30pm start.

Result

The result will be announced on the 5th of November in London

Pray to God that this is just a spoof

Because if it isn't then I pity the Middle East more now than I did before, if that were possible.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Monday for the European Union to have a greater role in faltering Israel-Palestinian peace talks...
"We (the EU) don't want to be simply spectators who watch time pass," he said, adding that "we have decided to take initiatives and we are playing this role."

What are they trying to suggest?

The Coventry Telegraph has a short NIB on last week's vote in the European Parliament that drew back from the brink of madness on rat poisons. However the inevitable conclusion dto be drawn from their html tagging system must make unconmfortable reading for the local Lib Dem MEP, Liz Lynne.

Lobbyist/Think tanker? EU stooge?

An interesting contretemps is developing in Brussels. The Commission is creating a register of lobbyists and under the leadership of Siim Kallas it has called for Think Tanks to register as well.
The registration would mean that the think tanks scources of funding would become transparent.

However Giles Merrit, chief panjandrum of the "Friends of Europe" is incandescent,

“None of the leading think-tanks has a problem with making public the details of their financial resources, as they in any case supply them to the Commission every year; ours will also shortly be available on our website. But they have major reservations about volunteering to classify themselves as lobbyists when they so clearly are not. Why will the Commission not consider creating a separate list for us?”.

Well, are they lobbyists?
According to Public Affairs News,

The number of think-tanks in Brussels has mushroomed over the past decade, with one study estimating the number at 1,200. Many have faced criticism from NGOs and transparency campaigners for being ‘corporate front groups’.

What is more already in the registration process there is differentiation between strict lobbyists and think tanks. One classic case in point was 'The Centre' run by Brussels old hand Paul Adamson, it rather laughing described it self as a 'Think do Tank'. And Kallas has writen to Merrit to say,

“It would surprise me somewhat if you would equally object to the qualification of Friends of Europe as an ‘interest representative’, considering the claim on your own website that paid membership of ‘Friends of Europe’ offers ‘maximum visibility’ and ‘a genuine opportunity to have a stake in the EU’s future direction’. Such indirect representation must be captured for the register to be taken seriously.”

The thing is that many think tanks are front groups all right. Mostly front Groups for the EU institutions and receive funding from the EU.


So for example we can see that Bruegel which calls itself

a European think tank working in the field of international economics

And is funded in the main by Governments but also lists (page 23)

European Investment Bank
EBRD
European Parliament’s Economic and Scientific Policy Department
European Commission - DGs ECFIN and RELEX

There again we could look at the Centre for European Policy Studies which admits to reciving over 2 million Euro from the institutions.

Then try the European Institute of Public Administration, which describes itself as,

Europe's leading centre of excellence on European integration and the new
challenges for public management

is entirely funded by the EU. Indeed we could look at old Mr Ferritts own Friends of Europe.

The European Commission contributed the largest sum of money through a mixture
of structural support and project support

There are dozens more. So whilst I agree with The Corporate Observatory in its campaign, one thing positicve that will also come out ofit is to discover quite how the majority of Brussels so called independent think tanks are essentially propaganda mouth pieces for the EU institutions.

This is all relevant because next week they will all be sitting round a table discussing the issue.
Thank you Mr Kallas.

UpRise Festival: The big society - and its destroyers

The Rise antio racism festival is coming back. Despite having its funduing cut it is launching again, this time as UpRise.

All well and good, and congratulations to Mike Barnard and Freya van Lessen who have campaigned long and hard to make it happen. They set up a local initiative and raised money to make it happen.

Good for them and good luck to the event on the 3rd October in Finsbury Park. It is a free festival and is supported by a range of organisations, largely the Trade Unions. That is their right and choice.
So, given that it is happening and promises to be a success is Ken Livingston promising to throw taxpayers money at it?

The reason that the Rise festival collapsed last year is that Boris changed it from specifically 'Anti-Racism' to 'Celebrating Diveristy' and some of the supporters pulled out. faced with a half miilion bill the Mayor then declined to pay. An event that had intially been self sustaining had got fat on subsidy, and inevitably when the subsidy was withdrawn it fell apart.

Now it is back, without subsidy. One would have thought that it, and the blithering wastrel Livingston would leave well alone and let it get on without taxpayers money?

Because as sure as eggs is egss if that happens and they get subsidy, next time the subsidy is cut they will fall apart again.

Very sad

But wrongly amusing. The thing is we need more people like him, not fewer.

Something Fishy about the Mackerel war

The Scottish media are getting into quite a tizzy about the looming Mackerel War with Iceland and the Faroes. Talking about bans and squabbling about quotas and representation. Here in the UK we are only hearing, well it isn't really surprising, but only hearing the Scottish angle which is that the Icelandics and the Faroes decision to increase their mackerel quotas unilaterally.

How independent nations could do such a thing is extraordinary when you think of it. After all doing what is right by your own population is what governments are elcted to do.

So to deflect the EU standard-issue outrage about the perfidious vikings, I hand over to one of those Vikings to givce a different completion to the story.

Heeeeere's Hjörtur

This year mackerel has been in the Icelandic EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) in such numbers that it has been hard for fishermen to fish other species without getting mackerel in their nets as well. Many Icelandic harbours were also filled with mackerel this summer and it could easily be caught by fishing poles from the docks. The overwhelming numbers of mackerel in Icelandic waters have had drastic negative effects on the marine biological system resulting e.g. in serious lack of food for other species vital for Iceland’s economy as well as for various sea birds such as puffins.
Most of the bioligical effects of the mackerel have yet to surface and will do so in the coming months and years. As a consequence of all this the Icelandic government had no choice but to issue significantly increased quotas for mackerel to Icelandic fishermen earlier this year in harmony with scientific data and sustainability. The EU has protested this as well as some Scottish politicians claiming that the mackerel belongs to Scotland and the EU despite the fact that it is in the Icelandic EEZ and Iceland is not bound by any agreements on the issue.

So why are the Scottish government and others in the Eu geting so excited, well it appears that they way, and form of the negotiations may have something to do abvout it,

However, perhaps the most interesting part of this whole mackerel dispute is how it is conducted. If Iceland was a member of the EU there would not have been any dispute at all. The EU would then simply have negotiated with itself and then told the Icelandic government how things would be. Iceland would not be in the driver’s seat of its own interests as it is now through its status as a sovereign country. On the other hand the Icelandic government is not dealing with its British counterpart on this issue but with the European Commission.
Consequently when the international media has discussed the mackerel dispute it has referred to the four coastal states involved. That is Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands and … the EU.

And I note that Helen got there first, as she normally does.

EU rules to increase costs of travels to Ireland

Oh that single market - why does it always round costs up?

THE cost of taking a flight both within Ireland and to a range of UK cities is set to increase by €8 per ticket.

The Sunday Independent has learned that the EU Commission issued a formal notice on March 18, informing the Government that its controversial Air Travel Tax (ATT) is being applied illegally.

It is time for my close up, Mr Barroso

Not content with the diabolical Lux Film Prize, which is given out by the European Parliament to the most PC film made in an obscure language over the previous 12 months in the 27 countries of the European Union. (Indeed in as many of those countries as is possible simultaneously) The EU has now gone a little further to ensure that small cinemas the length and breadth ofthe Continent will be showing films to more empty houses.

The Commission today has announced State aid to art house cinemas. The sad fact is that most people would prefer to rub solvent coated sand in theior eyes than watch the sort of films that are loved by Eurocrats. So in a desperate bid to swingthe market away from ghastly popuklar films (read Hollowood imperialism) towards culturally inspired artefacts (read heavily subsidised European art cinema with an impeccable social message) they are going to bung more money at them to digitise their production. According to the press release

Cinema-going is as popular as ever in the European Union, with 981 million admissions in 2009 - up from 925 million in 2008 (source: European Audiovisual Observatory).
Total European box office receipts amounted to € 6.3 billion in 2009 – a 12% increase on 2008. The European industry's market share represented 27% of total European box office receipts.
Although the number of films made and distributed in the EU far exceeds the number of films made outside the EU, this is not necessarily reflected in market share. In 2008, for instance, 167 US-produced films were released in the EU, while 726 films made in the EU27 were distributed. However, thanks in part to the financial muscle of the American distributors, the market share of the US films in EU27 was around 65% (source: European Audiovisual Observatory).

Let's just do the maths here, though they seem to mixing 2008-2009 figures, I will concentrate on the 2008 figures as the more complete set.

Europeans go to the flicks 925 million times, of which 27% are to morally superior European films. That is almost 250 million trips to see European films. Which if we do the sums suggests that each European film, on average has a footfall of just under 345,000 visitors.

Those self same Europeans go to Nasty American films 716 million times, which suggests that they go to each American film approximately 6,750,000 times.

So it looks like that people like American films. And those that want to go to European films have plenty to chose from. So why should we subsidise things that people choose not to see?

Those figures would be far, far worse if you took out Mamma Mia! and The Quantum of Solace, which despite being British productions are essentially evil Hollywood films.

UKIP Leadership : An occasional series

Next website, This time Nigel Farage

Green farming damages Agriculture

Reported on Euractive, but very definately below the fold is a comment by Pekka Pesonen, head of EU farmers' lobby Copa-Cogeca. The article is ostensibly an attack on property ownership (specifically those nasty royals and aristos - where the hell are we? In Peru in the seventies or in Mugabe's Zimbabwe? - But I digress).

Farmers hampered by green goals
Regarding the delivery of environmental "public goods," Pesonen warned that farmers risk being overburdened with additional tasks while Europe opens its markets to third country imports.
"The reality is that European farmers simply cannot compete with the standards that are applied in third countries," he said.
"We have to have a level playing field with regards to what EU citizens expect and what the farmers are required to do," he added.
If future CAP money is redirected to environmental goals, it might simply add to the cost of food production in the EU and further weaken farmers' ability to compete, Pesonen warned.

Pekka also tries to reinvent protectionism for the modern era,

Would you be in favour of community preference?
Yes, we are. But we can't build a fortress around Europe, as we are dependent on international trade.

The absolute current reliance on subsidy in the agricultural sector is made clear,

The simple fact is that currently an average family farming income in the EU is on average about 50% of the income in other economic sectors. And of that 50%, two-thirds comes from support and one third from the market.

Essentially, farming is a nationalised industry. And coves like this Pekka chap want it to remian so, and wants to drive private landowners off the land to boot.

It rather depends on what impact you assess

The European Commission has just launched its public consultation on a review of the EU's pan European Smoking ban legislation. If you want to get involved the place to go is here, and you need to have done it by the 19th November.

With it comes the Impact Assessment that they Commissioned from the Rand Corporation. It weighs in at 345 pages and I cannot pretend to have read it all. (Which I suspect is the purpose of the document - nobody, not even the reports joint authors will have read it all).

I did however do a few words searches in it. After all if we are looking at the impacts one would expect that Health impacts would be taken into account. Economic impacts also.

Another key impact is on choice, liberty and lifestyle - society to use a phrase.

So lets look at the results of my most unscientific study.

Health:
Before even reaching Page 1 of the document proper there were over 50 references to health.

Economic:
Again, before reaching page 1 we have more than 50 references to 'Economic'

Social:
I got to page 174 before I reached 50 (of course the use of the word social is interesting in itself but I digress)

So I tried Freedom
1 reference found on page 66. It was referring to Freedom of entry in the market - the cigarette market is largely an oligopoly with 5 major players. This is seen to be a bad thing - but of course the impact of smoking restrictions at point of sale will make the appearance new entrants into the market and will ossify competition - one of the key reasons that big tobacco is largely sanguine about much anti-smoking legislation. It drives out competition).

Liberty:
None references to Liberty.

Choice:
7 references to choice. Mostly talking about choices that the Rand corporation made in running the study and in the questionnaires sent out to interested parties, something that deserves highlighting as it rather frames the whole approach.

there are no questions on wider impacts of regulations on, for example, consumer choice, property rights, or illicit tobacco trade.

They claim that they will be looking into these matters later.

I checked Rights in the light of this, and we have 7 again, including the above, but otherwise merely a very dismissive approach to whether having plain packaging mandatory would impinge on Tobacco companies property rights over their own packages, happily for the anti-smoking enthusiasts, this isn't a problem.

it should be noted that some governments have been reluctant to consider seriously the introduction of plain packaging owing to concerns about intellectual property rights and trade issues that have been brought to the fore by the tobacco industry.
(For a summary of the arguments and state-of-play, see: Physicians for Smoke-Free
Canada, 2008) Nevertheless, various trademark attorneys have been presenting their views on the legal side of the debate and have come to the conclusion that plain packaging would not violate the tobacco industry’s intellectual property rights (see, e.g., (Gordon, 2010) and (Davison, 2010).

Oh by the way there are 2 references to pubs, none to restaurants, bars or licensed premises.

So go on then, consult away.

UKIP Leadership : An occasional series

The UKIP leadership election is now coming up fast.

The Candidates known so far are,

David Campbell Bannerman MEP

Prof. Tim Congdon C.B.E.

Nigel Farage MEP

Gerard Batten MEP, who was expected to stand has decided not to and is backing Professor Congdon.

Professor Congdon's campaign website was launched this morning and can be found here.

Windfarms: The South (East) Sea Bubble

Following the opening of the world's largest windfarm we have some interesting financial commentary on the Wind farm issue from the Free Trade League's latest edition of it's September Bulletin (subscription only)

SO IT BEGINS…
The Great Windfarm Collapse could be the 21st century equivalent of the South Sea Bubble. We doubt if any of the planned giant 150- metre turbines (as high as the London Eye) will ever be economic except with government subsidies. And those are going to become scarcer. Already President Obama’s lack of enthusiasm for windpower is being blamed for a two-thirds fall in new orders received by Tyneside turbine builder Clipper. The shares of this AIM-listed company peaked at 880p in 2007, had fallen to 180p within the past year and this week collapsed 13p to 31p on the latest update regarding sales. Last year United Technologies (the Pratt & Whitney jet engine maker) spent £126m on taking a 49.5% stake and it may now bid for the rest. So there is hope for shareholders. But we wonder if time will show that the £11bn Scottish & Southern power giant was ill-advised to become the country’s biggest builder of windfarms on the basis of government pledges of favourable prices for “renewable” energy.

HT Derek Bennet

Socialist call for Roma Ethnic registration

It is not just in France that there are serious concerns about recent migratory patterns amongst formerly eastern European Roma. Now of course he says it is so that the best care can be provided for them,

Dutch local authority areas where Roma families are most concentrated should register their ethnicity, Nieuwegein mayor Cor de Vos, says in Thursday's Volkskrant.

De Vos, a Labour party supporter, is chairman of the Roma council's association, which unites the 10 councils where most of the Netherlands' Roma community is located.

But, once collected, data such as this can be used for all sorts of things.

Coppers reported to be combing area

Sorry, but this headline is too good to waste.

More joy in Heaven

Tim Yeo has called for the head of Mr Pachauri.

Of course it is only because he thinks that the latter day Mahavishnu is undermining the credibility ofthe IPCC.

Mr Yeo told BBC News: "Dr Pachauri has become a liability - he is now causing more harm than good. Climate science needs a guarantee of utmost reliability, and Dr Pachauri can no longer guarantee that. It would be as well if he stepped aside."

Professor Hulme said: "Whatever merit his leadership of IPCC has had in the past, Dr Pachauri is unfortunately now associated with controversy and error in the IPCC AR4."

The thing is though, once one goes, it becomes possible to turf out more. It is a first serious crack in the vast Aswan dam built against common sense.

Found it

Something the EU has helped that was worth it.

(Though looking at it I think they only helped the German film crew film it. But hey why be petty.)

This is magnificent

I love Paris in the Springtime

Or well, I did. It appears that our snail-guzzling chums across the channel have succumed to the worst of Anglo-Saxon excess.

Paris move to ban outdoor heaters at cafés in fresh blow to smokers

And who is behind this classic piece of autocracy?

But now the Socialist and Green-run town hall has declared war on the heaters, calling them an ecological disaster. "Warming the little birds in winter is not very useful," said Lyne Cohen-Solal, the Socialist deputy mayor in charge of trade.

She is spearheading the push for new regulations, to come into force by January next year, which would also forbid the use of plastic partitions to keep in the heat on terraces. They are deemed unsightly and a fire hazard. Glass partitions would be allowed. Cafés that have already purchased the heaters will have two years to phase them out.

So which is it?
Libertie (Nope), Egalitie (not for smokers) or Fraternity (nope not that either).
Po-faced sanctimonious nitwits the lot of them. What is more it seems deeply dodgy as well, as she is up in court for fraud in December.

Happily I can report that earlier this week in a little bar in a little village I know is rural France the locals saw me coming and moved outside. So they could tell I was English? I asked the barowner,
"Non mon ami, ils fument dans mon bar, mais vous etes un visiteur. They wish to be polite".

I waved them back in.

Belgium?

Delightfully done.

A quick look inside the mind of those who wish us over

There is a long, heavily footnoted article on Public Service.co.uk. Written by a Dean Carroll it is titled,

How selective should the European Union be when selecting its future members?

Apart from the obvious answer, not very, it gives a very clear view into the muddled thinking, selective quatation and generally almost insane optimism that goes on instead of a rational thought process inside the minds of those who wish to see the complete dominance of the European Superstate.

I do not have the time to fisk the piece properly, but do go and have a look, I will just cut out a few of the prime examples of what I mean here,

He quotes with ruthless abandon, approvingly,

Tackling this question, Fouskas maintains that a '…strong, united EU' could indeed assimilate former Soviet satellites states, solving border disputes and easing ethnic tensions through its '…powerful instruments of conflict management and resolution'. He claims: 'The ultimate goal should be the creation of a non-hegemonic, social democratic Eurasian administration under the aegis of Eurasian powers.' Fouskas concludes '…after the failure of Third Way socialism in the 1990s, Europe's political unification can only be the work of a new socialist political class, which should seek a permanent understanding with all democratic, Christian and anti-nationalist forces'.

Sounds a blast doesn't it?

Only by cementing a sense of European solidarity and identity, albeit by economic means, will Europe avoid a return to the sectarianism of its past and enter a metaphorical new Pax Romana era of prolonged piece(sic).

There is an imperative,

The polar opposite to integration is disintegration and no progressive European leader will countenance regression when there is an opportunity to proceed forwards by propelling EU norms to new geographical territories.

And what of difference?

Pure homogeneity must not be the goal – rather it should be celebrated heterogeneity through a partnership of countries adhering to some universal traits and values as well as establishing unbreakable partnership links that in future must define the supranational body. With this approach, the EU can truly become a global actor in the policy areas of trade, the environment, humanitarian aid and even in terms of military capabilities while fostering peace, development, social equality, economic prosperity, civil liberty, individual freedoms and scientific and intellectual innovation.

But remember that that wouldn't be homogenous, no perish the thought. Indeed it is when he starts talking about Turkey and Islam that he just disapears into a world of phantasticical geopolitical dreams.

Only such affirmative action will counter suspicions of Eurocentrism66, which critics suggest results in the EU extolling only fundamental western belief systems as narrow prerequisites for states hoping to gain accession – including Muslim nations like Turkey. Continuing to class Turkey, for example, as an '…outsider' or partitioning the Southern Mediterranean and the Western Balkans through the concept of '…otherness is a dangerous and outdated strategy when considered against cross-border concerns and the need for energy and military security in a globalised age.

Turks are often stereotyped by Europeans as authoritarian, Muslim, and unconcerned with social and gender equality despite the flexibility of the Koran, which separates religion from politics by devoting only a tenth of its 600 verses to legislation. Such prejudice is unhelpful as, already, some 18 million of the EU's total population of 500 million are Muslim citizens concerned with pluralism, democracy and individualism in the main. Turkey's EU membership could, indeed, spur greater diversity and cultural cohesiveness in the European community as well as improved relations between the West and Arab and Muslim states. It could be argued that this would be a step towards '…moving on from the politics of the polis, founded on borders, to that of the cosmopolis, founded on sharing' as Archibugi puts it.

Such deep ignorance of one of the worlds great religions (only 10% is legislative! As if faith and belief can be calibrated on an abacus) should disqualify this chap from commenting further. But he claims that the key interests of the majority of the EU's 18 million Muslims are 'pluralism, democracy and individualism' Errr... Evidence young man, lets see the evidence of that before we start welcoming the 85 million Turks into our country.

No doubt Mr Carroll will be extolled.

Dorothy Gibson: Small minded twerp.

Europe Direct in the North East were busted good and proper by some UKIP members who had set up a faux event and applied for funds. It was a joke that merely pointed out how weak their checking systems were.

Essentially they ran by the follwing rule, if it is in favour of the EU we will give it money and bunting.

Having been called the sensible approach would be,
"All right, hands up, we're busted. We will ensure that we tighten our criteria. Ho ho Ho".

If they had done that, even the Ukippers who set up the sting would have come over all Australian,
"Fair play cobber".
Chuckled and gone to the pub to celebrate a little victory over the beast.

But of course that is not how the humerless numbnuts that run EU propaganda organisations work now is it?

Remember they offered a cheque for the sum of £50 pounds. It was never even sent, let alone cashed. Cost to the taxpayer? Zero, barring a little embarrasment for the authorities.

So what did they do?

First tried to pretend that they were on the case before it was mentioned to the press.
"Our systems work", they said - yeah right.

Now they have gone one further.

They reported the joke to the local Trading Standards office

“The checking and vetting procedures we have in place raised concerns about this application and guidance was sought from Durham County Council’s trading standards service. "

To their credit Trading Standards conducted a cursory investigation,which resulted thusly,

Durham County Council’s trading standards officials ruled there was no further action they could take because they would have difficulty proving UKIP intended to defraud Europe Direct – especially as the party claimed it would not have cashed any cheque received.

Surely that should have been it? Involving trading standards, even at a cursory level will have put the cost of the affair to upwards of £1000 of rate payers money.

But no, not satisfied with the answer - that is, "It was a joke - get over it" The silly, vindictive, and profligate harridan who runs Europe Direct in the North East, one Dorothy Gibson, cannnot let it lie.

“It is now the intention of the county council to inform the National Anti-Fraud Framework, which alerts all local authorities to incidents of this nature.”

How much will that cost? Who knows but that initial unspent £50 of taxpayers money has now spirralled out of control.

What a petty, vindictive, bureacratic, po-faced carry on. Worse still it is stupid. It has allowed UKIP to show quite how out of touch the EU types are, it shows that they are prepared to spray other people's money around in the pursuit of amour propre.

Do we really want people like Ms Gibson to have any say, whatsoever, in the governance of this land? Do we want her to be paid by us?

Strange death of Cameron's Euroskepticism

Iain Martin's piece in the WSJ deserves some notice. I cannot find any commentary on it, even on the formerly lively Conservative Home, but his analysis is worth reading,

Some key points include,

Almost unnoticed, his (Cameron's) MPs have voted for a list of measures that would a few years ago have triggered full-scale Tory war. There was the expansion of justice and home-affairs powers, involving the extension of the so-called European arrest warrant. The European External Action Service—or EU diplomatic service—was nodded through. New regulations for the City of London require the establishment of three pan-European supervisory bodies. This was accepted by the Treasury and if there were protests from the Conservative benches they didn't make much noise. A higher budget for the EU has also been approved.

All sadly too true. He also punctures the myth of William Hague, you know the one where he is the strong Eurosceptic at the top table,

He is aided by having William Hague at the Foreign Office. One of the most enduring myths of public life in Britain is that of Mr. Hague as Euroskeptic. He was once so minded, when he lost the 2001 election heavily pledging to "Save the Pound." Since then he has kept the reputation while moving steadily onto mainstream establishment territory. As a fellow Conservative puts it: "William has a couple of years ahead of him doing an agreeable job, and then a lifetime of book signings and profitable speech-making afterwards. He's not going to do anything confrontational that puts all that at risk."

I cannot remember the Times that Tory friends and aquaintances have told me how the Tories were the best bet for Eurosceptics. That they would defend our interests. So please can somebody please explain to me how this could be true? After all this is 'The most Eurosceptic Prime Minister we have ever had". "The back benches are all Eurosceptics", or so I am told.

So

Where

Are

They?

Could any of you explain to me why anybody should trust you on anything of importance, when you have dissembled so badly on this?

Update, and thanks to the Witterer I note that Helen has posted in her normal knowing way about the article, as ahs the Witterer himself.

Helen is a little more sanguine than I.

Nor do I exactly agree with Mr Martin that the scene is tranquil and everything
in the garden is coming out roses because the old Tory civil wars over the EU
have died. Mr Martin does not seem to realize that those promises of strong
euroscepticism and standing up for Britain's interests that he and his media
colleagues produced before the election are likely to backfire as supporters of
the party (not exactly an overwhelmingly large proportion of the population) and
people who are a little bemused as to why politicians keep not being able to see
the problems turn on Cameron.

Tweet your MEP : A poor man's They Work for You

A new little widgetty thing has just been launched, Tweet Your MEP. Initially it is promising. The premise that the contacts of all the tweeting MEPs are available and so on is good.

However there are some problems with it of which one is resolvable and the other is more problematic. Currently you can search for your MEP on the site by either nationality or by Interest area.

But what about by political Group, which I would have thought vital?

It is almost as if you have the European Parliament on view, but not politics - an idealised world indeed. One where there is no disagreement, for example there seems to be no space for Euroscepticism, despite the rising tide of that opinion across the continent.

Also looking at the interest areas they seem to be defined interestingly. For example, according to the site Nick Griffin isn't interested in immigration, which surprised me.

In trhe case of countries with more than one constuituency, such as the UK the MEPs should be divided into regions.

These however are problems that can be addressed by greater knowledge and some technical tweeks.

The big problem is more difficult and that is who will use it. EU Weekly in its instant review is optimistic,

It is true that TyMEP will be mostly used by Euro-bloggers to interact with MEPs
and ask them questions, also by specialized journalist that will find in it a new source of informations (and with a bit of luck by general journalists too) ; but the ultimate test will be the citizen.
To conclude, TyMEP will be a great, practical tool, useful to the members of the euro-webo-sphere; and hopefully, will extend this bubble in two differents ways: for the citizen, and for the MEPs, who are invited to be more active in the web 2.eu world.

I doubt it, from the start the main users are, and will continue to be lobbyists. As the NGOs and the corporates get a hang of the idea, then the inboxes of twittering Euro politicians will be inundated by demands that they recognise the Falun Gong and so on. The general public, and even the Euro bloogosphere and journalists will be squeezed out.

Whilst spammers can be blocked by the MEPs they will not know they are being spammed at least for a while. The avalanche of lobbying will, I fear, effectively drive those MEPs who tweet off the format. At very best they will delegate the handling of their twitter feeds to staff (sucha s is altready done in the case of Jerzy Buzek).

In the case of They work for you the communication function works well as it is not so public, and is by email to a work email address. As of yet they haven't properly included MEPs in their universe, and I hope they do.

Fatuous defence of arts subsidy

Porcine artist Mark Wallinger, who has been basted in the dripping of arts subsidy for all of his professional life has launched a 'witty defence' of his livelihood. On the Save the Arts blog he has put up a version of the Fighting Temeraire suggesting what might have been the case back in Joseph Mallard William's Time.

Of course if Mr Turner had had to cut something from the painting I suspect it would have been slightly different, say,

Denuded certainly but near bearable.

There again there are certain works for which Mr Wallinger is famous that could do with a cut. Ecco Homo for example, funded by the taxpayer could lose a little something,

to,

And lets not forget his desperately brave and groundbreaking homage to Brian Haw, also handsomely rewarded by the Taxpayer, Maybe a 100% cut would improve that one.

Save the Arts, states,

"It has taken 50 years to create a vibrant arts culture in Britain that is the
envy of the world."

Displaying for all to see the ahistorical and self obessed nature of those who sign their petition. Before public subsidy Britain was an artistic backwater it cries.

Balderdash!

Indeed his choice of painting is instructive, voted the most popular painting in a British gallery in 2005 it is sypmtomatic of Turner. Nostalgic, imaginative and critically patriotic. It was a painting that he painted in 1839 for entirely private purposes, he kept it in his studio and on his death in 1851 he gave it to the nation.

Indeed Turner had only one major public Commission, the painting of the Battle of Trafalgar,

It was a critical flop and he never received another, preffering to work to his own wishes and with private commissions.

Could lightweights like Wallinger and a vast majority of those signing the petition survive without the support of friends who have access to tax subsidy and the Committees which dole them out? I doubt it, but it would be nice and instructive to find out.

The 'vibrant arts culture' they talk about exists only in their minds. The work they generally produce is obscurantist and deliberately elitist. Those who do not, and cannot understand their elaberate contrived artifice are dismissed as ignorant, whilst the money they provide is geedily grasped into the larded bosums of the art elite.

The poster for the campaign quotes William Morris,

Of course what is comedic about this quotation is twofold. Firstly 'Art for the Few' is exactly the sort of art that gets most public subsidy, that which is genuinely popular doesn't need it.

Secondly is that William Morris espoused through the Arts and Craft movement a touching (and financially lucrative) belief in the artisticness of the ordinary and the handmade. It was a profitable business and the objects it produced (despite his sincere socialism) were never affordable to the common man.

Nor are they now, except in twee pastiche. Liberty doesn't have a concession in Bluewater.

Only (re) Connect!

As EM Forster wrote in Howards End is a fundamental requirement of humanity. Which is why the European Unipon is constantly going on about reconnection.

The latest version ofthis can be found in a paper launched today by the Foriegn Policy Centre. and supported by the European Commission Office in the UK.

Reconnecting the European Parliament and its People

is its title, which is a slightly hubristic phrase given the findings of the study. The Parliament might believe that we are its people, but that belief is not reciprocal.

To be fair to the paper it does recognise that its title is a little bit high falutin,

"When has the European Parliament ever been connected to the people?”

An oft-heard refrain from our four public seminars

What the paper makes clear is that essentially, nobody inthe UK gives two hoots about the European Parliament.

Only 31% of respondents could remember a positive news story about the European Parliament or MEPs since the June 2009 elections, but 61% of respondents could remember a negative news story.

And don't think that the survey was of a representative sample. Not a bit of it, it was a very politically engaged crowd indeed.

MEPs have a serious problem on their hands.

Corporate lobbyists get it, so why not our Government?

Today sees the launch of a fascinating study into the world of the Brussels lobbying sector. Produced by Ellwood and Atfield it is hardly ground breaking but does highlight some basic truths.

Posts at the head of consultancies and trade associations are some of the most lucrative jobs in European public affairs, reveals the survey, which was carried out during the first half of 2010 among 200 mid- to senior level professionals working in Brussels.

The managing director of a consultancy can earn between €300,000 and €400,000 - as much as the head of European public affairs at a big company or the secretary-general of a trade association - but much more than a director of communications, who can earn up to €260,000.

"In the past Brussels may have been seen as a place where corporate executives went to pasture at the end of their careers. But no longer. With up of 80% of legislation in certain policy areas emanating from Brussels and an expanded EU of 27 countries, most interest groups are scaling up their representation," said Ben Atfield, a partner in the consultancy.

Interestingly the conveyor belt from Commission to European Parliament to Lobbyist to national Government is exemplified by a certain Nick Clegg.

Ahmadi Muslims welcome Pope to UK

Good to see that not everybody in this land of ours is so blinded by hate as to be downright rude to the Pope. The President of the UK part of the globalAhmadiyya muslim community whose Khalifa is based in the UK has had this to say,

"Religious leaders have a pivotal role to play in promoting peace and serving humanity. Indeed religions have far more commonalities than differences and we welcome moves that will help forge unity and foster greater understanding.

"I extend to His Holiness the Pope, the Islamic greeting of Salaam -Peace, and hope that his visit can help develop even stronger links between Muslims and Catholics and indeed people of all faiths and of none as we are all children of God."

Well said, perhaps the militant secularists could learnn some manners from some of the guests who live here?

Ouch - parsing the Conclusions makes uneasy reading for Ashton

The Conclusions of the European Council this week are out. Amusingly they are always released to journalists a few days before the meeting takes place, making the word conclusions rather apposite, but I digress. If these were written early as they normally are they will have been written before the UN debacle of Monday night. In that case what is written in them is even more coruscating.

It will in future regularly discuss external relations in order to set strategic orientations in advance of key events, in particular with a view to defining key messages on our objectives and on the means to achieve them. This requires clear strategic guidance by the European Council on the basis of an effective preparation by the High Representative and by the Council.

These documents are normally the preserve of EU Kremlinologists, but the message in this is loud and clear. Baroness Ashton has been an utter failure as High Representative, and the Council is making it pretty obvious that they feel that she has not been either able to "set strategic guidance" or indeed had any "effective preparation".

Ouch

Spinning Spinelli

I return to the Spinelli Group. Today we have Agence Europe on its internal server (no link - sorry) whiffling on about the importance of this new federastic Groupsicle. Agence Europe provides a run down of stories in and around the intitutions and is part of the EU establishment.

Its lead comment piece today is titled,

New “Spinelli” group could play important role in guidance and development of
European construction

The piece is written by Ferdinando Riccardi , publisher of Agence Europe (and by deduction son of the 1953 founder Count Riccardi). Riccardi is a recipient of an EU sycophancy prize, the Prix de l’initiative européenne doled out by the EU office in France to those who, in the words of the prize awards to those media epresentatives who work,

en faveur du renforcement de l'intégration européenne.

So a fellow whose impartiality we can of course trust. bAnyhow, back to his article today in praise of the Spinelli group. And his key focus for praise is the following,

I will provide a preliminary insight into the detailed indications, which readers can find in the following pages. Guy Verhofstadt indicated that MEPs will act as a political network and that the Spinelli Group will also launch new areas of construction, such as the creation of a European army. Daniel Cohn-Bendit underlined the foreign policy aspect (the EU does not even have a common position on an Afghanistan exit strategy) and also mentioned the relaunch of the forthcoming constitutional debate, which will, for example, give a genuinely Community character to European elections and put into practice the own resources for the EU budget. Both of them mentioned the possibility of moving forward through enhanced co-operation as stipulated in the Lisbon Treaty (which would allow, if necessary, the misgivings of one or another member state on a given subject, to be overcome).

Now as I have pointed out before this group is just another bunch of Eurocrats trying to do what they have always done, whish is to subborn democtracy in the aid of a centralised European superstate, and will have as much influence as it deserves, but this above gives a flavour ofthe ambition. I particularly like the honesty in the way they talk about the simplified revision process which wil overturn national democracy. Riccardi finishes by repeating their delusions,

It is now becoming apparent: the Spinelli Group considers itself as an operational actor in European construction, in the same way Altiero Spinelli was in his time. This is its strength underpinning its raison d'être.

I might consider myself Prester John, but that doesn't make me so.

One thought about this group and its very plain and open aims though. I notice that one of the signataries to the manifesto is one Andrew Duff. (Indeed one of the very few Brits invlved in the whole thing). The Duffer is an inveterate federast, and hardly hides his proclivities, but I wonder what the Coalition has to say about one of there representatives calling for an EU army, EU direct resources and applauding attempts to do away with the National veto? Surely the Deputy Prime Minister should be able to provide some discipline?

No, apparantly not, holding such views is sadly compatible with membership of ourcountries governing coalition.

Barroso slaps down Reding in Roma row

Reports are in that EU Commission President has rebuked Vivaine Reding for her attack on Sarkozy over the Gypsy furore.

"In the heat of the debate there were remarks that should not have been made. The vice-president of the Commission (Mrs Reding) has recognised this.
"Others should think about doing the same."

I can see them all around the summit dinner table shouting "Fight, fight, fight..."